Brexit - merged threads

[hedge]

Just now, Yellow Bear said:

IMHO it is because :-

The civil servants will have to do some work

The politicos will have no one to blame and cannot get their noses in the EU trough.

Very valid point!

I can't help but feel that MP's do not want a no deal Brexit for their own benefit, rather than the UK as a whole.

The fact that we are where we are demonstrates the lack of an ability to see outside of Parliament.

 

 

[hedge]

17 minutes ago, Mice! said:

But JRM has apparently gone back the other way now not supporting the deal? While Boris has had a hair cut and does support the deal????

JRM is doing the usual MP thing of trying to support both sides, whilst sitting on the fence, until he knows the outcome and then join the winning team.

He first said he'd support the deal if DUP went with it (thinking they would after TM said she'd step down). They said that hell would have to freeze over first and now he says he'll be `guided` by them... D!ckhead.

Boris has just done the same thing but that's because he's positioning himself for the PM role (including the haircut).

That's the problem with letting people who are too concerned about theor political career and covering their *rses, make important decisions. They always have one eye on the greasy pole and and they'll never stick their head above the parapet. I've got more respect for those who resigned their positions because of their convictions.

This was a great statement from the DG:

director general Adam Marshall had this message for MPs:

"We are angry - you have let British business down. You have focused on soundbites, not substance, tactics not strategy, and politics not prosperity. Listening without hearing.

"And as a result, business communities in every part of the UK are still unsure about when the future starts, let alone what it holds.

"Three years, going round in circles. Ladies and gentlemen, three years is long enough. Too many critical questions ladies and gentlemen remain unanswered. No-one would run a business like this and it is no way to run a country."

More worrying:

"Boris Johnson's is "still [the] first name people mention" when a leadership contest is discussed."

The fact that yesterday, none of the indicative votes won by a majority shows that Parliament is very much in a `tell us what you don't want` mood rather than a `tell us what you do want`.The whole process gets paralysed until time runs out and people are forced to accept the sh!te alternatives on offer. 

This was the opportunity for someone to make a name for themselves and not one of them has actually done that. Leaders? 

"No-one would run a business like this and it is no way to run a country" just about sums it up.

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by hedge

[JohnfromUK]

54 minutes ago, hedge said:

I still don't know why a no deal Brexit is so bad

It isn't - like all changes - there will be some short term pain for some, but that would apply to most outcomes.  It is probably true that the short term pain will be a bit more - and possibly longer, but if it is painful, that will concentrate the minds on getting future trade deals (both with the EU and elsewhere) faster ........ but one thing the civil service HATES is 'fast'.

Why it's not liked?  Quite a few do like it actually, but the Labour party have been whipped against it (despite some of them liking it, or at least accepting it) - and many Labour constituencies being firm leavers.

[SpringDon]

11 minutes ago, hedge said:

<snip>

The fact that we are where we are demonstrates the lack of an ability to see outside of Parliament.

 

 

^this very muchly.

It seems absurd to be voting on fantasy solutions like Norway or common market 2:the revenge, when the eu have said ‘there’s the deal - no negotiation like it or lump it’.

And the idea that tm’s Resignation offer would change anything just shows they are more interested in jockeying for position than what’s good for the country. 

[hedge]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

It isn't - like all changes - there will be some short term pain for some, but that would apply to most outcomes.  It is probably true that the short term pain will be a bit more - and possibly longer, but if it is painful, that will concentrate the minds on getting future trade deals (both with the EU and elsewhere) faster ........ but one thing the civil service HATES is 'fast'.

Why it's not liked?  Quite a few do like it actually, but the Labour party have been whipped against it (despite some of them liking it, or at least accepting it) - and many Labour constituencies being firm leavers.

Yeah agreed. Wearing my economist hat, we'll have short term pain but I believe in the free market and it will sort itself out. I'd much prefer a no deal to May's fiasco.

I also think that a no deal will limit the UK MP's ability to jump on the Brussels gravy train...... 

[12gauge82]

They really need to deliver the brexit that was voted for, the EU have made very clear a free trade deal is impossible (which although in my view is unfriendly and uncooperative, it is not surprising as the EU have shown time and again not to be our friends, it is in all fairness their choice) which leaves a wto (aka hard, clean any other number of different boiled) brexit until we can sort new trade deals, possibly even with the EU once there minds have been focused. We need a leader with a backbone and its clear its not going to come from the Conservatives or Labour. 

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

It seems absurd to be voting on fantasy solutions like Norway or common market 2:the revenge, when the eu have said ‘there’s the deal - no negotiation like it or lump it’.

This may not be correct; It is certainly what they are saying - but we also know that they are talking to/being (semi) secretly negotiated with buy at least Blair, Corbyn, Starmer - and they may have a deal 'up their sleeves' to offer them.

9 minutes ago, hedge said:

I believe in the free market and it will sort itself out. I'd much prefer a no deal to May's fiasco.

Agreed - and the free market will negotiate deals quickly without government interference - though within the EU, there will always be interference because no one is allowed to negotiate individually - only the 'corporate' EU via the Commission - and they will be slow.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, hedge said:

JRM this morning to the press:

"The prime minister behaved very nobly yesterday and I think she does deserve support at this stage.

"I don't like her deal. I make no bones about this. I don't think the deal's suddenly got better, simply that the alternative is now worse."

Is that the best outcome of the whole Brexit process? It's not as sh!t as the alternatives so we'd better accept it? Over 2 years of highly paid `professionals` working on Brexit have got us in this  position. 

And we let these people run the country?

As for TM acting `nobly`?? ***. She' screwed the whole process. If she says she believes in something `passionately` one more time, I'll have to hurt someone. Blind faith is just that - directionless.

Lets see what today/tomorrow brings us.

I still don't know why a no deal Brexit is so bad. I'll happily be enlightened. 

Thank goodness we knew what we were voting for, can you imagine how bad it could really be. 

[oowee]

23 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

Agreed - and the free market will negotiate deals quickly without government interference - though within the EU, there will always be interference because no one is allowed to negotiate individually - only the 'corporate' EU via the Commission - and they will be slow.

Would that be the free market after we sign up to WTO terms and then start to renegotiate half the deal we already have? Or will that be the free trade arrangements that will undermine much of the industry we have with cheap imports of beef and chinese goods. Will that be the free market that acts outside the law as currently or will that be regulated business? What regulations will that free market work to, or will it be a matter of adopting what we already have?

Edited March 28, 2019 by oowee

[panoma1]

The biggest blow to Brexit was when this remainer parliament voted to take no deal off the table!....that gave away the bit of leverage we had, why should the EU give any ground when they don't have to? They know the UK has no bargaining power, and it can only go their way!

I recon if the UK had kept no deal as an option (and meant it!) faced with a no deal Brexit or renegotiating "the deal"  the EU would have caved in and be back at the table by now!

But Brexit is not what the EU and our Parliament want.....so our remainer Parliament took no deal Brexit off the table, and surprise surprise the EU are sticking to "the only deal in town"....the carp May one........which no one wants, the only options I can see now are, swallow "May's deal" or kiss Brexit goodbye.........it looks increasingly like brexit has been deliberately and systematically sabotaged! by the EU and the UK Parliament!

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, oowee said:

Would that be the free market after we sign up to WTO terms and then start to renegotiate half the deal we already have? Or will that be the free trade arrangements that will undermine much of the industry we have with cheap imports of beef and chinese goods. Will that be the free market that acts outside the law as currently or will that be regulated business? What regulations will that free market work to, or will it be a matter of adopting what we already have?

And everyone else will know that we are in a rush to sign the deals which will be used against us and result in a poorer deal for us; one of the key rules in negotiation and our position on this is wide open for everyone to see. If only unicorns existed in the real world...

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

Would that be the free market after we sign up to WTO terms and then start to renegotiate half the deal we already have? Or will that be the free trade arrangements that will undermine much of the industry we have with cheap imports of beef and chinese goods. Will that be the free market that acts outside the law as currently or will that be regulated business? What regulations will that free market work to, or will it be a matter of adopting what we already have?

All of that, maybe more , maybe less, who knows ?
Until we can actually leave, nothing is certain, why do you think we need an EU to do trade, are we completely incapable of doing whats right for British trade without them, I mean, what did we do without them for the last 2000 years ?
More importantly ,  why does the  EU need US so badly ?
You would think they would want rid of these troublesome English ! Always stepping in and ruining their plans...

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

Would that be the free market ...........

It would be a free market where we can negotiate our terms with others individually - so may well have different terms/tarriffs set ....... but I would expect WTO would be a starting point.

The ideas that (just for example) the whole of the EU has to have a set of terms that were originally introduced to protect French agriculture (which had suffered due to their restrictive inhertiance rules resulting in lots of very small businesses) is plainly wrong - yet the EU still thinks along those lines.

A free market - you are your prospective trading partner mutually agree a set of terms and conditions - similar to business to business trading.

Because we will be free to negotiate on behalf of the UK and directly with prospective trading partners - yes it will be outside present EU rules.  I hope there will be a vast reduction in regulations ....... but I don't see that happening.  There is FAR too much red tape - and more on its way - such as speed limited cars.

It is time Parliaments (EU and UK) stopped meddling in making the world a more restricted place.  People are sick and tired of continual EU/government interference and trivial rules.  Soon you will need a license to blow your nose!

 

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, panoma1 said:

The biggest blow to Brexit was when this remainer parliament voted to take no deal off the table!....that gave away the bit of leverage we had, why should the EU give any ground when they don't have to? They know the UK has no bargaining power, and it can only go their way!

I recon if the UK had kept no deal as an option (and meant it!) faced with a no deal Brexit or renegotiating "the deal"  the EU would have caved in and be back at the table by now!

But Brexit is not what the EU and our Parliament want.....so our remainer Parliament took no deal Brexit off the table, and surprise surprise the EU are sticking to "the only deal in town"....the carp May one........which no one wants, the only options I can see now are, swallow "May's deal" or kiss Brexit goodbye.........it looks increasingly like brexit has been deliberately and systematically sabotaged! by the EU and the UK Parliament!

I agree with the no deal removal being a bad move, a very very bad move.

Do you think it's still valid to refer to Parliament as Remainers given the outcome of the indicative vote yesterday?

[ShootingEgg]

6 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

 

Do you think it's still valid to refer to Parliament as Remainers given the outcome of the indicative vote yesterday?

Nkt really sure what to call them, they pretty much said no to staying, leaving, being in a bit, being out alot... 

 

[Scully]

26 minutes ago, oowee said:

Thank goodness we knew what we were voting for, can you imagine how bad it could really be. 

You repeatedly harp on about your claim that we didn’t know what we were voting for! We did. Why is it so difficult to understand? 

We voted to leave; it is the politicians who are besotted with a ‘deal’. If we’d just said we’re going, and then done so, instead of our politicians making a complete **** up of it all, then we’d be out by now and busy getting on with our lives. 

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Do you think it's still valid to refer to Parliament as Remainers given the outcome of the indicative vote yesterday?

No hopers is more appropriate

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

we’d be out by now and busy getting on with our lives

and getting on with making our own trade deals with the wider world.

[Diss4111]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

You repeatedly harp on about your claim that we didn’t know what we were voting for! We did. Why is it so difficult to understand? 

We voted to leave; it is the politicians who are besotted with a ‘deal’. If we’d just said we’re going, and then done so, instead of our politicians making a complete **** up of it all, then we’d be out by now and busy getting on with our lives. 

Ain't that the truth. We should have walked away 2 years ago with no deal. By now EU companies would be falling over themselves to deal with us. Companies like VW Audi aren't going to live with a 40% cut in turnover for many hours

 

[Jaymo]

16 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I agree with the no deal removal being a bad move, a very very bad move.

Do you think it's still valid to refer to Parliament as Remainers given the outcome of the indicative vote yesterday?

Think they need to rename themselves as the ‘Hokey Pokey Mob’

[ShootingEgg]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

You repeatedly harp on about your claim that we didn’t know what we were voting for! We did. Why is it so difficult to understand? 

We voted to leave; it is the politicians who are besotted with a ‘deal’. If we’d just said we’re going, and then done so, instead of our politicians making a complete **** up of it all, then we’d be out by now and busy getting on with our lives. 

And to add to this the EU would of then come to us and we would have a trade deal. 

The vote was in or out as you say Scully, not out if we get a deal. 

[hedge]

`Free market` certainly isn't as simple as it sounds. It is far more complicated and there appear to be no guarantees that we just jump onto WTO rules.

We will of course have to renegotiate deals that are already in place - possibly on worse terms. We should also be able to open up new trade deals elsewhere. 

The whole thing is linked to supply and demand. 

We seem to be forgetting that the EU don't want us to leave for a reason. We have stuff that they want. We will still buy/sell products (see supply and demand) and deals will be done. It does take time though.

Leaving the EU does not mean that they will not speak to us or trade with us. I'm sure they'll try to make life difficult but then they'll show their true colours. But business is business and they do need us.

22 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I agree with the no deal removal being a bad move, a very very bad move.

Do you think it's still valid to refer to Parliament as Remainers given the outcome of the indicative vote yesterday?

Since none of the 8 motions for a possible revised exit were of interest and May's deal still is on shakey ground, the only other current viable options are no deal or revoke A.50

Since Parliament has already shelved no deal, we are left with revoking A.50.

I'd say that was very much a Remain mentality.

25 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

The biggest blow to Brexit was when this remainer parliament voted to take no deal off the table!....that gave away the bit of leverage we had, why should the EU give any ground when they don't have to? They know the UK has no bargaining power, and it can only go their way!

I recon if the UK had kept no deal as an option (and meant it!) faced with a no deal Brexit or renegotiating "the deal"  the EU would have caved in and be back at the table by now!

 

Totally agree - even if Parliament never wanted to do that, they should have left it on the table. It was the best leverage we had with the EU and we actively removed it. 

From a business negotiation point of view - it was negligent of Parliament to do that (going back to the fact that it's all about self-interest and not the greater good). 

Without a no deal Brexit on the table, the EU have quite rightly laughed at us and said "what you gonna do now?"

 

From a technical point of view - if no deal is agreed by 12th April and no extension is offered, we exit the EU without a deal.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by hedge

[besty57]

24 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

The biggest blow to Brexit was when this remainer parliament voted to take no deal off the table!....that gave away the bit of leverage we had, why should the EU give any ground when they don't have to? They know the UK has no bargaining power, and it can only go their way!

I recon if the UK had kept no deal as an option (and meant it!) faced with a no deal Brexit or renegotiating "the deal"  the EU would have caved in and be back at the table by now!

But Brexit is not what the EU and our Parliament want.....so our remainer Parliament took no deal Brexit off the table, and surprise surprise the EU are sticking to "the only deal in town"....the carp May one........which no one wants, the only options I can see now are, swallow "May's deal" or kiss Brexit goodbye.........it looks increasingly like brexit has been deliberately and systematically sabotaged! by the EU and the UK Parliament!

Those of us who voted leave ,probably knew we would get shafted but  thought democracy would be the winner,but as we have seen for more than 2 years the remoaners have tried every trick in the book and look like sabotaging brexit,as I have said betore if the traitors in parliament had wanted to leave ,we would have left the eu house of thieves, straight away,

[Raja Clavata]

24 minutes ago, hedge said:

Since none of the 8 motions for a possible revised exit were of interest and May's deal still is on shakey ground, the only other current viable options are no deal or revoke A.50

I think it's a misconception to expect any of the motions voted on yesterday to pass first time but I believe a couple were defeated with less majority than the TM deal at both attempts.

Points were raised yesterday that appear valid, A50 should not have been invoked until after the options / deals had been voted on. This goes back to the feeling that the original vote was flawed and should have instead been a series of votes (by the public). If that had happened we surely wouldn't be in the mess that we are now.

If no deal was truly the voice of the people then we'd know it unequivocally and have enacted it by now, surely. Overall if a50 is revoked then the mechanism that would have facilitated that through a series of votes would I feel have been much more bearable and far less undemocratic. Also, if the original vote had been qualified by further votes then I would almost certainly have voted leave in the first round and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this thinking. Part of this mess can be attributed to the narrow majority in the supposedly one time vote (highlighting again the fact it's flawed).

Again, if the first round of public voting was a 60% or more majority for leave then the govt would have been much more focussed on getting on with it.

It's been goofed and if we end up with TMs deal then we've all been shafted - that appears to be the compromise the government favour 😞

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

Points were raised yesterday that appear valid, A50 should not have been invoked until after the options / deals had been voted on. This goes back to the feeling that the original vote was flawed and should have instead been a series of votes (by the public). If that had happened we surely wouldn't be in the mess that we are now.

It wasnt up to Parliament until Ms Miller got involved.

 

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

If no deal was truly the voice of the people then we'd know it unequivocally and have enacted it by now, surely.

Whos asked them ? 
If polls have been done that show no deal is favoured amongst leavers , would they publish it , if it werent in their interests?

 

4 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Again, if the first round of public voting was a 60% or more majority for leave then the govt would have been much more focussed on getting on with it.

What if it had been 58 % or 56 % , do you think it would have made a difference ?
They would still be stalling and offering up rubbish deals, and pandering to the EU.
Miller would still have taken them to court, and you would still have a majority of remain MPs trying to thwart the result.

If MPs  simply represented the results of their constituencies Brexit votes , it wouldnt be an issue, but they are not.

7 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

It's been goofed and if we end up with TMs deal then we've all been shafted - that appears to be the compromise the government favour

So why dont they pass it then ?

Quite simply, apart from around a 100 core Brexiteer MPs , Parliament is trying to kill the result.
Are the remainers on here OK with that ?

[panoma1]

48 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I agree with the no deal removal being a bad move, a very very bad move.

Do you think it's still valid to refer to Parliament as Remainers given the outcome of the indicative vote yesterday?

Yes I do! They have sabotaged Brexit, by voting down everything, to such an extent that the only options that appear to be left are to run another (but this time rigged with limited options) referendum (hoping project fear has worked on the electorate!) water Brexit down to a BRINO...........or not leave at all....any of these options would satisfy them because that is what remainers want...to stay in the EU!

The only Brexit that would truly satisfy Leavers, is to reject the "take it or leave it deal" offered and honour the result of the referendum by going for a  "no deal Brexit"............but of course the remainers MP's in Parliament have voted that option out!....

If May really wanted to deliver Brexit to the people of the UK, she would tell parliament their votes were not binding, and tell the EU, unless they renegotiate the UK will leave the EU on 29th March 2019, without a deal!......and do it!