Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Not entirely. The difficulty of NI and obtaining a trade deal were warnings from Remain and consider that most of the economic consequences were for when we leave which hasn't yet happened.

They did however say there would be an immediate economic hit because confidence would collapse and that was not true. Nor was the emergency budget. At the same we have gone from one of the fastest growing main economies to one of the slowest.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Reality check: Remain was selling the status quo. yes, it is all around you, it is the "now", or was. They also, badly, tried to explain that the Leave campaign was based on faith, fiction and lies.

Project Fear is now just a comfort blanket that is used to hide behind. The naked truth that is now revealed is that Leave had no plan. It had no strategy, no detailed workings of how a country, a complex and connected entity can transition from 40 years of integration to an autonomous trading unit with no loss of national and individual wealth.

This is the real crime here. The 37% dragged the rest of us over this cliff with no parachute. Why the hell do you think we're pissed off?

Why are we fixated with Boris, are you really asking this in all seriousness? :dunce: He was the leader of the Leave campaign ..the chief snake oil salesman.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I think you'll find that the leave plan worked very well, we voted to leave. :)

On the other hand, remain (the Government) were so confident that it wouldn't happen that they didn't bother asking themselves "oh, what will we do if we lose the vote?"

. . . and stop blaming the '37%' that voted leave, if the remain voters weren't so complacent in believing it was 'in the bag' more would have gone out and and voted . . .

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

nothing but lies was there only plan

Vote Leave director admits they won because they lied to the public

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/ne...-public/08/02/

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I think you and Dave are arguing about different things amd are both correct.
The plan to get a leave vote succeeded so the plan worked well, However, there was no plan to implement it if Leave won. So Dave is correct there.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:20 ----------

That's just plain bizarre.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Brexit deal is 80% agreed, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8440866.html

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

On that l think we can be in agreement as sadly there has been a litany of lies by both sides.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Lol. :D

Brexshit
 

This is now serious. A bit of tedious verbal ping-pong on the brexit result is one thing; a covert attempt to subvert British democracy is another.

A hard rain's a-gonna fall.

Re: Brexshit
 

The Government is negotiating a deal that they think is best for the country - just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it a subversion of democracy.

If any Remainers made a comment like that about a proposal they didn't agree with, they would (rightly) be shouted down.

That't the problem - for some people, there can be no compromise, but the real world is based on compromise.

Re: Brexshit
 

Never has a truer word been spoken.:clap:

Re: Brexshit
 

is it compromise or treachery i know which one i would pick .

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I'm free to express my opinion which you have just shouted down :dozey:

Democracy is being subverted.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

There would never have been a compromise had Remain won, so forgive me if I disregard it.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

And that’s the problem - some see disagreement, or a different viewpoint, as being shouted down.

I disagreed with your premise, I did not shout you down... :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

I’m impressed you can see the outcomes in alternate timelines...

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Nicely put- but a Remain win would have meant no change so of course no compromise. So a moot point.

Betrayal comes more to mind. The Leave vote understood the possibility of cliff edge. We need to get away from the EU and its federal programme and those particular Brussels turds.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I think we are all being too quick to rush to judgement on Theresa May's plan.

If the plan is to enable us to make our own deals with the rest of the world, have a separate trading arrangement with the EU ensuring frictionless borders, enable us to make our own employment laws, extracate ourselves from extortionate payments from the EU and end free movement - what is left to complain about?

Let's see the detail before we rush to judgement.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

None of that matters and it changes nothing. Since Clown Boris said that, we've had the Referendum and the EU has shown its true colours towards The UK.

The difficulty we're in is profound. We either have to water down Brexit if we are to have close trading ties to the EU (it would seem seriously watered down) or we have to have a clean break. The latter better reflects the Referendum result.

But the 52/48 split is another problem that fuels the Remainers in an undemocratic manner. Some of them plead that democracy is best served by a second referendum. If that is coupled with the fact that after two years eyes have been opened on both sides of the fence, then there is a case for a second referendum.

We either leave entirely (no deal) or we stay in the EU. The May proposal is a very bad deal that betrays the Referendum result.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

If this deal is so unacceptable then people need to come up with an alternative. The goldilocks Brexit does not exit. The thing about no-concessions, better trade deal, does not exist. Even standard trade deals involve concessions. The country needs to wake up to this.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

No it doesn't we have a plan, it's called no deal with the corrupted EU and we go on WTO terms - not an issue at all. I have said from the beginning the EU market is a shrinking one - the world is a much bigger and growing market.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The country has woken up to this. It doesn't change a thing. The power lies with the Government and maybe Parliament.

The May plan is doomed, it would seem. Therefore we either crash out, or Parliament reverses Article 50 and we stay in the EU or Parliament calls another Referendum. The latter two are better options for the economy than crashing out, but the former delivers the Referendum.

On that basis, a second Referendum is the logical next step.

At least if we stay in the EU, we can continue pricking pins in the EU Commission and in any case we would never need to participate in ever closer union.

Oddly for a Leaver, despite my support for Brexit, I never had a problem with EU freedom of labour movement.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Nothing to do with alternate timelines - you know it would be true, so stop kidding yourself.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Why would it not be an issue? It seems to me that suddenly having to have tariffs, the legal status of agreements questionable, having to suddenly have regulation bodies we do not have, customs facilities we do not have. Food and car imports could be massively hit.

The people advocating all these ideas are never the people who'll be responsible if it goes wrong. That is the big problem for May. Everyone will lecturer her on Brexit but if there is no deal and food prices sky rocket suddenly none of these people will be around and instead everyone will blame May.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Why call a 2nd referendum when the one we had was perfectly fine. It's not the will of the people its the poor execution from our Gov that doesn't have the balls to stand upto the EU.

What has basically come from the EU is once you are in our little club there is no way out and we will make it hard for you to ever leave.

What if we do go with a 2nd Referendum and the result is still the same? do we crash out there and then becuse we might as well do it now.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

In the event of a 52-48 vote in favour of Remain, a sensible government wanti re-election would have taken the narrowness of the victory on board and done something like introducing ID cards. Impossible to say.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Since article 50 cannot be revoked remaining in the EU on our current terms is not an option.

A second referendum could possibly have 3 questions:

1. May's BINO

2. WTO rules and no concessions to the EU

3. Negotitiate to rejoin the EU on their terms for a new member: i.e. No rebates, full subservience to Brussels and having to dump the pound for the Euro.

Perm 2 of 3.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

And that would be very decent of you if you didn’t employ a covert alternative to manage our disagreements you sneaky boy :sleep:

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Why "covert"? - anyone on the forum can amend their posts, if you do it quick enough.

To set your mind at rest, here is the original and amended posts.

The difference is the added line at the end...

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

:shrug:...returns to obscurity

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Nice to see Trump has turned aroud and said whatever happens to brexit has nothing to do with him and doesn't want to get involved unlike Obama.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

BREAKING: House of Commons Speaker John Bercow Temporarily Suspends Governments Brexit White Paper Session due to failure to distribute copies of White Paper to MPs in the house before session began. Considered it discourteous.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Here it is: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...european-union

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

BREAKING: In an interview with Sun political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, President Trump has stated he doesn’t like Theresa May’s Brexit White Paper and will kill any U.S deal post-Brexit if her plan is executed because the U.S would still be dealing with the EU.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Looks like we've gone...to the back of the queue.

I am actually more interested in the timing, ripping into May before his trip has started, and his comments about Boris making a good PM. Obama got a lot of flack for the back the queue comments but even he didn't go so far as to start tipping alternative Prime Ministers.(Although it is The Sun so they might have heavily spun an innocent comment)

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

It’s gone to back of queue because May’s Brexit is not Brexit. Pat on back Mr. President, someone has to stand up for the electorate, our shameful MPs won’t.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

That's either incorrect or he changed his mind quite quickly!

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I don't see how this is that different to Obama commenting about the trade deal. Both seem to be getting involved in British politics. You've spent the last two years complaining about that. Obama said we would go to the back of the queue for a trade deal if Brexit went ahead, Trump is saying we won't get one if this deal goes ahead.

For the record I think both are factual statements ofI what the US policy is at the time.

As I said I think the fact he was weighed in on other elements of British politics is more surprising....

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Article now live here https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/676653...t-us-deal-off/

Excerpt

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I never said it was different, but what the hell, if Obama can intervene and get way with it, then go ahead Mr. Trump, you can to.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

It will certainly make for a less condusive atmosphere on Friday and interesting press conference!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/676653...t-us-deal-off/

---------- Post added 13-07-2018 at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was 12-07-2018 at 23:22 ----------

Maybe there are grounds for optimism or the author was not briefed on The Sun's article. Liam Fox tweeted this at 11:17pm ie 17 minutes after The Sun article was published
https://twitter.com/LiamFox/status/1017533483437223936

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Which is fair enough. I don't think Obama's comments were out of line and I don't think Trump's comments (on Brexit specifically) were out of line.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Drunken Juncker strikes again, this was yesterday at NATO, what a bloody joke....



Juncker = Piss head. :drunk:

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I think President Trump is perfectly entitled to speak his mind. If he sees a situation developing which means he sees a problem which will affect their ability or willingness to trade with us, then it is most definitely his business to say so.

However, I'm still not sure that we are interpreting Theresa May's proposals correctly. She is adamant that the deal she is proposing ends free movement, ends the huge payments to the EU and ends the rule of the ECJ. She also says her proposed deal 'means that we can make our own trade deals'. She says we will leave the EU's customs union and single market. We are leaving the CAP and the Common Fisheries Policy.

The bit that I, and I suspect many, don't fully understand is what she means by 'a new free trade area with the EU for goods, based on a common rulebook and a business-friendly customs model'.

What that says to me is that there will be a separate arrangement, outside the rules that will govern trade with the rest of the world, that will only apply to EU trade. So, in other words, a trade deal with the EU, which lays down certain rules, such as product specifications for safety, etc. As any trade deal would.

Now if I am right about that, I'm not understanding what the objections of Boris and his ilk are. What the proposals appear to give us are the ability to trade with the rest of the world free of EU shackles, and a ready made trade deal with the EU.

Provided that we are still totally free to create our own employment laws and divest ourselves of the hated Working Time Directive, Acquired Rights Directive, etc, then I cannot see what all the fuss is about.

Could someone who is dead against Theresa's plan please tell me what they think is wrong with it? I keep thinking I'm missing something. What is it?

Just to be clear, my view is that we either get a deal that allows a full Brexit with the ability to trade elsewhere in the world free of EU encumbrances or we go full on WTO. We are not deliberately seeking to stop trading with the EU altogether, or even reduce it. There is nothing wrong with getting the best of both worlds.

Mr Trump may also come to that conclusion after speaking to Mrs May today.

---------- Post added at 14:11 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

So what is it, folks? Trump or Junker? :D

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

What's wrong with the working time directive and Transfers of Undertakings Directive? They seem pretty good at preventing exploitation of workers to me. I guess employers would like to have the right to not provide holidays, rest breaks, etc. or give pay cuts on takeovers but I bet employees don't.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

They're not necessarily bad for employers as they give staff the reassurance not to walk out of the door in the event of a takeover/divestment thereby increasing the valuations of companies. Working time directive lots of companies require you to sign a contract against it so not too relevant in the UK.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

And you can opt out of the 48 hour rule in the working time regs, and it’s averaged over 26 weeks.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Fake news ..

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Looks very real to me - Juncker is a piss head and is stumbling like a drunken bum, not fake news. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The EU directives are often far too restrictive and complicated, and these are two prime examples of that. You don't have to have this type of complex, inflexible legislation to ensure that people are protected in employment.

We did have holidays before we joined the EU, you know!

---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

I challenge you to get your head around all the clauses of the Acquired Rights Directive and the associated case law, Andrew. It is a perfect example of all that is wrong with this bureaucratic institution. At least we are able to write laws that make sense.

By the way, it is unlawful to require your workers to 'sign a contract against it' as you put it. You can opt out of certain clauses but it must be voluntary.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Really not an issue Old Boy. I fear you might be falling into the temptation to gold plate any legislation you see, as was shown by your Special Brew-strength hyper-interpretation of GDPR. Meanwhile, the rest of us just take these things in our stride with our British pragmatic approach.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The World's full of change but there's no looking back to the good old days selling Austin Allegros with square steering wheels to subservient Africans. There will be no clean Brexit except in services and BoJo and chums are last week's news. Brexit is slightly more drastic than a piece of employment legislation, but you may disagree.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I see. Brexit only slightly exceeds the drasticness than the employment legislation foisted on us by the EU. If only "slightly more drastic", then our "British pragmatic approach" should be able to cope.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

You might have missed the British irony in "slightly". ;)

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I missed nothing. You choose the words, the reader interprets the meaning. Anyway, why cannot our "British pragmatic approach" handle any form of Brexit?

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The Irish border. The European supply chain. Many reasons.
But is a clean Brexit actually going to happen? I suspect not. The Eurosceptics don't have anywhere near the 159 names needed to bring Theresa May down.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
I missed nothing. You choose the words, the reader interprets the meaning. Anyway, why cannot our "British pragmatic approach" handle any form of Brexit?


Why cannot there be a pragmatic approach to crashing out?The EU might erect an Irish border; we can handle that. The European supply chain: that'll sort itself out - these are our friends - remember? Or are they only our friends if we tow their line? British pragmatism can deal with that.

Maybe British pragmatism might result in a second referendum; I doubt it but it would not be an unreasonable step even if unlikely.

We should be addressing ourselves to the pragmatic approach needed to deal with the now foreseeable exit scenarios instead of continually espousing the Remain cause whether through irony or argument.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Not keen on going over old ground again as that goes against the ethos of this thread but the maths shows a clean Brexit is not possible.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

No dodge mate and I personally recommend against using such terminology on this thread. The explanations on WTO requirements have been done to death in the previous thread and are there for you to feast your eyes upon..
Things are vaguer on crashing out so that's quite interesting. A no-deal would bring the Government down and let Labour in with no foreseeable Brexit and the Eurosceptics wouldn't want to risk that. They can always come back for another bite of the cherry.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Oh well - At least I tried to test the sincerity of your own words in terms the "British pragmatic approach" that you introduced to the topic.

Alas not to be so.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

My words are sincere and I'm sure we will get a pragmatic Brexit and not the ideological one that you favour. That's the British way of doing things.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

A few posts ago, you gave reasons why the "British pragmatic approach" would not apply to any form of Brexit. (You said: The Irish border. The European supply chain. Many reasons. ).

Now you're "sure we'll get a pragmatic Brexit … That's the British way of doing things". There is some missing consistency here.

You mention that I favour an ideological Brexit. Whose ideology would that be? I'm perfectly capable of forming my own views on the matter. You may have noticed in earlier posts that I don't care whether or not we stay in the EU, provided that we keep pricking the Brussels turds with our picador sticks; after all, the past 45 years have led to growth in prosperity.

On the other hand, as a matter of democratic principle based on the Referendum result, if we leave, we should leave properly and go to WTO. An equally valid democratic principle is to hold a second referendum on the basis that there with the additional information available to the public, they should confirm or revise their earlier decision.

I am not the ideological person that you make me out to be.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Certainly for the UK and some other countries, the lower limits of the WTD are exceeded by some measure (28 days holiday in the UK vs. 20 specified in the WTD) There is also the ‘opt out’ clause but, as others have said, that is sometimes enforced by employers which is a bit dodgy. My work contract is somewhat fluffy on this issue saying ‘there may be times when you may need to work more than 48 hours per week as needed’. My Belgian work mate has a much more restrictive contract giving him time off in lieu if he works more than 2 hours after 6pm, including travelling. Lucky sod!

I see these directives as the minimum standard. How do you feel they are more restrictive and complicated than a UK law?

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

OK, if the WTD was brought in at the behest of France, why is this a problem? Other countries do less hours than France in the EU (link - http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/pro...tRedirect=true)

It looks like there is an inverse relationship between hours worked and productivity - https://www.economist.com/free-excha...uld-get-a-life

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I stand by what I said about GDPR, Andrew, which is indeed another example of EU over-the-top bureaucracy. This has proven to be a major problem for organisations - particularly small organisations - and I know this having heard from those I deal with as well as employees of larger organisations what a pain in the neck this has been.

The two most difficult pieces of legislation HR people have to deal with, for example, are the Transfer of Undertakings and Working Time Regulations, both of which emanate from EU Directives. Many simply don't understand these laws in any detail and when you refer questions to employment lawyers, it is pretty clear that they don't properly understand the detailed provisions either. A huge amount of case law has resulted, some of which appears contradictory. I won't go on, but you get my drift.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I didn't say that it was brought in at the behest of France. That may have been the case (Jacques Delors was the chief Brussels turd at the time) but I'm not claiming it. I am claiming that France strongly supported the 48 hour rule and opposed our opt-out.

The CAP supported France's inefficient farming methods, another restrictive practice. The UK has consistently failed to have the CAP revised to remove the weighting toward France.

The rules are skewed in many areas to suit French internal interests.

As to productivity - that needs definition (see further argument below this paragraph). My network team colleagues at work provide 120% effort over paid hours; highly productive. People should be free to choose their level of effort and in many cases need the money so remunerated.

The article to which you link is short of a definition to cover the meaning of productivity for the first graph, which shows productivity falling as working hours rise across OECD countries, If that graph is a decline in the efficiency of output, albeit output would rise in quantum, yes of course; people get tired.

However, the second graph based on a WWI productivity study, shows output rising but at a falling rate as working hours rise. Ignoring the assistive effect of automation today, it is clear that additional hours will increase the output quantum and if that is the objective, so be it.

I think that the sinister French influence on the WTD is one of the background lurkers that fuelled the 52/48 Referendum result.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Correction: A no-deal would give the voting electorate what they wanted and the Conservatives would return with a nice majority to reflect what they had achieved.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

They have not botched Brexit. Brexit hasn't happened yet.

Even if all the ducks were in a row when we applied to leave the EU, we still had to give notice.

If the EU rejects the deal being put to them now, we will bow out of the EU under WTO rules, which most Brexiteers expected us to do. If they accept, we will have the best of both worlds.

Hardly a 'botch up'.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Yes Seph, we should have gone in hard in the beginning but thanks to the likes of Gina Miller and remain MP's wanting our objectives out in the open before negotiations had even started (good negotiating strategy) the Government was effectively hogtied.

I can't comment on the white paper as Ihaven't had the time to read it (willhave tomorrow) but as I understand it Parliament will have a say on any deal finally reached (if any). I have no problem with that.

What happens in the case of no deal?

Extending the period of negotiation must be by a unanimous decision but the acceptance of to do so by the EU is by a qualified majority. People seem to confuse the two but the EU rules are quite specific.

Worthy of note Seems ambiguous.

Qualified majority. Source Article 50(2) http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-50.html and Article 238 (3) a) and b) http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...ticle-238.html

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

That sill doesn’t answer why the WTD is a bad thing unless French influence itself is a bad thing. The French may have opposed our opt out but we still got it.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I have not ignored your points at all. I simply don't agree that we should have 'gone in hard' with the EU, because it would have been counter-productive.

We are asking the EU for a trade deal, which would be in our mutual interests. There is no point in getting their backs up, they are difficult enough at the best of times.

There are different ways you can handle a negotiation. A pretty good way I have found is to go for more than I want, stay reasonable and give a few early concessions, and maybe offer up one or two things that you have come up with the other side haven't thought about. At the same time, flag up a worst case scenario if a deal cannot be reached.

But every negotiator has a different way of doing things. But if you go in hard, don't expect any favours from the other side. They will hate you!

You can say what you like about Theresa May's tactics and the deal she has proposed, but if she comes up with a proposal that satisfies the essential red lines and allows us to trade effectively with other countries, what is there to criticise? It's the end result that she should be judged on.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Her current proposals do not satisfy the essential red lines. For example, when she says we take control of our fisheries, that merely means we decide what to give away. The entire "we take control" part of the proposal means just that.

If the EU agrees to her proposal just like that, then I'm proved right because they wouldn't agree unless their ECJ has supremacy.

She has given so much away that the end result from here is easy to predict unless there is no deal.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Both I and others have predicted this outcome from day 1.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

BREAKING: U.S President Donald Trump told Theresa May should sue the EU she has revealed today on Marr show.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

We will be out of the Common Fisheries arrangements, which means that we control our own waters. So we decide who fishes there, just as we did pre-common market. The fisheries industry has been crying out for this change.

Theresa May has already confirmed that under her proposals, we will no longer be under the control of the ECJ.

I am struggling to work out what your objection actually is. I have no qualms about crashing out of the EU under WTO rules if we have to, but a trade deal relating to our EU trade is sensible.

We want trade deals all over the world. The one we are discussing now just happens to be the EU one.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

That was the only question she answered ,all she did was dither and dance around the other questions ,it was clear she was deceiving us imo .

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

An interesting sound bite from the PM. More here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44838028

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I heard about the interview but I couldn't watch it for fear of breaking the TV. I have heard the crushing reviews though. May is running on empty.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Well he is an American.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I'm sure that these are your legitimate concerns, Seph, but I do think you are making assumptions here. Theresa May has emphatically ruled out remaining under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, for a start. You don't know that anything will be 'given away' in terms of our fisheries policy, and I'm not sure which social policies you think will continue to be in place.

There are parts of the White Paper I would like to see clarified, but we will have to wait for that. In the meantime, we should not jump to conclusions.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

OB, I think you've also jumped to the conclusion that we can take May at her literal word. Whereas I've used judgement based on what's been happening to date and the weasel wording of the White Paper to conclude otherwise.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Well, Brexit means Brexit.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

So it doesn't matter what May says. You will disregard these comments and believe something else. That is your right, I suppose, but I prefer to take people at their word and read what documents actually say.

From what I can see so far, all May is doing is trying to get a favourable trade deal with Brussels. Outside of ECJ jurisdiction, outside of the EU, common market and customs union, and an end to free movement.

What's wrong with that?

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

Except that you always get that feeling that we're being sold out to the EU as so many times before. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I second the above.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

I know, and I think that is what all Brexiteers, including me, are worried about. However, so far, Theresa May has not said anything that alarms me. Let's see how it goes. If those red lines start to get fuzzy, I will be joining with all the hardliners, screaming for WTO.

But do you really think she will commit an act of political suicide? People would not stand for it, and you can already see a flavour of the kind of reaction you will get from the public if we don't get a proper Brexit. Theresa May's ratings have plummeted in the expectation she will foul up. If she doesn't, and we get the true Brexit we want, just watch those ratings soar again.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

The problem is, that there is no one agreed definition of "proper/true Brexit" - to some people it means one thing, to others, something else, so it will be impossible to reach agreement.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

And that is why there has to be compromise and give and take on all sides or else there is no chance of a agreement.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

exactly :clap::clap::clap:

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

There are limits to the compromise latitude. I've said it before, May is negotiating "delivery of the referendum result" based on the 4% leave margin rather than based on the democratic norm.

She famously said that "no deal is better than a bad deal". Just as Brexit was never defined by the PM (though it was defined in the minds of those who voted Leave), "a bad deal" was never defined by her either.

I now suspect weasel words all the way through this and any compromise that gives the ECJ any jurisdiction over the UK is a betrayal of what Brexit should mean by any definition.

Re: Brexit Discussion (New thread-Follow First Post Rules!)
 

No, I don't agree with that. Let's turn it around. The great majority who voted leave are likely to have done so on the basis that we would do trade deals with the US, Australia, China, India, etc. That is what Theresa May is delivering.

Wouldn't it be a bit silly to have all those spanking new deals in place, but not one with the EU? Currently our biggest trading partner? I mean, why on earth not?

The issue, surely, is not whether we get a trade deal with the EU, but whether we get to leave the EU, single market, customs union and we extracate ourselves from the ECJ.

Perhaps those who are currently criticising Theresa May's White Paper would care to enlighten us as to what it is that's in there that is causing this hysteria? She is delivering on these things.