Brexit Phase Two - Trade

It is doable, always has been. All it takes is a lot of detailed work to unpick the many threads that have grown up over 40 years of membership. I'd use a decade as a finger in the air estimate for a minimum pain solution, which is what the referendum campaign sold as the goal. We didn't get that though.

What we did get was a bunch of muppets cuffing it, issuing Article 50 far too early then failing to do what could have been done in the time since then. Cheered on of course by unthinking supporters of Brexit who saw any criticism as treason. Of course that unthinking support of a total lack of preparation has meant that Brexit would be disastrous for the UK unless it's a fudge that changes nothing but the price - which will go up.

So go on denying reality; that will ensure that what you want never comes to pass. Either we crash out and rejoin rapidly as a matter of national survival, or we change nothing and slide back in in a few years when the political climate shifts.
The EU stated that no talks could start until article 50 was invoked.

Don’t invoke article 50 and you’re in a position that talks can’t commence and we’ve held a referendum that we can’t follow through in.

Invoke article 50 and make a start.

I’d agree it’s a mess, but I blame Cameron for failing to plan.
 
At the risk of repeating myself, it was parliament who authorised the referendum in the format in which it took place (and it was never suggested by anyone that there would ever be a follow-up referendum) and it was parliament who acknowledged the result and who authorised Article 50 to be invoked (knowing full well that there was no provision to revoke the process).

This has nothing whatsoever to do with parliamentary involvement and everything to do with remainers frustrated with an unexpected result chucking their toys out of the pram and seeking to derail the process.
 
The EU stated that no talks could start until article 50 was invoked.

Don’t invoke article 50 and you’re in a position that talks can’t commence and we’ve held a referendum that we can’t follow through in.

Invoke article 50 and make a start.

I’d agree it’s a mess, but I blame Cameron for failing to plan.
The clamour from leavers to invoke A50 asap after the referendum was deafening.

PMTM was pressured into prematurely shooting the A50 load at the EU.

Doesn't excuse her for her lack of preparation in the time available though
 
At the risk of repeating myself, it was parliament who authorised the referendum in the format in which it took place (and it was never suggested by anyone that there would ever be a follow-up referendum) and it was parliament who acknowledged the result and who authorised Article 50 to be invoked (knowing full well that there was no provision to revoke the process).

This has nothing whatsoever to do with parliamentary involvement and everything to do with remainers frustrated with an unexpected result chucking their toys out of the pram and seeking to derail the process.
The devil is in the detail though.

Shouldn't parliament have some oversight in the manner of our leaving?
 
The devil is in the detail though.

Shouldn't parliament have some oversight in the manner of our leaving?
Nobody is fooled by all of that 'We respect the result of the referendum and we are committed to leaving the EU... but...' nonsense. Their intention is to delay the process for as long as possible in an effort to either modify Brexit to such an extent that it becomes virtually meaningless or to derail it entirely, completely disregarding the will of the public.
 
Nobody is fooled by all of that 'We respect the result of the referendum and we are committed to leaving the EU... but...' nonsense. Their intention is to delay the process for as long as possible in an effort to either modify Brexit to such an extent that it becomes virtually meaningless or to derail it entirely, completely disregarding the will of the public.
The public is fickle. The majority, wafer thin.

If we leave the EU, but still use the bits keeping our economy going, the vote has been respected.

We'd no longer be a member

2016_EU_Referendum_Ballot_Paper.jpg
 
Nobody is fooled by all of that 'We respect the result of the referendum and we are committed to leaving the EU... but...' nonsense. Their intention is to delay the process for as long as possible in an effort to either modify Brexit to such an extent that it becomes virtually meaningless or to derail it entirely, completely disregarding the will of the public.
Modify it so we remain subject to the ECJ through membership of EASA, EMA, Euratom, aligned with EU Regulatory Standards on trade, possibly services, NI remains subject to the rules of the Internal Market and Customs Union, continued participation in pan EU Defence through CDSP, the desire to remain aligned with the EEAS, Foreign Affairs Council, equivalent outcomes on Agrifood and Fisheries, continued adherence to the EU GDPR by full alignment of our regulations to EU law and everything else - just without a voice in the EU on these matters?

Or are you on about another version of totally meaningless? ^^
 
Nobody is fooled by all of that 'We respect the result of the referendum and we are committed to leaving the EU... but...' nonsense. Their intention is to delay the process for as long as possible in an effort to either modify Brexit to such an extent that it becomes virtually meaningless or to derail it entirely, completely disregarding the will of the public.
In short, the referendum was whether we remain a member of the EU, not whether we continue to cooperate closely with our largest trading partners :)
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
If you give it a thought, all Brexit seems to have achieved is a blue passport. A three way split in the government. And two years on from the referendum substantial social, political, diplomatic and financial loss.

No brexiter has come up with one tangiable benefit for the UK. They even complain about the wrong sort of parliamentary sovereignty. (And plainly don’t understand what a border is)

Even UKIP, not the brightest of coves, decided that Henry Bolton was a stupid idea and ditched him.
I still think we should apply the same approach to Brexit.
Has it, is it doing us good?
Has it, is it doing us harm?
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
Modify it so we remain subject to the ECJ through membership of EASA, EMA, Euratom, aligned with EU Regulatory Standards on trade, possibly services, NI remains subject to the rules of the Internal Market and Customs Union, continued participation in pan EU Defence through CDSP, the desire to remain aligned with the EEAS, Foreign Affairs Council, equivalent outcomes on Agrifood and Fisheries, continued adherence to the EU GDPR by full alignment of our regulations to EU law and everything else - just without a voice in the EU on these matters?

Or are you on about another version of totally meaningless? ^^
AKA leaving the EU in name only.

The first time an issue cropped up and someone said in parliament "We can't do that because we're still bound by EU rules" would be the point at which the Tory vote would shrink so far, you'd need a magnifying glass to see it.

The electorate in general would also be royally urinated off with politicians in general. Having voted to leave the EU, they'd not be pleased to find out we'd only left on paper.

Not even May is that dumb. She won't want to go down in history as the person who destroyed the Tory party and bolloxed Brexit.

Wordsmith
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
As skid said, the country is so divided now, I can't see how it can be put back together, without a spell in the wilderness. If a fudge is successful, it will shore up remainers, but so dispirit brexiteers, there will likely be either a total disengagement in politics.
Or, we all have a nihilist streak and I would say, a lot of brexit voters will consider corbyn on the basis, he is anti-establishment, stupid old russian apologists like me included.
 
The public is fickle. The majority, wafer thin.

If we leave the EU, but still use the bits keeping our economy going, the vote has been respected.

We'd no longer be a member

View attachment 338202
The public may be fickle, the majority may be wafer thin but unless we hold to the basic principle that a majority opinion has power of decision, democracy fails. And if democracy fails, Parliament has no authority and neither does anybody else. And law fails. And society breaks down.

The decision of the people must be carried out, even if at some later date we choose to rejoin.

I contend that principles must be adhered to before anything else is considered. I cannot envision a persuasive alternative argument but others are free to try and convince me otherwise.
 
AKA leaving the EU in name only.

The first time an issue cropped up and someone said in parliament "We can't do that because we're still bound by EU rules" would be the point at which the Tory vote would shrink so far, you'd need a magnifying glass to see it.

The electorate in general would also be royally urinated off with politicians in general. Having voted to leave the EU, they'd not be pleased to find out we'd only left on paper.

Not even May is that dumb. She won't want to go down in history as the person who destroyed the Tory party and bolloxed Brexit.

Wordsmith
Most people seem pretty oblivious to this direction of travel, yet this is what is proposed in numerous papers and tech notes.
 
If you give it a thought, all Brexit seems to have achieved is a blue passport. A three way split in the government. And two years on from the referendum substantial social, political, diplomatic and financial loss.

No brexiter has come up with one tangiable benefit for the UK. They even complain about the wrong sort of parliamentary sovereignty. (And plainly don’t understand what a border is)

Even UKIP, not the brightest of coves, decided that Henry Bolton was a stupid idea and ditched him.
I still think we should apply the same approach to Brexit.
Has it, is it doing us good?
Has it, is it doing us harm?
No one has explained how the remainers trying to push for shite Brexit, is going to be better than a hard brexit
 
In short, the referendum was whether we remain a member of the EU, not whether we continue to cooperate closely with our largest trading partners :)
If the EU was not the protectionist cabal that it pretends not to be, we would have absolutely no problem whatsoever co-operating with them or anybody else.
 
If you give it a thought, all Brexit seems to have achieved is a blue passport. A three way split in the government. And two years on from the referendum substantial social, political, diplomatic and financial loss.

No brexiter has come up with one tangiable benefit for the UK. They even complain about the wrong sort of parliamentary sovereignty. (And plainly don’t understand what a border is)

Even UKIP, not the brightest of coves, decided that Henry Bolton was a stupid idea and ditched him.
I still think we should apply the same approach to Brexit.
Has it, is it doing us good?
Has it, is it doing us harm?
The tangible benefit is that we'll no longer be in a position where we move towards a USE by subterfuge, while hopefully, still being able to trade efficiently and cooperate with the EU on mutually beneficial things such as anti-terrorism, the EASA etc . . .
 
The electorate in general would also be royally urinated off with politicians in general. Having voted to leave the EU, they'd not be pleased to find out we'd only left on paper.
This is the problem with it all. Only 1/2 the UK voted to leave the other 1/2 voted to remain. The UK is split in half and as @Ecomcon said I can't see how it will be put back together.

Even on the best prognosis for Brexit we have a year or two of chaos before things get better. It's going to take a time to (re) negotiate treaties and trade arrangements durring which time the very fickle UK population will get very very pissed off and unrully. A lot of them are expecting an end to austerity and removal of a lot of immigrants. Neither of which will happen short term. At least not before the next General Election.

With both the Tories and Labour as badly split as the UK population it will end up a reall mess.

Also I think that Corbyn is a popular-ist and good at rabble rousing speeches (student's Union politics) that he might have the m(M)omentum to winn enough to form some sort of government. Then the UK really is screwed.

Trade Deals with Russia and Cuba?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
verticalgyro Finance, Property, Law 23
S11Blade Brexit 41
Skylog The Intelligence Cell 8

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top