Implications For Brexit

Although my sympathies in this debate are well known, I'd have to accept that that looks right. The Supreme Court didn't actually consider in Miller v Secretary of State whether Article 50 was irreversible, but it stated that that assumption was "common ground" as between the parties and that it was content to proceed on the basis that that was correct. In practical terms, I would have thought that if we asked the EU's permission to withdraw our notice then that could be achieved provided that all 27 member states agreed. However, it's not difficult to imagine that they would probably only do so upon our accepting worse terms (from our point of view) than we enjoyed before 29 March. We might therefore lose whatever opt-outs or vetoes we previously enjoyed, which would clearly be even more unacceptable to the Brexiteers.

So I think that what the 'remain' cause has become is a campaign to try and limit our exit to a 'soft' Brexit, where we accept some form of freedom of movement in order to still enjoy access to, if not membership of, the single market and the customs union. That might at least mitigate the worst consequences of what is widely coming to be seen as an economically disastrous decision to leave in the first place. The blasé assumptions that we could simply depart without agreement and "enjoy" WTO trade terms are exposed for what they are in this article:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/uk-brexit-negotiation-strategy-by-ngaire-woods-2017-06

 

The problem with the assumption that soft Brexit/hard Brexit is within our own hands is that there are two parties to the negotiations and no-one seems to be focusing on what the other party want. Of course the UK is a valuable export market to many EU countries and trade tariffs mean job losses on both side of the argument, but the EU may well be looking at a different and more long term target. Keeping the EU together. If the UK departure from the EU is considered a success, it may encourage other current members to seek the same step. The EU may well consider that short term pain is preferable to long term disintegration of the club. It may well be that the terms of Brexit are not ours to negotiate. It may well be that hard Brexit, or exit with no agreement, is the only option on the table.

I do not believe that the voters in the referendum had any concept of what leaving the EU was all about. Many of the older voters had this picture of the Britain of their youth in their minds, when Britain still had its empire, or at least when Britain still had its trading links with its Commonwealth. They believed that we could set things back to how they were when they were young and solve the problems of the NHS at the same time, with one stroke of the pen. They were lied to, but they were naïve in believing those lies. Unfortunately, reality will only be revealed at a later date, probably when it is too late to do anything about it other than to go back to the EU, cap in one hand and our application to re-join in the other. And what do you think their reaction to that is going to be?

 

Im just glad that I don't live in your world... That is just complete and utter fiction, without any reality outside your own head

 

Also, you're failing to take into account the fact that the eu itself is going to fail at some point. It's like having a labour government, it can't afford itself.

 

Seems bang on the money to me.

 

The assumption again that anyone voting leave was ill informed , poorly educated, didn't think it through etc etc . Tiresome.


Sent from the darkest recesses of a poisoned mind.

 

The Tories failed to realise that there had been a "revolution" in that the majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU in
the June 2016 referendum and the Prime Minister came across with a " business as usual" attitude. The Tory manifesto and the talk of "no deal is better than a bad deal "and the Government insisting on a hard Brexit also alienated floating voters.

Unlike the Labour Party the Government failed to listen to the people.
The thought of more austerity and removal of benefits for pensioners also played its part in the eventual outcome in my opinion.

What of Brexit.? We are in a very vulnerable position.
Europeans are commenting that it's no good starting to talk until there is political stability in the U.K.
EU Council President Donald Tusk tweeted " do your best to avoid a no deal as a result of no negotiations".
Swedens Carl Bildt " there will be a price to paid for the lack of true leadership. One mess risks following another."

Dutch MEP Sophia in't Veld said " Cameron gambled and lost.May has gambled and lost. It's beginning to resemble a casino."
Anders Fogh Rasmussen former Danish PM commented " the result limits Mrs May's position to manoeuvre in the Brexit talks". One of the EU's negotiating team members Guy Verhofstadt has probably set the scene by saying " yet another own goal that is going to make already complex negotiations even more complicated."

Last thing the Tories want is a leadership contest and a fresh election so they are going to try to put on a brave face with May still at the helm. However in keeping with the rival parties, political pundits, the British electorate and it would now appear EU
partners think May is a busted flush and that can't be good for our prospects of satisfactory Brexit talks.

First kick in the crotch will be the £85 billion exit fee and if the political pundits are right we'll end up with a deal wer'e
given and not one we probably would have desired when the Government started to map out what they were probably looking to achieve.

 

You do realise that the EU only spends the money in its budget from the members. It as an organization can't fail for financial reasons.

 

True, but that amount of money is not finite...the Germans according to Suddeutsche Zeitung do not want to pay more, whether Macron wants to put his hand in France's pocket remains to be seen , several of the net beneficiaries are going to have to decide if they have to become net benefactors or risk Merkels wrath.

 

Sorry, but when I voted in the referendum, I had no idea what terms we would negotiate with the EU. All that I knew was what the status quo would be, and I voted remain on that basis. Are you now saying that you knew our exit terms and voted accordingly, because if you did, I too would be interested in the future. Failing that, I will continue to assume that the leave vote was based upon inadequate knowledge.

 

When the referendum was on last year I was on here debating the future with the likes of ark104 etc - it's all there.

Considering how the EU has changed since we joined and especially since The Lisbon Treaty your voting for things as they are is at best hopeful and at worst misguided.

Inadequate knowledge indeed


Sent from the darkest recesses of a poisoned mind.

 

I think we need to hear the outcome of the Cabinet meeting which wer'e told is tomorrow
before we know the plans for any future Brexit talks.
We were told yesterday that an agreement had been reached with the DUP to support the government.
Arlene Foster has been on TV and has stated that that is not the case and talks are ongoing.
As most of her party are Sabbatarians can't see much progress being made today probably tomorrow before
we know more.

When I was working I attended meetings at both the Treasury and the Cabinet Office to have input regarding
National strategies that the Civil Servants and Government officers were trying to put in place. The team I was part of opposed them and we gained the name of " the Yorkshire Mafia." as a result. We claimed Yorkshire knows best .

The Cabinet Office is at 70 Whitehall just at the back of Downing Street . The National crisis team meets in
Cabinet Office Briefing Room A that's why they use the word COBRA.

If they send Boris to support Theresa at the Brexit talks the name tags could be very appropriate

Conservative Unionist Negotiating Team. Need a big badge to fit that on so probably could be shortened to lovely person.

 

Tusk and Juncker are horrible little imperialists determined to secure a United States of Europe. Cameron knew it, which is why he negotiated his opt out from ever closer union. The thing is Tusk and Juncker know an opt-out has to be exercised. Exercise it too much and we're outside looking in, exercise it too little and Britain is gobbled up. You may have voted for the status quo but how long did you expect that to last? Extremely myopic in my opinion.

 

Red Rain is bang on the money.

Remain represented an imperfect certainty. Leave represented an unknown. There is absolutely nothing positive in view as a result of the leave vote. We are embarked upon the best way of minimising the damage. We are 60 million against a trading bloc of 500 million. Trump has cancelled his massively unpopular state visit and is unlikely to advance us up the food chain in terms of trade. If he does it will be to allow more US companies to make inroads into our public sector services, with low wages and unguaranteed hours for workers. Our other potential trading partners are low wage economies with which we will be unable to compete, except on the basis of worsening the pay and conditions of our own workers. I defy anybody to explain to me how all this will work to our advantage? 'Taking back control'? FFS!

 

I'd rather be inside the tent pis*sing out than somebody outside the tent pis*sing in.
Unfortunately the latter is the position we now find ourselves in.
We've now got to go for the Soft Brexit option. It all hinges on what if anything the EU wants
to give us.

Justine Greening and Anna Soubry two Tory MP's who retained their seats and appear not to like the PM have both
been on TV saying she must go. George Osborne was on the Andrew Marr Show and openly said she's a
dead woman walking. He has pledged to attack her from all angles as Editor of the Evening Standard and
Jeremy Corbyn with some of his formerly disaffected MP's now back onboard has stated he will use the Queens
Speech to depose her.

She must know that a number of her party are openly hostile to the
proposed link up with the DUP and the EU team can't have failed to notice she seems to have lost all credibility.

Very worrying times for the UK , a position were it not for her vanity in wanting to go down as the greatest
Prime Minister in living memory that could have been avoided.

 

The fact is that coalitions have a very short life span. We have less than 2 years left to finish a very difficult Brexit negotiation with absolutely no confidence that the persons negotiating the deal on our side will be the same people at the start as are at the end. We have the prospect that our aims and expectations will be one thing at day 1, and something entirely different at day 360. How can the EU possibly negotiate with us when they are so uncertain about our aims and expectations. Having created this mess by calling for an election when she did not need to, Mrs May should go. No ifs, no buts. She should go.

 

I appended my comments to a Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times article fully three hours before George Osborne used the same phraseology:

May does not learn. Despite losing cases as Home Secretary against the weight of legal opinion she wasted time and money as PM defending the Article 50 case in the Supreme Court. Despite being driven back over her attempt to increase NI contributions (against a previous manifesto pledge) she chose to run with a policy on social care which (although justifiable in itself) was bound to be unpopular with key voters. Despite having to change position on that she still did not define the upper limit to contributions thus doing nothing to alleviate the anxieties. And despite being rebuffed on her claim that she could unite the country and present a strong Brexit negotiation, she still insists, despite losing, that nothing has changed and that she will continue as before. Her judgement has been found out so many times and she has little charisma or public sympathy with which to dress it up. Just two or three within her own party who favour a soft Brexit more in the country's economic interests will be enough to thwart her - even with the expensive and questionable support of the DUP. She is a dead woman walking and should seriously consider walking away from what will almost certainly lead to further humiliation and damage to her reputation. Like Gordon Brown before her, she assumed party leadership without a challenge, assumed the office of PM without an election and did not receive sufficient support from the public when the people were given the chance to decide. To begin the Brexit negotiations in her current weakened (and time-bound) circumstances would be sheer folly.

I assume Gorgeous George reads the Sunday Times columnists!

 

I agree RED but she doesn't have a coalition, it's a supply and confidence agreement on a case by case basis.
The Government have not yet accepted the DUP demands for their agreement to support.
It's likely that they will want money to implement some of their policies which incidentally are at odds with the Tory's.
Quite apart from Labour her biggest threat could come from her own backbenches who might vote with the opposition
to oppose certain proposals.
The Dominic Lawson article shown above on the post by ORS is one example of how her own side are queuing up to stick the
boot in. She's in a very difficult situation.

 

What a load of tosh...lol..You could say that about any government decision. I don't like the increase in VAT, lets have another election, it's that daft a suggestion.