Brexit negotiations

[MBE2017]

To be clear, I'm not saying that the UK desperately needs the EU. I'm saying we were a leader of the EU in a position of great strength and leverage. We're throwing that away now, so I hope it's worth it, I really do.

That is down to us, and before you decry belief too much, I have seen work it so much through my lifetime. What sets the best people, companies etc apart from the others, a mindset, a belief.

I think it is worth it, but in life you tend to get what you expect. If you believe in success it tends to happen, if you think it we are throwing everything away you will probably be proven right.

Only time will tell, but the UK can forge a great future if it wants too.

 

[Mr D]

Only time will tell, but the UK can forge a great future if it wants too.

Subject to the other countries not stopping us.

Belief doesn't in itself appear to do a lot. An alcoholic can believe they don't have a problem. Right up until they die.
On various forums we've seen people who believe they can do what they set out to do. Open a restaurant, run a café, start producing a new item. Belief that they can do it doesn't translate into success without action plus knowing what they are doing appears to help.

Used to know a millionaire, his first business after a decade working at a dry cleaners was to buy a dry cleaning business. He was very good at the dry cleaning, lots of work and 7 days a week doing it.
Lost his house on that - he was great at doing the work but not good at running a business rather than running someone else's shop.
His belief in his ability to make money didn't work out that first time.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/conservatives-back-free-movement-canada-uk-australia-new-zealand-2018

Some interesting developments going on at the moment. Canada's Conservative Party has formally adopted CANZUK, the policy idea of free movement and trade between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

CANZUK has been around since before the referendum, but it will be garnering more attention now the UK is looking to build stronger ties beyond the EU. Dan Hannan seems to like it, too.

However, with the vast majority of Brexiteers being against EU/UK free movement, one has to wonder how many would accept UK/CAN/NZ/AUS free movement in its place. And if they did, wouldn't it be somewhat of a contradiction?

 

[Mr D]

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/conservatives-back-free-movement-canada-uk-australia-new-zealand-2018

Some interesting developments going on at the moment. Canada's Conservative Party has formally adopted CANZUK, the policy idea of free movement and trade between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

CANZUK has been around since before the referendum, but it will be garnering more attention now the UK is looking to build stronger ties beyond the EU. Dan Hannan seems to like it, too.

However, with the vast majority of Brexiteers being against EU/UK free movement, one has to wonder how many would accept UK/CAN/NZ/AUS free movement in its place. And if they did, wouldn't it be somewhat of a contradiction?

And then back to the idea of joining a group of countries together for trade etc...
EU replacement.

We either try going it alone with doing individual deals and agreements with other countries. Or join a group who work together as a group for mutual (in theory) benefit. Like we did the common market.

If we join EU2 then what is the point? Simply to thumb our noses at the French? Ok that is something of a national sport for some centuries but is thumbing our noses at the next door neighbours the thing to do while cuddling up with those thousands of miles away?

Think we will get a referendum on joining Canzuk?

 

[Jeff FV]

However, with the vast majority of Brexiteers being against EU/UK free movement, one has to wonder how many would accept UK/CAN/NZ/AUS free movement in its place. And if they did, wouldn't it be somewhat of a contradiction?

I suspect that a significant number would accept U.K./CAN/NZ/AUS free movement as most of the population of those countries are white & speak English.

Sad, but I fear all too true.

 

[Newchodge]

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/conservatives-back-free-movement-canada-uk-australia-new-zealand-2018

However, with the vast majority of Brexiteers being against EU/UK free movement, one has to wonder how many would accept UK/CAN/NZ/AUS free movement in its place. And if they did, wouldn't it be somewhat of a contradiction?

I have heard many people stating tht we should allow Commonwealth citizens here above EU. That would exclude US, of course.

 

[Mr D]

I have heard many people stating tht we should allow Commonwealth citizens here above EU. That would exclude US, of course.

How times change. Just a few decades ago it was the commonwealth citizens coming here that a portion of the population was against. Some still appear to be against commonwealth citizens if their skin is dark.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45464115

Another interesting development today. The Trades Union Congress (representing over 5.5 million people) will back a second referendum if any deal struck by the government is insufficient for workers.

On top of that, an opinion poll was released yesterday that shows two to one support for a second referendum in the UK's three largest trade unions: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...l-massive-backing-second-eu-brexit-referendum

This combination is going to heap an awful lot of pressure on Labour to change tack.

 

[Mr D]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45464115

Another interesting development today. The Trades Union Congress (representing over 5.5 million people) will back a second referendum if any deal struck by the government is insufficient for workers.

On top of that, an opinion poll was released yesterday that shows two to one support for a second referendum in the UK's three largest trade unions: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...l-massive-backing-second-eu-brexit-referendum

This combination is going to heap an awful lot of pressure on Labour to change tack.

The TUC doesn't hold any seats in parliament. It will also not be representing all its members by backing a 2nd referendum if necessary. Its a group of people who have a lot of members overall. They can speak for themselves. As can the union members.
Its like saying Boris Johnson spoke for all Londoners when he was mayor. Or that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy speaks for all businesses.

How soon will we have someone putting forward in parliament a bill for a 2nd referendum? November? December?
Next year?

 

[Gecko001]

With regard to a second referendum. For a start it is not the people who hold referendums it is governments who hold them. For a government to hold a second referendum, they will have to have a reason for doing so that they can explain to its people and in fact to the rest of the world. What will that reason be? Also what will the question be on the referendum ballot papers?

There are many places in the world where so-called democracies play fast and loose with democracy. If there is a second referendum can we lecture those countries on their version of democracy? For that matter will our democratic values continue to be held in high esteem by prominent benign democracies around the world?

 

[Newchodge]

For that matter will our democratic values continue to be held in high esteem by prominent benign democracies around the world?

As most of Europe and, probably, most other democracies are laughing their heads off at the inept, mendacious and fraudulent way we held the first referendum, I doubt that is something that need worry us.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The TUC doesn't hold any seats in parliament. It will also not be representing all its members by backing a 2nd referendum if necessary. Its a group of people who have a lot of members overall. They can speak for themselves. As can the union members.
Its like saying Boris Johnson spoke for all Londoners when he was mayor. Or that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy speaks for all businesses.

How soon will we have someone putting forward in parliament a bill for a 2nd referendum? November? December?
Next year?

Correct. But Labour, traditionally the party of workers, has always had a very close relationship with trade unions. In fact, the biggest unions are some of Labour's largest financial backers.

There are already suggestions that Labour should back the People's Vote as the majority of Labour members appear to support it. Those calls will become much louder if the trade unions back the idea as well, and even louder still if the main trade union federation group backs it too. O'Grady wouldn't have said that unless she had sought opinion over the idea amongst the union members.

If Corbyn resists those calls, however noble some might think it is to respect the original result, he will be going against the majority of what Labour represents.

 

[Gecko001]

As most of Europe and, probably, most other democracies are laughing their heads off at the inept, mendacious and fraudulent way we held the first referendum, I doubt that is something that need worry us.

I have followed Brexit for some time on some of the German TV stations and Republic of Ireland radio stations. Your version of the way other countries view Brexit is not one that I do not recognise. They know that we have some internal problems with Brexit. Laughing at us hardly. The topic of a second referendum I cannot remember being even mentioned.

 

[Newchodge]

I have followed Brexit for some time on some of the German TV stations and Republic of Ireland radio stations. Your version of the way other countries view Brexit is not one that I do not recognise. They know that we have some internal problems with Brexit. Laughing at us hardly. The topic of a second referendum I cannot remember being even mentioned.

I wasn't referring to problems with Brexit, but with the first referendum itself.

 

[KM-Tiger]

the People's Vote

I just wish somebody would change that ridiculous title. It might then get a better hearing from those unsure.

Who voted at the last one? Aliens? Dogs and cats?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I just wish somebody would change that ridiculous title. It might then get a better hearing from those unsure.

Who voted at the last one? Aliens? Dogs and cats?

I believe it's insinuating that the people would decide on the final outcome of Brexit, not the politicians.

The politicians currently have the power to accept a deal, reject a deal, or remain in the EU. The People's Vote would give those same options to the people instead.

 

[Gecko001]

I wasn't referring to problems with Brexit, but with the first referendum itself.

Maybe you can cite your sources for you contention that "most of Europe and, probably, most other democracies are laughing their heads off at the inept, mendacious and fraudulent way we held the first referendum". I have never heard this from the dozens of foreign broadcasts I have seen or heard.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

With regard to a second referendum. For a start it is not the people who hold referendums it is governments who hold them. For a government to hold a second referendum, they will have to have a reason for doing so that they can explain to its people and in fact to the rest of the world. What will that reason be? Also what will the question be on the referendum ballot papers?

There are many places in the world where so-called democracies play fast and loose with democracy. If there is a second referendum can we lecture those countries on their version of democracy? For that matter will our democratic values continue to be held in high esteem by prominent benign democracies around the world?

We need to look past the superficial aspects of a second referendum and see its core purpose: to let people make a decision.

If there was a second referendum, and the people voted to remain, it means the people would have changed their mind and the democratic vote gave them an opportunity to do so.

Likewise, if the majority voted leave in a second referendum, it means the people wouldn't have changed their mind, and the democratic vote gave them an opportunity to make that clear.

Either way, the government does what the people want.

It's the same people being asked again, with a completely free choice to change their mind or not. There's nothing deceptive or anti-democratic about it. But to respect the will of the people, we should ideally know what the will of the people is now as we take the action, not two years ago when the understandings of Brexit were somewhat different.

If we look at these as the three options:

1). Accept a deal (a deal which is now a lot clearer than it used to be)
2). Reject a deal and leave with nothing
3). Remain in the EU

I don't think anyone has any idea what the majority of the public wants out of those three options. There's no clear mandate for any of the three, and all three have VERY different ramifications for the future of the UK.


Also, let's not forget that Vote Leave, one of the official campaigns, broke electoral law during the referendum. Are we really in a position to lecture other countries on democracy even now? We regularly admonish other countries for flouting electoral law, and sometimes even refuse to recognise the result because of it, but it happened here and the result still stands.

 

[Gecko001]

I believe it's insinuating that the people would decide on the final outcome of Brexit, not the politicians.

The politicians currently have the power to accept a deal, reject a deal, or remain in the EU. The People's Vote would give those same options to the people instead.

What would be on the ballot paper? What would be the wording of the Bill in Parliament?

 

[Mr D]

Correct. But Labour, traditionally the party of workers, has always had a very close relationship with trade unions. In fact, the biggest unions are some of Labour's largest financial backers.

There are already suggestions that Labour should back the People's Vote as the majority of Labour members appear to support it. Those calls will become much louder if the trade unions back the idea as well, and even louder still if the main trade union federation group backs it too. O'Grady wouldn't have said that unless she had sought opinion over the idea amongst the union members.

If Corbyn resists those calls, however noble some might think it is to respect the original result, he will be going against the majority of what Labour represents.

Just remember that because the union head office decides to do something doesn't mean its members will. I'd guess that a chunk of its members don't support Labour in voting. And a chunk will.
Like many emotive subjects there will be those for and those against in any large body of random people.

 

[Mr D]

What would be on the ballot paper? What would be the wording of the Bill in Parliament?

We'll find out when they tell us.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I suspect that a significant number would accept U.K./CAN/NZ/AUS free movement as most of the population of those countries are white & speak English.

Does skin colour really matter?

Seems to me the things in common are language, similar systems of law, and in general shared values. Making for easy integration, in both directions. Probably why there are significantly more British expats in the CANZUK countries than the EU27 despite there being no free movement.

Even if there was free movement I doubt that we would see a flood of economic immigrants. More likely an increase in emigration in pursuit of a better quality of life.

 

[The Byre]

Does skin colour really matter?

If colour really didn't matter, esp. for racist Australians (as well as the blue-rinse Nazi brigade that voted Brexit) that list of countries would include Jamaica!

 

[Gecko001]

We'll find out when they tell us.

Well you tell me? You are allowed to think for yourself in these matters.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

What would be on the ballot paper? What would be the wording of the Bill in Parliament?

Good question. That would be yet another debate I'm sure.

Given the need to factor in all plausible outcomes, I'd go for an instant-runoff referendum based on those three options:

1). Accept the available government-negotiated deal
2). Reject the deal and leave with nothing
3). Remain in the EU

Every voter would then rank those in order of preference. The least popular would be ruled out, and then votes distributed to the other two as they go head-to-head for the final result.

As a remainer, I suggest this method for the benefit of the leave side, otherwise it would be unfair for the leave-leaning vote to be split between two options.

If we wanted to make the most of this whole thing, we could even approach the EU and suggest that if they give us more favourable terms than what we had pre-referendum, we'll put the three options to a public vote with the option to stay as well. See what they say. It could be the carrot that Cameron was lacking during his negotiation attempt, as few realistically expected the UK to vote to leave back then.

When we also consider that the OECD's study suggested significant positive impact on growth if the UK reversed the decision to leave, then in an alternate universe, the UK could remain in the EU with more favourable terms than it had before, see a big boost in growth, and generally put the UK in a better economic position than it has been in decades - particularly with EU-brokered FTAs with Canada and Japan to start tapping into.

 

[dan19900]

1). Accept the available government-negotiated deal
2). Reject the deal and leave with nothing
3). Remain in the EU

We've already voted on number 3 so just the first 2 options surely.

 

[Gecko001]

Scott. The reality is that the EU does not have to do anything. The EU is a big organisation with responsibilities for a lot of people. They will not worry about the UK's internal affairs. They will only be interested in changes to our Brexit policy, not how we get to those changes.

 

[Mr D]

Does skin colour really matter?

Seems to me the things in common are language, similar systems of law, and in general shared values. Making for easy integration, in both directions. Probably why there are significantly more British expats in the CANZUK countries than the EU27 despite there being no free movement.

Even if there was free movement I doubt that we would see a flood of economic immigrants. More likely an increase in emigration in pursuit of a better quality of life.

Colour of skin does matter to some people.
While we don't have to copy them we do have to deal with the fact they exist. And they have the vote same as you or I.

 

[MBE2017]

There has already been a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU, so any subsequent vote should only be whether to accept the deal on offer or leave on WTO terms.

 

[Mr D]

There has already been a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU, so any subsequent vote should only be whether to accept the deal on offer or leave on WTO terms.

Make it simpler.

Accept the deal on offer. Yes or no.

Ask this say 3 months after we have left.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rns-against-irrational-positivity-Brexit.html

It seems the government has started the phase of getting expectations in order.

It's an interesting quandary. Talk up Brexit too much to fight anti-Brexit sentiment, and risk it backfiring in the next few years when all these ideas and promises fail to materialise. The Brexiteers of the Tory party want to push their varying versions of Brexit through, but they must be cautious that what they say doesn't come back to haunt them at the next GE.

The big problem they have is the electorate will not be patient enough, but it's very understandable why they won't be. If the economy takes a big hit and brings down public services and general quality of life along with it, patience will quickly erode. Increased hardship, in whatever form, is not something that can be easily tolerated.

Some may stay optimistic for a few years, but this is going to take decades. Remapping our international trade will be an arduous grind. Even countries with a solid foundation of existing trade infrastructure often take 5-10 years to negotiate and ratify comprehensive trade agreements, and it's impossible to do more than a few at a time for numerous reasons.

But even when signed, these FTAs are not a switch we can flick for more GDP. It takes more years for new trade channels to form and grow, and then even longer for this to filter through in terms of improvements to FDI, jobs, wages and government coffers.

This whole situation is heading towards the negative impact of Brexit being at its peak at the same time the impatience of the electorate is at its highest. That will not bode well for some MPs and political parties.

As I've said before, once Brexit has been and gone, attention will go back to what it's traditionally been on for decades: The NHS, police, public services, jobs, wages, transport, education, cost of living, infrastructure, tax and all the rest.

The kicker is that the economic consequences of Brexit, even if they don't last forever, will make all of those worse than they are now, not better.

 

[Newchodge]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rns-against-irrational-positivity-Brexit.html

It seems the government has started the phase of getting expectations in order.

How can that man say this with a straight face? after his hyperbole about how wonderful Brexit would be, how trade deals would be the easiest thing imaginable, how there were no downsides?

This is not the government trying to get expectations in order. This is a self-serving hypocrite trying to distance himself from the disaster, that he helped engineer, that is to come.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

A couple more interesting bits and bobs today:

A well placed source close to Boris Johnson has apparently said that Boris "deeply regrets" backing Brexit and realises the mess he's found himself in:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...own-brexit-route-close-sources-reveal/07/09/

No proof, of course, but when you take into account this infamous video:

And many other murmurings pre and post referendum, it's easy to get the impression that Boris doesn't care much about the EU either way, and just saw Brexit as an opportunity to further his own political ambitions.

Recent events have also unearthed this beauty of an article, written by Boris back in 2013, that also supports the above theory:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...leave-the-EU-if-we-dont-get-what-we-want.html

Boris makes four points in favour of remaining, and four points in favour of leaving, but the fourth point backing leave has an interesting twist:

4 We can no longer blame Brussels. This is perhaps the most important point of all. If we left the EU, we would end this sterile debate, and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by “Bwussels”, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and under-investment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure.

I can't recall Boris talking much about "the most important point of all" during the referendum, or afterwards, for that matter. I wonder why.

 

[Mr D]

Boris makes four points in favour of remaining, and four points in favour of leaving, but the fourth point backing leave has an interesting twist:



I can't recall Boris talking much about "the most important point of all" during the referendum, or afterwards, for that matter. I wonder why.

Yes rather than Brussels, we can blame The Boris. Wonder if there is political capital in having the anti-Boris party...

 

[Cobby]

... to punish Brexiteers like me who had the nerve to vote again the establishment

Regardless of any individual voter's motivation, Brexit was a vote against "an" establishment (The EU), but it wasn't a vote against "the" establishment (Our government).

Some voters may have had crossed motivations but specificity is important.

If we wanted to make the most of this whole thing, we could even approach the EU and suggest that if they give us more favourable terms than what we had pre-referendum, we'll put the three options to a public vote with the option to stay as well. See what they say. It could be the carrot that Cameron was lacking during his negotiation attempt, as few realistically expected the UK to vote to leave back then.

I'm not sure they would as this could encourage nation-level brinkmanship.

 

[Cobby]

We've already voted on number 3 so just the first 2 options surely.

There has already been a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU, so any subsequent vote should only be whether to accept the deal on offer or leave on WTO terms.

It was a result secured via illegal means.

Besides, if you really believe democracy cannot be questioned once a vote is made, don't forget we already voted on this back in the 70s.

How can that man say this with a straight face? after his hyperbole about how wonderful Brexit would be, how trade deals would be the easiest thing imaginable, how there were no downsides?

A valid and important question if one assumes that any of the current cabinet are operating in genuine good faith and for the betterment of the nation.

However it becomes a very easily answered question if one assumes the current cabinet are largely unqualified and their primary and overwhelming motivation at any given moment is to ensure they can keep power.

 

[Mr D]

Well you tell me? You are allowed to think for yourself in these matters.

Yes you can think for yourself. That doesn't affect the outcome.

 

[MBE2017]

Besides, if you really believe democracy cannot be questioned once a vote is made, don't forget we already voted on this back in the 70s.
.

It was indeed, and the UK believing in democracy acted on the result. Surely you believe in democracy? So once we leave feel free to campaign to rejoin.

As for the rest of your comment, the UK Gov do not feel it changed the result, and both sides were shown to have told porkies. The remain had both the UK Gov and the EU campaigning for a remain result, the vote was for leave despite millions being spent on remain propaganda and project fear.

Keep trying to kid yourself, most can see through it.

 

[Cobby]

It was indeed, and the UK believing in democracy acted on the result. Surely you believe in democracy? So once we leave feel free to campaign to rejoin

Why execute a decision that there is clear evidence the majority don't want? If you don't believe in the evidence then what's your objection to a People's Vote other than the fear you won't get the No Deal Brexit you desire?

As for the rest of your comment, the UK Gov do not feel it changed the result, and both sides were shown to have told porkies.

Vote Leave broke the law. Deliberately. Number 10 have now admitted that Theresa May knew this before triggering Article 50 (legal quagmire ahead...).

If you believe Remain were as bad, why do you think that makes the result more valid rather than less?

I mean, we've been over this a dozen times already in this thread, and I'm trying not to "take over", but this fundamentally flawed line of reasoning is always worth shooting down.

 

[Cobby]

It was indeed, and the UK believing in democracy acted on the result. Surely you believe in democracy? So once we leave feel free to campaign to rejoin.

As for the rest of your comment, the UK Gov do not feel it changed the result, and both sides were shown to have told porkies. The remain had both the UK Gov and the EU campaigning for a remain result, the vote was for leave despite millions being spent on remain propaganda and project fear.

Keep trying to kid yourself, most can see through it.

Also, since you seem to believe in Brexit no matter the cost as a point of principle, let me ask you this:

How will Brexit benefit the poorest and most vulnerable in our society?