Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Victorian]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

EU aren't going to just allow chaos if deal doesn't pass Parliament 

 

I think the EU know full well that a significant political event will break in the UK post-vote and will accomodate a postponement of Article 50 with further negotiations.     The EU would not stand in the way of a softer Brexit or no Brexit.   A major political shift in the UK increases the chances.

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I expect the EU and UK have gone through the scenarios and there is a plan to implement a soft transition in event of No Deal. Maybe along lines of the Deal. 

Too sensible. We must be punished to the extreme, with food and medicine shortages, the plague and destitution, grounded planes and rail and road links cut. Just in case any other member thinks we have got off lightly and is tempted to follow us.

A cliff edge without transition benefits no-one. It may harm us more but it would also harm the EU to absolutely no purpose.

Unless the EU is really so fearful of further departures? And so unconvinced of the overwhelming benefits of membership?

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I think the EU know full well that a significant political event will break in the UK post-vote and will accomodate a postponement of Article 50 with further negotiations.     The EU would not stand in the way of a softer Brexit or no Brexit.   A major political shift in the UK increases the chances.

A softer Brexit than the one we are heading for?

[Victorian]

12 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

A softer Brexit than the one we are heading for?

 

Yes.   The EU would like more meat on the bones of a permanent continuation of the single market membership or a 'new' single market arrangement along the same lines.    

 

If and when the commons vote fails,   there will be a further declaration within parliament that a no deal outcome will not be allowed to occur.     Theresa May's all-in strategy of my deal or no deal and the big PR push on business and the public will have abjectly failed.    She will not be able to simply become a squatter prime minister of a zombie government with no further cards to play.     The Tories will not be extended the self indulgence of a 6 to 8 week leadership contest with no guarantees whatsoever that their next leader will have anything more to offer.      The time will have come for either a no confidence process and resultant government of coalition or a general election.     There will have to be a postponent to Article 50.     All of this opens up the possibility of another government negotiating a better agreement for both sides or a reverse of Brexit.     This will be the EU's current hope and contingency.

[Francis Albert]

17 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Yes.   The EU would like more meat on the bones of a permanent continuation of the single market membership or a 'new' single market arrangement along the same lines.    

 

If and when the commons vote fails,   there will be a further declaration within parliament that a no deal outcome will not be allowed to occur.     Theresa May's all-in strategy of my deal or no deal and the big PR push on business and the public will have abjectly failed.    She will not be able to simply become a squatter prime minister of a zombie government with no further cards to play.     The Tories will not be extended the self indulgence of a 6 to 8 week leadership contest with no guarantees whatsoever that their next leader will have anything more to offer.      The time will have come for either a no confidence process and resultant government of coalition or a general election.     There will have to be a postponent to Article 50.     All of this opens up the possibility of another government negotiating a better agreement for both sides or a reverse of Brexit.     This will be the EU's current hope and contingency.

Do you think a Corbyn Government with his "6 tests" (which have been comprehensively rejected by the EU) could deliver a better deal than the one currently on offer? I would be surprised if that is the EU's hope or contingency. (More like a Remainer's dream). I doubt they want to start the process all over again.

 

But I think the the implied answer to my earlier question  is that the second People's vote would in your scenario not be "This Deal or Remain". But "An Even Softer Brexit than this deal or Remain".

 

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Do you think a Corbyn Government with his "6 tests" (which have been comprehensively rejected by the EU) could deliver a better deal than the one currently on offer? I would be surprised if that is the EU's hope or contingency. I doubt they want to start the process all over again.

 

But I think the the implied answer to my earlier question  is that the second People's vote would in your scenario not be "This Deal or Remain". But "An Even Softer Brexit than this deal or Remain".

 

 

 

Depends on the landscape of any future government.     Maybe it will be remain or renegotiate the entire or elements of the current position.

[Francis Albert]

And why would there "have to be an extension to Article 50? Why would the EU agree to an extension just to allow the UK to negotiate a better deal than the one the UK has got?

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Depends on the landscape of any future government.     Maybe it will be remain or renegotiate the entire or elements of the current position.

 

From what I understand about all of this so far is that any deal is going to give the EU some jurisdiction over UK "sovereignty", and it would seem that this is unacceptable to the Brexiteers in chief.  They want a no deal.  But, for obvious reasons, didn't really express that during the referendum.

 

So, if another referendum, I reckon the choice will be remain or leave with a no deal scenario.

[Mikey1874]

10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

And why would there "have to be an extension to Article 50? Why would the EU agree to an extension just to allow the UK to negotiate a better deal than the one the UK has got?

 

Parliament has to agree the Deal 

[Francis Albert]

21 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

From what I understand about all of this so far is that any deal is going to give the EU some jurisdiction over UK "sovereignty", and it would seem that this is unacceptable to the Brexiteers in chief.  They want a no deal.  But, for obvious reasons, didn't really express that during the referendum.

 

So, if another referendum, I reckon the choice will be remain or leave with a no deal scenario.

Neatly splitting the Leave vote and allowing Remain in effect a free run.

The joys of democracy.

(The Guardian series this week on the rise of Populism (left and right) actually includes in a list of "populist" conspiracy theories  the belief that in a democracy however we vote  things continue to be run by a small elite. For a "conspiracy theory" it seems to me to contain a large element of truth).

Edited November 23, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Parliament has to agree the Deal 

It doesn't have to. It can reject it. But Parliament does not have the power to unilaterally extend Article 50. And for the life of me I can't see why the EU should agree to extend it to give the opportunity for the UK to negotiate a better deal than the one the UK has got.

The EU  may (but then again may not) agree to forget the whole thing and pretend it never happened.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I dont think brexiteers want a hard brexit per se. They have a vision of a deal that can’t be achieved because EU would just say FU to certain elements..

 

Bojo , Mogg and even the likes of Corbyn and Sturgeon will tell you they would achieve a better deal but don’t need to prove it. Whilst in reality I doubt we could, it’s not in Eu interest to make it a pleasant experience. We want out we will need to pay a price to achieve that,

 

It’s easy to sell the concept of something that can never exist, when you don’t need to prove it. Campaigns for change are easy as you can sell a unrealistic vision.

 

In reality the brexiteers are a very small minority in government (can’t even russle enough votes for a challenge most vulnerable PM in decades despite the bravado). The issue is because of the majority/absence majority for government, brexiteers are trying to exploit that for their own ends. No different front certain political parties I guess.

 

Like you I think we see a referendum with 3 options. I’m also beginning to think May has been a lot smarter than people give her credit for.

 

She never wanted to leave and I do wonder if this maybe part of a cunning plan to get this back to public vote. It could be a very easy position to sell in a few weeks and she could weirdly comes out with reputation mich improved with the added benefited of putting Mogg and likes in a box.

 

There isn’t a deal to be had that isn’t too soft for brexiteers and too hard for remainders. Whilst whether people like it or not we do need links to EU for so many reasons.

 

I just can’t see this happening and certainly not a no deal. 

 

Boris ("our Boris" was suggesting as I understand it a two option (Remain or Leave with no deal) referendum.

 

I think there would probably be a majority in the country for the proposed deal if they ever get the chance to express it.  It does not give Leave or Remain everything they wanted but it gives each something of what they wanted and both Leave and Remain were in fact broad coalitions in whom Hard Brexiteers and Hard Europhiles were minority extremes. I suspect most would accept, especially given the narrowness of the people's vote, the compromise in the deal.

 

But the extremist "small elites" won't. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I agree if you have 3 options that’s the outcome. 

 

I also agree its not particulary fair on leavers but I think that’s where we heading. However, at the same time significant changes shouldn’t happen on tiny majorities of a referendum.

 

You want to make a significant change it should require a significant majority imo, albeit a completely different discussion. 

 

ps. I did that quiz today. Surprised with my result but I don’t think this a small elite. I think it’s more people going wtf when face the realities of a situation.

It is the outcome if you have two options as in Boris's suggestion. The Leave vote will be a lot more split than the Remain vote in a "Remain or No deal Leave" choice.

[Victorian]

Not convinced that remain / leave with no deal splits the leave vote per se.     In the assumption it does then maybe it should be a two-way primary choice with a secondary option.

 

Remain

Leave *

 

* (Leave with no deal or leave after renegotiated deal)

 

 

 

 

[doctor jambo]

TO be honest I'd now prefer either a  hard brexit or remain.

 

 

Medicines shortage?

We export masses of pharma.

Much of what is prescribed either comes from large generic markets- India etc, domestic producers or the US/ Swiss and so on

Food shortage? we need the food we produce so its fine, we can cut food IMPORTS and use domestic

Or non EU sources based on OUR needs- AUS/NZ/US and so on

What other nation would give away territorial water access to allow what comes out of it to be sold abroad? feckin none

The EU are behaving as a corrupt cartel

Our leaders are rubbish, but theirs have lost the plot

They think strong arming will work- it did with Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and their governments capitulated

May should pull the "deal" plug.

we exit, we do what we want and to hell with them- no cash input, no concessions, no land grab, no influence, hard border Ireland- if the N Irish object then that is the price of the Union- don't like it - helloooo referendum and hope the republicans win so the "troubles " become Irelands problem .

Or we stay

 

 

[Auld Reekin']

1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

TO be honest I'd now prefer either a  hard brexit or remain.

 

 

Medicines shortage?

We export masses of pharma.

Much of what is prescribed either comes from large generic markets- India etc, domestic producers or the US/ Swiss and so on

Food shortage? we need the food we produce so its fine, we can cut food IMPORTS and use domestic

Or non EU sources based on OUR needs- AUS/NZ/US and so on

What other nation would give away territorial water access to allow what comes out of it to be sold abroad? feckin none

The EU are behaving as a corrupt cartel

Our leaders are rubbish, but theirs have lost the plot

They think strong arming will work- it did with Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and their governments capitulated

May should pull the "deal" plug.

we exit, we do what we want and to hell with them- no cash input, no concessions, no land grab, no influence, hard border Ireland- if the N Irish object then that is the price of the Union- don't like it - helloooo referendum and hope the republicans win so the "troubles " become Irelands problem .

Or we stay

 

 

 

  Stay it is then...

[Thunderstruck]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I agree if you have 3 options that’s the outcome. 

 

I also agree its not particulary fair on leavers but I think that’s where we heading. However, at the same time significant changes shouldn’t happen on tiny majorities of a referendum.

 

You want to make a significant change it should require a significant majority imo, albeit a completely different discussion. 

 

ps. I did that quiz today. Surprised with my result but I don’t think this a small elite. I think it’s more people going wtf when face the realities of a situation.

 

If there are 3 options of two extremes and a middle ground, the middle ground is going to be favoured by the majority - it is a quirk of human nature. Pollsters will shy away from a choice between three options for precisely that reason. 

 

Any further referendum will not be the ‘People’s Vote’ it will be the People’s chance to review their earlier decision based on new and, we hope, better information. 

 

David Davis, the Brexiteer, said this on 27 Nov 2002, ‘The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee...said that Clement Attlee...famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators.

‘Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested.’

 

I think we can agree with Davis - at least as far as the above statement is concerned. Maybe not - we do have a few posters of the ‘vote first, answer questions later’ persuasion. 

 

Any referendum that that is going to carry any weight and achieve the aim of rigorously tested arguments cannot be cobbled together and held in several weeks or even months.

 

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) specifies a minimum of 10 weeks notice for a referendum. But...

 

The Electoral Commission guidance states that there should be at least 6 months between legislating for and holding any electoral event. Not always possible but a vote with such far-reaching consequences deserves careful planning and organisation. 

 

The Electoral Commission must, under the PPERA, ‘quality check’ the questions. This requires consultation - not an ‘overnight’ exercise. 

 

The mechanics of running any poll are now quite complex (the large percentage of voters with Absent Votes adds to complexity and time pressures) and compressing the timetable will add to risk that voters are disenfranchised. 

 

If it isn’t conducted with care and consideration, any future referendum will inevitably lead to the ‘losers’ demanding a third poll. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Thunderstruck

[Francis Albert]

32 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Not convinced that remain / leave with no deal splits the leave vote per se.     In the assumption it does then maybe it should be a two-way primary choice with a secondary option.

 

Remain

Leave *

 

* (Leave with no deal or leave after renegotiated deal)

 

 

 

 

Of course it would split the Leave vote which did not vote for a cliff edge and were assured by the Leave campaign that it would not happen. But the proposed deal would also to some extent split the remain voters because it would demonstrate the wilder realms of Project Fear were nonsense.Soft remainers like me would accept it as a reasonable compromise. be attracted to it because it retains (depending on the detail of future relationship) many of the benefits of eu membership.

 

As for your suggested options for a new peoples vote I think I am reasonably intelligent but I don't understand the choice offered here. Pity all those poor thick racists!

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Of course it would split the Leave vote which did not vote for a cliff edge and were assured by the Leave campaign that it would not happen. But the proposed deal would also to some extent split the remain voters because it would demonstrate the wilder realms of Project Fear were nonsense.Soft remainers like me would accept it as a reasonable compromise. be attracted to it because it retains (depending on the detail of future relationship) many of the benefits of eu membership.

 

As for your suggested options 0 for a new peoples vote I think I am reasonably intelligent but I don't understand the choice offered here. Pity all those poor thick racists!

 

 

It would be remain or leave with a second choice on leave.   If leave wins then it's either leave with no deal or leave but renegotiate with the EU.     

 

There may be no better or not much different deal to get with the EU but the next government (esp. if it isn't the Tories) should be given the opportunity to negotiate.    If would represent a reset to default position therefore the government of the day should have that opportunity.     

 

A referendum campaign involving the increased complexity of options and the infinitely better awareness of all the consequences involved would be night and day from the information vacuum and deceit of the last one.     For that reason alone it would be fully justified and legitimised as a referendum to supercede the last one.

[Boris]

13 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Of course it would split the Leave vote which did not vote for a cliff edge and were assured by the Leave campaign that it would not happen. But the proposed deal would also to some extent split the remain voters because it would demonstrate the wilder realms of Project Fear were nonsense.Soft remainers like me would accept it as a reasonable compromise. be attracted to it because it retains (depending on the detail of future relationship) many of the benefits of eu membership.

 

As for your suggested options for a new peoples vote I think I am reasonably intelligent but I don't understand the choice offered here. Pity all those poor thick racists!

 

 

You see that's interesting.  All along the narrative has been (not from you I may add!) that we need to respect the vote and that that means leaving the SM/CU.

 

 

[doctor jambo]

Plato, and later Cicero considered the three options of government.

1- monarchy

2- aristocracy

3- the people

 

they identified issues with all being 1-- kings can be capricious 

2- aristocracy self  serving

3-the people unchecked would lead to chaos

 

they identified the ideal as a balance of all three.

 

cameron plumped for option 3, causing chaos leaving option 2 proving to be self serving, while option 1 sits back and does and says nothing.

 

oh the prescience of history

 

[Victorian]

To add..

 

The secondary option could be done via a side ballot paper for remain or leave voters or it could be part of one paper and only counts if the primary option is marked as leave.

[Francis Albert]

13 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It would be remain or leave with a second choice on leave.   If leave wins then it's either leave with no deal or leave but renegotiate with the EU.     

 

There may be no better or not much different deal to get with the EU but the next government (esp. if it isn't the Tories) should be given the opportunity to negotiate.    If would represent a reset to default position therefore the government of the day should have that opportunity.     

 

A referendum campaign involving the increased complexity of options and the infinitely better awareness of all the consequences involved would be night and day from the information vacuum and deceit of the last one.     For that reason alone it would be fully justified and legitimised as a referendum to supercede the last one.

The default position is we leave in about 4 months time.

If we don't know the outcome of this purely hypothetical renegotiated deal or indeed how the non-binding political declaration translates into a binding agreement we will still be deciding as much in the dark as first time around. 

And who knows lies and deceit might even still feature!

Edited November 23, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

8 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

You see that's interesting.  All along the narrative has been (not from you I may add!) that we need to respect the vote and that that means leaving the SM/CU.

 

 

Maybe from small extremist clique but that has been a small part of the narrative

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The default position is we leave in about 4 months time.

If we don't know the outcome of this purelyb hypothetical renegotiated deal or indeed how the non-binding political declaration translates into a binding agreement we will still be deciding as much in the dark as first time around. 

And who knows lies a deceit might even still feature!

 

I think the over-riding point is that the current government has achieved only a 'zugzwang' position for itself and the country.     To move on from the impossible position we are in,    the next government should have an opportunity to effectively abandon what has gone before and revisit the negotiations.     Default would be to set aside the original referendum.

[Boris]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Maybe from small extremist clique but that has been a small part of the narrative

 

That's pretty much been the Government's position all along.  Leaving the SM/CU

[Victorian]

Unfortunately Diane Abbott has had something to say on this matter.   Normally not very good at saying something,   she may this time have been quite good at saying nothing.    

[Francis Albert]

21 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

That's pretty much been the Government's position all along.  Leaving the SM/CU

Since we have the proposed deal we have now, hardly "all along".

Or should the UK have opened negotiations with its closing position?

[Francis Albert]

24 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I think the over-riding point is that the current government has achieved only a 'zugzwang' position for itself and the country.     To move on from the impossible position we are in,    the next government should have an opportunity to effectively abandon what has gone before and revisit the negotiations.     Default would be to set aside the original referendum.

Repeating myself but default means leaving with no deal in about 4 months time.

What evidence do you have for believing or imagining that  the EU will agree to reopen negotiations? And offer the UK a better deal? With the next Government. And then maybe the one after that?

[Victorian]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Repeating myself but default means leaving with no deal in about 4 months time.

What evidence do you have for believing or imagining that  the EU will agree to reopen negotiations? And offer the UK a better deal? With the next Government. And then maybe the one after that?

 

Well you have your position on it and it differs from mine.    I see the negligent and botched process as so unfit for purpose that it should be null and void.

 

In the event of a change of government,   at the very least,   that government should have some opportunity to review and revisit.    That government will potentially be responsible for executing the transition period and future relationship negotiations so it should not be hamstrung by the failures of this government.     The next government can only be held accountable if it can exhaust all possibilities ante- article 50.

[The Mighty Thor]

20 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Well you have your position on it and it differs from mine.    I see the negligent and botched process as so unfit for purpose that it should be null and void.

 

In the event of a change of government,   at the very least,   that government should have some opportunity to review and revisit.    That government will potentially be responsible for executing the transition period and future relationship negotiations so it should not be hamstrung by the failures of this government.     The next government can only be held accountable if it can exhaust all possibilities ante- article 50.

The problem is it will be the same government with a different leader. 

Most likely or of the lying arseholes who have backed us into this economic suicide to start with. 

Winner! 

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

The problem is it will be the same government with a different leader. 

Most likely or of the lying arseholes who have backed us into this economic suicide to start with. 

Winner! 

 

If the Tories win a GE then they have a clear mandate to proceed with this deal.    Their opponents have no mandate to block it.    

[The Mighty Thor]

13 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

If the Tories win a GE then they have a clear mandate to proceed with this deal.    Their opponents have no mandate to block it.    

This is the bit I don't get. Labour under the dosser are not behaving like an effective opposition. Their 6 tests are a joke. 

So it's hard Brexit under BOJO or JRM or some other snake oil salesman, because lets be realistic, that cluster**** ain't getting through parliament. 

No alternative, no contrary voice. 

It's the confirmation of the death of Labour writ large, for those who couldn't already see it's been irrelevant since Broon took the reigns. 

The implosion of the UK has been overdue for years.

[Shanks said no]

Gibraltar - co sovereignty with Spain - wow

[AlimOzturk]

Concession after concession from this weak willed Prime minister and Government. 

[Cade]

We did tell you so

[Victorian]

The UK seems to be paying through the nose to maintain that woman's lifestyle and status.     £2b to buy DUP.    Handing over sovereignty in Gibraltar.     I hope the Queen has the crown jewels squirrelled safely away.

[Ulysses]

Here's a piece in the Guardian that sets out in further detail the points I was making earlier this week about why the EU 27 placed a lower priority on trade with the UK in the withdrawal negotiations than the UK thought it would.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/24/eu-wont-miss-britain-after-brexit

 

It does a better job of it than I did, by looking further at how this plays out in some individual countries and by interviewing one or two knowledgeable people in those countries.

[Unknown user]

54 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Here's a piece in the Guardian that sets out in further detail the points I was making earlier this week about why the EU 27 placed a lower priority on trade with the UK in the withdrawal negotiations than the UK thought it would.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/24/eu-wont-miss-britain-after-brexit

 

It does a better job of it than I did, by looking further at how this plays out in some individual countries and by interviewing one or two knowledgeable people in those countries.

 

Good article, and pretty much exactly what I've been saying for some time that the EU CAN'T give the UK a good deal, for their own sake. 

 

Brexit might be our priority, but the rest of Europe is more interested in their future, not ours. 

 

[Mikey1874]

2 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

Concession after concession from this weak willed Prime minister and Government. 

 

No

 

UK is just in a weak position 

[AlimOzturk]

27 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

No

 

UK is just in a weak position 

 

Caused by this current shambles of a government. 

[Cade]

Brexiter view:

EU gives in to UK demands: "We should have left years ago, long live Empire 2.0"

EU gives the UK nothing: "We are right to be leaving this extortion racket"

 

Reality is that the EU can more easily absorb the effects of Brexit.

They hold all the cards.

 

[Mikey1874]

27 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Caused by this current shambles of a government. 

 

Caused by the EU being a very powerful block. Anyone leaving is therefore in a weak position. As Cade above says EU holds all the cards.

 

But agree government is shambles. That is mainly because the Conservatives haven't resolved their bitter and wide disagreements on Europe currently being played out. 

 

Probably need a different Government  to deliver this as the Tories are incapable which would be a Labour Government even if in coalition say with the SNP. That would be interesting.  

Edited November 24, 2018 by Mikey1874

[Victorian]

Yes it would be highly desirable to see a left wing coalition of the Labour Party and some Scottish people taking over and delivering a diluted,   political only Brexit due to the Tories finally paying at the ballot box for their arrogance.    It will also be highly desirable to see the referendum majority in Northern Ireland delivered from the tyranny of the DUP,    who have refused to even consider the concept of representing the people of their country.

 

All the inept,  corrupt and deranged could end up with a much less favourable outcome than would have transpired,   had they not ****ed about fighting with each other.

[Francis Albert]

49 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Yes it would be highly desirable to see a left wing coalition of the Labour Party and some Scottish people taking over and delivering a diluted,   political only Brexit due to the Tories finally paying at the ballot box for their arrogance.    It will also be highly desirable to see the referendum majority in Northern Ireland delivered from the tyranny of the DUP,    who have refused to even consider the concept of representing the people of their country.

 

All the inept,  corrupt and deranged could end up with a much less favourable outcome than would have transpired,   had they not ****ed about fighting with each other.

What is a "political only Brexit"?

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Caused by the EU being a very powerful block. Anyone leaving is therefore in a weak position. As Cade above says EU holds all the cards.

 

But agree government is shambles. That is mainly because the Conservatives haven't resolved their bitter and wide disagreements on Europe currently being played out. 

 

Probably need a different Government  to deliver this as the Tories are incapable which would be a Labour Government even if in coalition say with the SNP. That would be interesting.  

What would be a Labour/SNP coalition's position be on Brexit?

[Francis Albert]

And I am confused. From a Remainer's perspective I'd have thought concessions to the EU were a good thing. But most Remainers on the thread seem to castigate May and the Government for making concessions.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

 

Reality is that the EU can more easily absorb the effects of Brexit.

They hold all the cards.

 

 

It's not about the EU holding all the cards, and in fact I wouldn't say that they do (although they hold a lot of them).  It's about the EU being asked to do things it can't do.  A party to a negotiation will only make an offer of something if it can offer it, or else if it has no choice.  So in a negotiation if we ask the other side to offer something it doesn't have, we are on a fool's errand.

 

The reason why the EU is being asked to do things it can't do is because the British government and the British political system have misjudged the situation.

[Victorian]

31 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

What is a "political only Brexit"?

 

A formal withdrawal from membership and treaties but with a replacement relationship closely replicating the previous membership.     Something close to the existing customs union and single market.    Continuation of free movement.     Continued jurisdiction from the ECJ.      A very soft Brexit.    Brexit Lite.    Diet Brexit.     Virtual Bremain.

[Francis Albert]

20 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

A formal withdrawal from membership and treaties but with a replacement relationship closely replicating the previous membership.     Something close to the existing customs union and single market.    Continuation of free movement.     Continued jurisdiction from the ECJ.      A very soft Brexit.    Brexit Lite.    Diet Brexit.     Virtual Bremain.

Thanks.