Brexit Negotiations

[BillyStubbsTears]

HA.

I think we're arguing at cross-purposes here.

I said that the EU neogiators had been principled, consistent and professional.

They have.

They had a negotiating position agreed by all the other 27 countries. They have negotiated very consistently from that position.

What you are doing is providing two examples of strongly Euro-sceptic politicians who disagree with that position. That is their prerogative, but it is an entirely different argument.

I did also hint that the EU negotiators have some justification in having a little dig at us, when they have been negotiating for two years, had two of their opposite numbers resign, and find out today that the man they've been negotiating with for the past 4 months doesn't agree with the deal he negotiated.

[Boomstick]

BS

Yes. We all want a good deal.

The problem is that if you leave the CU, you've screwed up the Irish border. And the EU has said consistently that that is a red line and they won't give us preferential terms if that line is crossed.

So, your position is illogical. You can't leave the CU (or something close to it) and get a good deal.

That's fine. You, personally, choose a No Deal outcome (we got there eventually). That's your prerogative. But that is not what was offered in 2016. And it's an outcome supported by a small minority of the UK.

So, as I said, it would be THE most undemocratic outcome.

No, a half/semi/soft brexit would be the least democratic.  NOBODY voted for that.
Why would we abide by it and not have a say ?
The EU have used the border purely as a bargaining chip. No other reason.
the most democratic would be a hard brexit, to achieve what we voted for.

[BillyStubbsTears]

A negotiating chip?

If problems re-emerge with the Irish border (which they will if we leave the CU), that will have hugely detrimental effects on the Irish economy.

Ireland didn't vote for Brexit. So why should they take a hit because of it?

The EU has been consistent all along in saying that their first priority is protecting their members from the worst effects of Brexit. Do you blame them for telling us that if we hurt them, we can't expect a preferential deal in return? Is that not an acceptable position? Is it just playing games in negotiation?

So we go for a No Deal option. Which, as I said, NOBODY was proposing in 2016. Not Johnson (Canada deal!), not Farage (Norway deal! Switzerland deal!) not Fox (easiest negotiation in history!).

You have a strange concept of democracy if you think that's what the country voted for in 2016, or supports now.

Wouldn't the truly democratic path be to say "It was entirely unclear what Brexit meant in 2016. You now have a clear choice - No Deal or Remain"?

Seems to me, your idea of democracy is based on letting Boomstick, Rees-Mogg and Johnson decide what they think people were thinking in 2016, when they were being promised something else.

[Boomstick]

So if we have a second referendum, and the result is remain. Can us brexiteers demand a 3rd referendum and call it best of 3.
Ridiculous.
You can't just demand another vote, and keep doing so until the result you want is achieved.

The people voted leave, were leaving hopefully with a good deal.

[DonnyOsmond]

So if we have a second referendum, and the result is remain. Can us brexiteers demand a 3rd referendum and call it best of 3.
Ridiculous.
You can't just demand another vote, and keep doing so until the result you want is achieved.

The people voted leave, were leaving hopefully with a good deal.

Like the one May has got for you x

[BillyStubbsTears]

No.

I don't know how many times I have to spell this out.

The whole point is that when the slim majority voted for Leave in 2016, it was entirely unclear what "Leave" meant. As I've just said, NO-ONE on the Leave side was saying that Leave meant No Deal Leave. And when some on the Remain side pointed out the possibility of that, they were (and still are by some people) decried as Project Fear-mongers.

The entire point (as has been pointed out several times on this thread) is that it is stupid and nonsensical to have a binary vote (Remain or Leave) on an issue that is not a binary choice (Remain vs many, many different types of Leave, with people being assured that No Deal Leave is not a realistic choice).

If you have a binary vote on a binary question (Remain vs No Deal Leave...or Remain vs This Specific Deal Leave) then there is far more validity to the choice made by a referendum. So, if we had a second vote on those terms, that would end the discussion for me, once and for all.

By the way, you are a perfect example of the uncertainty on what Leave meant in 2016. You want us out from having to implement EU decisions. But in 2016, Norway and Switzerland were being presented by Leave as shining examples of what we can do outside the EU. And both of those are tied in to various parts of EU regulations.

[RedJ]

It amazes me how upset Leave seem to get over the thought of a second vote though considering it's still supposedly the will of the people. Surely that means they'll piss it, nowt to fuss about, eh?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

It amazes me how upset Leave seem to get over the thought of a second vote though considering it's still supposedly the will of the people. Surely that means they'll piss it, nowt to fuss about, eh?

I say again, how many bloody votes? Do we just vote on everything?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Treason May didn't even wait a week until after Armistice day before surrendering to the EUSSR.
If this joke gets passed we are doomed forever to be slaves to the EU dictatorship.
The only sane option is to leave with no deal as we voted for two years ago.
If this gets passed then no-one should ever buy any European product ever again.

Don’t buy any European products again? Wouldn’t we all starve?

Here's a revolutionary idea for you; BUY BRITISH! It worked for years and funnily enough we all had jobs...

Do we produce enough in the UK to only buy British?

Well if we don't it presents a great opportunity for new businesses going forwards.

And what shall we all eat from March till harvestime? Especially as farmers can't get British workers to do the jobs that the EU workers did.

[Boomstick]

No.

I don't know how many times I have to spell this out.

The whole point is that when the slim majority voted for Leave in 2016, it was entirely unclear what "Leave" meant. As I've just said, NO-ONE on the Leave side was saying that Leave meant No Deal Leave. And when some on the Remain side pointed out the possibility of that, they were (and still are by some people) decried as Project Fear-mongers.

The entire point (as has been pointed out several times on this thread) is that it is stupid and nonsensical to have a binary vote (Remain or Leave) on an issue that is not a binary choice (Remain vs many, many different types of Leave, with people being assured that No Deal Leave is not a realistic choice).

If you have a binary vote on a binary question (Remain vs No Deal Leave...or Remain vs This Specific Deal Leave) then there is far more validity to the choice made by a referendum. So, if we had a second vote on those terms, that would end the discussion for me, once and for all.

By the way, you are a perfect example of the uncertainty on what Leave meant in 2016. You want us out from having to implement EU decisions. But in 2016, Norway and Switzerland were being presented by Leave as shining examples of what we can do outside the EU. And both of those are tied in to various parts of EU regulations.

So what do you want to happen?

[Boomstick]

So if we have a second referendum, and the result is remain. Can us brexiteers demand a 3rd referendum and call it best of 3.
Ridiculous.
You can't just demand another vote, and keep doing so until the result you want is achieved.

The people voted leave, were leaving hopefully with a good deal.

Like the one May has got for you x

That may not get through parliament, then it's renegotiate or no deal

[Glyn_Wigley]

So if we have a second referendum, and the result is remain. Can us brexiteers demand a 3rd referendum and call it best of 3.
Ridiculous.
You can't just demand another vote, and keep doing so until the result you want is achieved.

The people voted leave, were leaving hopefully with a good deal.

Like the one May has got for you x

That may not get through parliament, then it's renegotiate or no deal

Why should the EU renegotiate? The agreement has been made.

This Parliament will not let the UK crash out with no deal, they'll either vote for a second referendum or cancel Article 50.

[Axholme Lion]

It's a shame the death sentence was abolished for treason.

[Boomstick]

So if we have a second referendum, and the result is remain. Can us brexiteers demand a 3rd referendum and call it best of 3.
Ridiculous.
You can't just demand another vote, and keep doing so until the result you want is achieved.

The people voted leave, were leaving hopefully with a good deal.

Like the one May has got for you x

That may not get through parliament, then it's renegotiate or no deal

Why should the EU renegotiate? The agreement has been made.

This Parliament will not let the UK crash out with no deal, they'll either vote for a second referendum or cancel Article 50.

They won't cancel article 50, simply will not happen. Nor will a second referendum, because that will be admitting they ballsed it up.
It's up to the government to renegotiate, but your right the EU don't have to .
It's quite a pickle

[tommy toes]

My take on the 2016 vote is that the vast majority who voted Leave voted just that. Leave. They weren't interested in or aware of CU or SM or the Irish Border issue.
They voted to take back sovereignty, minimise immigration and have a load of our own money to spend on what we like.
Now that the reality has hopefully hit home and the deal is on the table, the only option in my opinion is another referendum and for all to respect the vote, whatever the result

[BillyStubbsTears]

It does happen that, when Governments seriously f**k up on policy, there is an admission of failure and a change of policy.

Not very often, and it tends to be in times of national crisis, but it does happen.

Chamberlain resigning in 1940. Asquith in 1916.

If we are seriously faced with having no deal in place as we hurtle towards March 2019, we are going into the very worst national crisis since those moments. And I can't see any option but for Govt to put its hands up and ask for a delay in Article 50. With a whole new set of Government faces  - either from within the Tory party, or following a General Election.

EDIT: Actually, the most recent example was after Black Monday in 1992, when we were hoyed out of the ERM. That wasn't such a big issue that it required a change of PM but it did lead to a pretty much instantaneous 180 degree change in economic policy from high interest rates to support the Pound, to a Keynesian approach to re-flating the economy.

I can't see any way that May can change policy on Brexit and survive. She's argued too many times that it's this way or no way. But when she's booted out over the next few days, the new PM has a blank sheet. And if they are sensible, they say that this is a moment of national crisis, we cannot afford to blunder into next March without any deal, and we need more time to get our shit in a sock.

[DonnyOsmond]

It amazes me how upset Leave seem to get over the thought of a second vote though considering it's still supposedly the will of the people. Surely that means they'll piss it, nowt to fuss about, eh?

I say again, how many bloody votes? Do we just vote on everything?

Just one vote with a handful of options. Then we go with that without MPs saying that isn't what the people voted for.

[Herbert Anchovy]

HA.

I think we're arguing at cross-purposes here.

I said that the EU neogiators had been principled, consistent and professional.

They have.

They had a negotiating position agreed by all the other 27 countries. They have negotiated very consistently from that position.

What you are doing is providing two examples of strongly Euro-sceptic politicians who disagree with that position. That is their prerogative, but it is an entirely different argument.

I did also hint that the EU negotiators have some justification in having a little dig at us, when they have been negotiating for two years, had two of their opposite numbers resign, and find out today that the man they've been negotiating with for the past 4 months doesn't agree with the deal he negotiated.

Billy,

With all due respect I don’t think we are at cross purposes. You made a statement claiming that EU negotiations were “Principled, Consistant and Professional” and I provided you with evidence where political representatives from EU countries disagree with that statement. As these politicians have political opinions contrary to yours, your choosing not to accept it!

However, here’s something else for you to consider. Did you know that the EU has fundamentally reversed its stance on Gibraltar as part of Brexit? Previously, they had impartiality on the matter, now they support the Spanish position on sovereignty. In April 2017 they allowed Spain to link the position of Gibraltar in Brexit to their sovereignty demands! Even Spain couldn’t accept this and reined in their demands!

Is that a principled approach?

[Donnywolf]

"A failure to carry out the wishes of the people" OR "we must honour the vote of the British people"  - how many different ways can you say that in 3 hours ? I did not count but it came into nearly every answer trotted out

Out of the same place as "a strong and stable Government" in the General Election Campaign.......Say it often enough and you may just convince yourself

[Not Now Kato]

 

Larry the Cat @Number10cat 5h5 hours ago

“The Prime Minister offered me the position of Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. After careful consideration for three seconds, I have declined the offer”

[drfchound]

The best thing that could happen is for the government to appoint one or two of our vsc posters to sort out the Brexit problems.
Obviously they know what is required better than any of our MPs’ and have all the answers.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Herbert

No. I'm not having that. You haven't provided anything to contradict what I said.

The EU-27 agreed a negotiating position on the three major issues.

Ireland
Budget
Rights of EU citizens in Britain

They told us at the start that those were red lines and without agreement on those issues, there could be no deal for us to ease the pain of Brexit. That has been very consistently adhered to by the professional, consistent and principled negotiators. There have been no major changes in what the EU told us at the start were red lines, and no other red lines introduced.

We, on the other hand, have been ducking and diving and changing our line on a regular basis.

What you were doing was giving examples of a couple of politicians who disagreed with the EU's negotiating position, not providing evidence that they had used it in an unprincipled, unprofessional or inconsistent way.

[RedJ]

The best thing that could happen is for the government to appoint one or two of our vsc posters to sort out the Brexit problems.
Obviously they know what is required better than any of our MPs’ and have all the answers.

Get Barnier darn Urban on Friday night and thrash things out over a cheap pint then get him in Biscuit Billy's.

[albie]

As others say, an advisory referendum is only relevant if it asks a sensible question.

Given Leave covers No Deal, Canada style, Norway style, Chequers, and all hybrids between, simply voting Leave says nothing about the terms of that deal.

Now that Treeza has something to offer, it is right that opinion is given on whether it will meet expectations.
It has very little chance of passing a vote in Parliament, as the HoC is not bound by an advisory vote.

So the question is whether it is better to canvass opinion via another referendum, or via a general election in which Brexit is located within a broader policy context?

Incidentally, UKIP went into a GE on a Leave ticket, and did not win at the last (or previous GE).
That might be saying something we should hear.

EDIT:
I prefer a "Gangnam style" exit. Here is old Ed Bollox negotiating hard;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czqtjk_iGFU

Top action!

[wilts rover]

Who said that the Tories have been lying and just making things up. Of course 80% of the public support May's deal, dont they?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-news-theresa-may-rory-stewart-public-support-bbc-radio-interview-a8635386.html

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sheesh. Just seen May in that Press Conference. It's like someone who's been stuck in solitary confinement for 48 hours.

Her party is preparing to knife her.

Parliament will not vote for the deal.

The country is in its biggest crisis for 70 years.

And she just says she's going to keep on plugging away. Like Geoff Boycott.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

I think young Rory has just inadvertently captured the core of current Conservative politics.

"I'm producing a number to illustrate what I believe."

One couldn't make it up. HE could, obviously, but no one else could.

[tommy toes]

She's definitely in the corridor of uncertainty.

[Filo]

A stubborn Woman, its like watching that Iraqi minister saying there are no Amercans in Bahgdad with the News clips behind him showing the tanks rolling in 😂😂😂

[Herbert Anchovy]

Herbert

No. I'm not having that. You haven't provided anything to contradict what I said.

The EU-27 agreed a negotiating position on the three major issues.

Ireland
Budget
Rights of EU citizens in Britain

They told us at the start that those were red lines and without agreement on those issues, there could be no deal for us to ease the pain of Brexit. That has been very consistently adhered to by the professional, consistent and principled negotiators. There have been no major changes in what the EU told us at the start were red lines, and no other red lines introduced.

We, on the other hand, have been ducking and diving and changing our line on a regular basis.

What you were doing was giving examples of a couple of politicians who disagreed with the EU's negotiating position, not providing evidence that they had used it in an unprincipled, unprofessional or inconsistent way.

Billy,

I didnt expect you to have it! You come across as being completely unwilling to accept any criticism of the EU in any respect!

I’ve given you 3 examples where the EU had been dogmatic and unprincipled and you’re completely dismissing them because they don’t suit your narrative!

For the record I agree that our stance to negotiations had been shambolic, incompetent and not thought through but you really should understand that one side is not completely responsible for this