Brexit (Old)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.

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.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by denphone

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.

exactly

[Sephiroth]

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.

... which is precisely the line the continuity remain campaign has been pushing for the last 2 years. It all began with the appearance in the media of the terms “hard” and “soft” Brexit.

The idea that nobody really knows what Brexit means is nonsense. During the referendum campaign, the remain campaign was as clear about what Brexit would mean as the leave campaign was. At the time, Remain thought that the unalloyed truth - out of the single market, out of the customs union all the rest - would scare people into voting their way. It didn’t work. As a result they switched to plan B, which has always been to muddy the waters enough that people either wouldn’t notice us failing to properly leave the EU, or else would come to believe that fully leaving the EU (aka Brexit, or, indeed, what the majority voted for) would indeed be a tragedy and a so-called “soft” Brexit (not really leaving at all) was preferable.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

Just to keep it simple for you: The hype put out by May in her speeches that extol the White Paper includes the strap line £Regain Control of our fisheries". To understand the evolution towards the White Paper, there was a Policy Paper issued/updated in May 2017.

What does the Policy Paper say? The following weasel words: "8.16 In 2015, EU vessels caught 683,000 tonnes (£484 million revenue) in UK waters and UK vessels caught 111,000 tonnes (£114 million revenue) in Member States’ waters.51 Given the heavy reliance on UK waters of the EU fishing industry and the importance of EU waters to the UK, it is in both our interests to reach a mutually beneficial deal that works for the UK and the EU’s fishing communities. Following EU exit, we will want to ensure a sustainable and profitable seafood sector and deliver a cleaner, healthier and more productive marine environment."

The White Paper says: "60. As an independent coastal state, the UK will have control over access to its waters from the end of the implementation period. Any decisions about giving access to UK waters for vessels from the EU, or any other coastal states will be a matter for negotiation.
61. The UK, the EU and coastal states should agree to annual negotiations on access rights and fishing opportunities for UK, EU and coastal state fleets. This could include multi-annual agreements for appropriate stocks." This means that the guvmin can negotiate our fish away as part of other concessions the guvmin wants.

Originally Posted by Chris

... which is precisely the line the continuity remain campaign has been pushing for the last 2 years. It all began with the appearance in the media of the terms “hard” and “soft” Brexit.

The idea that nobody really knows what Brexit means is nonsense. During the referendum campaign, the remain campaign was as clear about what Brexit would mean as the leave campaign was. At the time, Remain thought that the unalloyed truth - out of the single market, out of the customs union all the rest - would scare people into voting their way. It didn’t work. As a result they switched to plan B, which has always been to muddy the waters enough that people either wouldn’t notice us failing to properly leave the EU, or else would come to believe that fully leaving the EU (aka Brexit, or, indeed, what the majority voted for) would indeed be a tragedy and a so-called “soft” Brexit (not really leaving at all) was preferable.

Leaving the EU is one thing but what replaces it is another. The Leave campaign never had a direct answer for this and now the Government has to come up with one. Those on the Leave campaign have been happy to attack May for every single possible concessions she even considered making when trying to come up with a plan they never had. Johnson criticising May for not being able to deliver the assurances of Leave. It isn't only continuity Remain that have moved the goalposts here.

There should be no concessions. The result was binary, leave won - so there should be no compromises, because we would not have got any had Remain won - The leave campaign have said all along that when we leave the EU, in it's entirety, we fall on WTO terms - It was not up to the Brexit campaign to enact the leave process. The point of a campaign is to win, when the leave camp won, it ceased to be a campaign after 24/6/16.

At the end of the day - May is rightly getting criticised because she previously drew all these red lines, saying Brexit means Brexit... then this Brexit White Paper is released after two years and it is a disaster, effectively making the UK worse off than it is now, while we are in the EU. Vassal State - nobody voted for that shit.

So the Leave campaign bears no responsibility for any of it’s campaign promises?

That really is having your cake and eating it...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So the Leave campaign bears no responsibility for any of it’s campaign promises?

That really is having your cake and eating it...

Leave's campaign promises vs Project Fear cancel each other out. Project Fear told the electorate what would happen if we leave the EU and the majority of those voting went for Leave on that understanding.


The big campaign mistake made by Leave was not to highlight (maybe they didn't think it to be the case then) just how unreasonable the Brussels turds would be in negotiating with us. Hence some of their promises.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

There should be no concessions. The result was binary, leave won - so there should be no compromises, because we would not have got any had Remain won - The leave campaign have said all along that when we leave the EU, in it's entirety, we fall on WTO terms - It was not up to the Brexit campaign to enact the leave process. The point of a campaign is to win, when the leave camp won, it ceased to be a campaign after 24/6/16.

At the end of the day - May is rightly getting criticised because she previously drew all these red lines, saying Brexit means Brexit... then this Brexit White Paper is released after two years and it is a disaster, effectively making the UK worse off than it is now, while we are in the EU. Vassal State - nobody voted for that shit.

It isn't that simple as 'we won', Mick, if you thought it was you've been very misled.
No deal would mean food shortages, drug shortages etc. It really isn't an option even if we are pretending it is. Brexit is a crazy concept, sorry but that's the truth. The people have voted for it , fair enough, but the Govt., have to ensure we keep afloat. What was the leave plan btw?

Originally Posted by Mick

There should be no concessions. The result was binary, leave won - so there should be no compromises, because we would not have got any had Remain won - The leave campaign have said all along that when we leave the EU, in it's entirety, we fall on WTO terms - It was not up to the Brexit campaign to enact the leave process. The point of a campaign is to win, when the leave camp won, it ceased to be a campaign after 24/6/16.

I am talking about concessions in order to get a new deal with the European Union. Yes it's not up to the Brexit campaign to enact their promises hence why they promised things they cannot deliver on.

At the end of the day - May is rightly getting criticised because she previously drew all these red lines, saying Brexit means Brexit... then this Brexit White Paper is released after two years and it is a disaster, effectively making the UK worse off than it is now, while we are in the EU. Vassal State - nobody voted for that shit.

So would a WTO option that immediately puts tariffs on goods, including food imports, a border in NI.

Where is the option where we get the excellent rich Brexit that was meant to happen?

Originally Posted by Hugh

So the Leave campaign bears no responsibility for any of it’s campaign promises?

That really is having your cake and eating it...

The leave campaign was not and is not the government and has never been in a position to make good on any “campaign promises” ... as I’m sure you’re fully aware, so using phrases that imply the referendum was in any way similar to a general election is a tad disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Damien

I am talking about concessions in order to get a new deal with the European Union. Yes it's not up to the Brexit campaign to enact their promises hence why they promised things they cannot deliver on.



So would a WTO option that immediately puts tariffs on goods, including food imports, a border in NI.

Where is the option where we get the excellent rich Brexit that was meant to happen?

I do not think I have ever said leaving would be a get rich quick scheme nor would it be an overnight economic miracle. We would be however, be able to make our own trade deals with the rest of the world.

The EU has tied our hands for decades and the stupid unstable thicko May, wants our hands to be still be tied with the Commons rule book with this half in, half out shambles, which is not delivering on the Democratic result.

---------- Post added at 22:59 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

So the Leave campaign bears no responsibility for any of it’s campaign promises?

That really is having your cake and eating it...

It is no such thing.

I think Chris has covered it well in his post - none of the people in the Official Leave campaign, were in any of the top Senior jobs in Government.

Boris Johnson, Michael Gove (was Justice Secretary), Chris Grayling etc...

Top cabinet posts prior to June 2016.

Chancellor of the Exchequer: George Osborne. (Remainer)

Foreign Secretary: Philip Hammond (Remainer)

Home Secretary: Theresa May (Remainer)

Defence Secretary: Michael Fallon (Remainer)

You tell me Hugh how those in the Leave campaign were to enact the Democratic result when their side won.... ???