This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Dear Theresa May,
Thankyou for your amusing cabinet choices - but - the only reason you are PM is because everyone else either ran away or stabbed each other in the back or front. You have one thing to do - help us leave the EU in a way that won't f*ck up my children's future. Please can you tell me what your plan is quickly.
Thankyou for your amusing cabinet choices - but - the only reason you are PM is because everyone else either ran away or stabbed each other in the back or front. You have one thing to do - help us leave the EU in a way that won't f*ck up my children's future. Please can you tell me what your plan is quickly.
3
4
In reply to pasbury:
What about all our futures...?!
Anyway, not to worry, she's gathering a team of all the talents....
What about all our futures...?!
Anyway, not to worry, she's gathering a team of all the talents....
1
In reply to pasbury:
Dear pasbury,
I'm going to rush policy through, in order to tell you asap what the plan is.
Just because you are special.
To hell with careful planning, and some deep thought, you need to know, so shall it be done!
Love, as ever,
Theresa.
> Dear Theresa May,
> Please can you tell me what your plan is quickly.
Dear pasbury,
I'm going to rush policy through, in order to tell you asap what the plan is.
Just because you are special.
To hell with careful planning, and some deep thought, you need to know, so shall it be done!
Love, as ever,
Theresa.
18
4
In reply to pasbury:
To be fair, they are pretty F***ed now. Cost of getting on the property latter is insane, cost of a degree, should that be your route maybe 40k plus, climate change staring to bite, pensions pretty much worthless, pension age getting ever further away. This was all before June the 23rd!
To be fair, they are pretty F***ed now. Cost of getting on the property latter is insane, cost of a degree, should that be your route maybe 40k plus, climate change staring to bite, pensions pretty much worthless, pension age getting ever further away. This was all before June the 23rd!
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Shouldn't they have had a plan *before* the referendum?
> Dear pasbury,
> I'm going to rush policy through, in order to tell you asap what the plan is.
Shouldn't they have had a plan *before* the referendum?
9
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
They didn't need one because they'd decided it would all be great! And if you dare doubt that, that's called PROJECT FEAR and you're being unpatriotic.
They didn't need one because they'd decided it would all be great! And if you dare doubt that, that's called PROJECT FEAR and you're being unpatriotic.
14
1
In reply to pasbury:
She's going to implement the leave campaign's brexit plan, obviously.
What's that you say? There wasn't a plan?
She's going to implement the leave campaign's brexit plan, obviously.
What's that you say? There wasn't a plan?
2
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Just at the moment, sticking pencils up our noses, putting our underpants on our heads and saying "wibble wibble" seems to be about the most sensible option.
> She's going to implement the leave campaign's brexit plan, obviously.
> What's that you say? There wasn't a plan?
Just at the moment, sticking pencils up our noses, putting our underpants on our heads and saying "wibble wibble" seems to be about the most sensible option.
10
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Not asking for an overview of new policy. WHy would you need to rush a new policy through to tell the public how they are going to move forward with the brexit? We want to know what the plan for negotiating our way out of the EU is? There must be some kind of plan for what happens next!
> Dear pasbury,
> I'm going to rush policy through, in order to tell you asap what the plan is.
> Just because you are special.
> To hell with careful planning, and some deep thought, you need to know, so shall it be done!
> Love, as ever,
> Theresa.
Not asking for an overview of new policy. WHy would you need to rush a new policy through to tell the public how they are going to move forward with the brexit? We want to know what the plan for negotiating our way out of the EU is? There must be some kind of plan for what happens next!
1
In reply to doz generale:
I think the gist of the plan has been "we'll negotiate".
Until you know the outcome of those negotiations you don't know what situation you'll have to deal with and what to plan for. I don't see why this isn't pretty clear to most people who keep demanding a 'plan' all the time.
Ideally the UK wants to leave the EU and have control over the numbers of people who come into the country while maintaining its full membership of the single market. Now it's unlikely the EU will want to give us full access to the single market if we don't accept total freedom of movement.
So the 'plan' comes into play, we negotiate. This normally means a compromise on both sides until both parties come something they can live with. The exact nature of that arrangement is of course unknown yet. If we get total single market access then we'll probably have to compromise on immigration to some degree. If we're unwilling to compromise on that then we'll have to compromise on the amount of single market access we have. The EU don't want to give it away for free but they equally don't want to lose our trade given how weak the EU will be soon.
The point is, no one can known what the outcome will be so what plans you can make are pretty limited. What sorts of things do you think we can properly plan for in advance? and what suggestions do you have for such plans?
I think the gist of the plan has been "we'll negotiate".
Until you know the outcome of those negotiations you don't know what situation you'll have to deal with and what to plan for. I don't see why this isn't pretty clear to most people who keep demanding a 'plan' all the time.
Ideally the UK wants to leave the EU and have control over the numbers of people who come into the country while maintaining its full membership of the single market. Now it's unlikely the EU will want to give us full access to the single market if we don't accept total freedom of movement.
So the 'plan' comes into play, we negotiate. This normally means a compromise on both sides until both parties come something they can live with. The exact nature of that arrangement is of course unknown yet. If we get total single market access then we'll probably have to compromise on immigration to some degree. If we're unwilling to compromise on that then we'll have to compromise on the amount of single market access we have. The EU don't want to give it away for free but they equally don't want to lose our trade given how weak the EU will be soon.
The point is, no one can known what the outcome will be so what plans you can make are pretty limited. What sorts of things do you think we can properly plan for in advance? and what suggestions do you have for such plans?
2
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Partly playing devil's advocate here, but how can you say with clarity that "Ideally the UK wants to leave the EU and have control over the numbers of people who come into the country while maintaining its full membership of the single market."?
The referendum choice didn't include that detail - it just said in or out. A country could be out and have free movement of people (e.g. Norway - held up by some of the Leave campaigners, e.g. Dan Hannan, as a model to follow).
You could argue that the stance on borders is clear from the Leave campaigning, but we keep being told that we can't expect whatever the leave campaign to be adhered to because they weren't an alternative govt (so their lies / undeliverable promises should be ignored). How is it that we are somehow bound by a specific policy choice on free movement, if that wasn't spelt out in the voting options?
Partly playing devil's advocate here, but how can you say with clarity that "Ideally the UK wants to leave the EU and have control over the numbers of people who come into the country while maintaining its full membership of the single market."?
The referendum choice didn't include that detail - it just said in or out. A country could be out and have free movement of people (e.g. Norway - held up by some of the Leave campaigners, e.g. Dan Hannan, as a model to follow).
You could argue that the stance on borders is clear from the Leave campaigning, but we keep being told that we can't expect whatever the leave campaign to be adhered to because they weren't an alternative govt (so their lies / undeliverable promises should be ignored). How is it that we are somehow bound by a specific policy choice on free movement, if that wasn't spelt out in the voting options?
Post edited at 13:36
2
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
You've missed my point. Before any negotiation takes place there needs to be planning for the negotiation and planning for any possible outcome and planning for the things which are inevitable. For example what is the plan to replace EU funding/subsidy which comes back to the UK? What is the plan to replace the decision making EU bureaucracy? Going into any sort of negotiation without a plan is crazy no?
> Until you know the outcome of those negotiations you don't know what situation you'll have to deal with and what to plan for. I don't see why this isn't pretty clear to most people who keep demanding a 'plan' all the time.
You've missed my point. Before any negotiation takes place there needs to be planning for the negotiation and planning for any possible outcome and planning for the things which are inevitable. For example what is the plan to replace EU funding/subsidy which comes back to the UK? What is the plan to replace the decision making EU bureaucracy? Going into any sort of negotiation without a plan is crazy no?
1
In reply to doz generale:
Exactly, a good negotiator knows what they can and can't give away in negotiations, and what they really want in return before they start. The thing is, the things the government deems 'sacrificeable' are probably not the things the public deem sacrificeable. One example is the fishing industry - all the fishermen voted 'leave' under the impression that they'd have exclusive access in a 200 mile zone, increased quotas and no foreign-owned 'flag ships'. The reality is that some (if not most) of those things are likely to be sacrificed to keep the London finance industry afloat for example, simply because that's more important for the economy.
Exactly, a good negotiator knows what they can and can't give away in negotiations, and what they really want in return before they start. The thing is, the things the government deems 'sacrificeable' are probably not the things the public deem sacrificeable. One example is the fishing industry - all the fishermen voted 'leave' under the impression that they'd have exclusive access in a 200 mile zone, increased quotas and no foreign-owned 'flag ships'. The reality is that some (if not most) of those things are likely to be sacrificed to keep the London finance industry afloat for example, simply because that's more important for the economy.
1
In reply to doz generale:
Well if you're thinking about that sort of stuff, then I'd imagine they do have all sorts of plans for possible scenarios but it's probably not wise to let your opponents know about them when you're about to enter into negotiations.
As for EU funding being replaced with UK funding I think the only sensible assumption to make at this stage is to assume everything will be replaced like for like in the short term, then subject to review. So most stuff will probably stay the same, some stuff will get cut and other stuff will get included or boosted. Depends on futures budgets, which again, can't really be planned too far in advance when we don't know the extent of the finical impacts from leaving the EU yet.
Well if you're thinking about that sort of stuff, then I'd imagine they do have all sorts of plans for possible scenarios but it's probably not wise to let your opponents know about them when you're about to enter into negotiations.
As for EU funding being replaced with UK funding I think the only sensible assumption to make at this stage is to assume everything will be replaced like for like in the short term, then subject to review. So most stuff will probably stay the same, some stuff will get cut and other stuff will get included or boosted. Depends on futures budgets, which again, can't really be planned too far in advance when we don't know the extent of the finical impacts from leaving the EU yet.
In reply to andyfallsoff:
https://sotonpolitics.org/2016/07/13/after-brexit-what-next-not-much-mandat...
More or less brings up your issue.
It's entirely possible that Remain has the strongest mandate and will leave the most people satisfied (or least people dissatisfied is probably more accurate!)
> Partly playing devil's advocate here, but how can you say with clarity that "Ideally the UK wants to leave the EU and have control over the numbers of people who come into the country while maintaining its full membership of the single market."?
> The referendum choice didn't include that detail - it just said in or out. A country could be out and have free movement of people (e.g. Norway - held up by some of the Leave campaigners, e.g. Dan Hannan, as a model to follow).
> You could argue that the stance on borders is clear from the Leave campaigning, but we keep being told that we can't expect whatever the leave campaign to be adhered to because they weren't an alternative govt (so their lies / undeliverable promises should be ignored). How is it that we are somehow bound by a specific policy choice on free movement, if that wasn't spelt out in the voting options?
https://sotonpolitics.org/2016/07/13/after-brexit-what-next-not-much-mandat...
More or less brings up your issue.
It's entirely possible that Remain has the strongest mandate and will leave the most people satisfied (or least people dissatisfied is probably more accurate!)
2
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Hmmm. The maths doesn't work tho. The £350m per week, after accounting for rebate and other direct costs returned from the EU means our weekly subs to be part of the free market were much much smaller than the economic benefits we earn from being in the EU. So we won't be able to continue funding at current levels.
Unless....... we have a significant economic boom as a result. Not seen anyone trying that argument yet.
Oh and we've been told that £350m per week is for the NHS so it's all been spent!
Hmmm. The maths doesn't work tho. The £350m per week, after accounting for rebate and other direct costs returned from the EU means our weekly subs to be part of the free market were much much smaller than the economic benefits we earn from being in the EU. So we won't be able to continue funding at current levels.
Unless....... we have a significant economic boom as a result. Not seen anyone trying that argument yet.
Oh and we've been told that £350m per week is for the NHS so it's all been spent!
In reply to Badgers:
Last time I looked at the rough figures I think after the rebate and accounting for the EU money which is spent here we'll be saving about £8.5bn a year in government (tax payers) money.
So we can still match every penny of funding if we wished and if the economic effects of leaving the EU results in a lowering of tax revenues in the coming years we'd still have an £8.5bn buffer before it affected anything. Even if revenue falls by more than this in the first few years, it can be made up in later years as we're still going to get that £8.5bn a year saving every year even after we've adapted and grown again.
But of course we'll never really know the true cost or saving because just as it's impossible to predict how the economy will fair in the years to come, it's equally impossible to know how it would have fared if we'd had staid in the EU. For all we know, in 10 years time the EU could be a broken mess facing economic collapses and we could be bobbing along just fine without them, yes growth could be down but it could well be much worse if we'd have staid. Who knows.
Last time I looked at the rough figures I think after the rebate and accounting for the EU money which is spent here we'll be saving about £8.5bn a year in government (tax payers) money.
So we can still match every penny of funding if we wished and if the economic effects of leaving the EU results in a lowering of tax revenues in the coming years we'd still have an £8.5bn buffer before it affected anything. Even if revenue falls by more than this in the first few years, it can be made up in later years as we're still going to get that £8.5bn a year saving every year even after we've adapted and grown again.
But of course we'll never really know the true cost or saving because just as it's impossible to predict how the economy will fair in the years to come, it's equally impossible to know how it would have fared if we'd had staid in the EU. For all we know, in 10 years time the EU could be a broken mess facing economic collapses and we could be bobbing along just fine without them, yes growth could be down but it could well be much worse if we'd have staid. Who knows.
In reply to pasbury:
This article sums up the difficulties quite well
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-abou...
If there is a benefit in leaving the EU, your kids may be lucky enough to live long enough to see it, but the next decade isn't going to be easy
This article sums up the difficulties quite well
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-abou...
If there is a benefit in leaving the EU, your kids may be lucky enough to live long enough to see it, but the next decade isn't going to be easy
In reply to pasbury:
I should think the current plan would be damage limitation with investors into the UK, don't you ?
I should think the current plan would be damage limitation with investors into the UK, don't you ?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Scaremongering (if lighthearted) commentary like this blog is enough to convert a firm Remainer to Brexit. Of course there are hurdles, but the article breezes over our negotiating trump cards if it mentions them at all. As I mentioned on another thread, while supportive of the EU for a wide range of reasons, I am rapidly losing the conviction that Remaining is the best economic choice. The likelihood of a short-lived drop in business investment seems pretty strong but I really don't envisage the trading relationship with Europe to look very different 5 years from now. Can you convince me why it should? Should we accept the withdrawal of financial passporting yet agree not to put tariffs on German and French cars. Why would we do that? Is that what Germany wants?
> This article sums up the difficulties quite well
> If there is a benefit in leaving the EU, your kids may be lucky enough to live long enough to see it, but the next decade isn't going to be easy
Scaremongering (if lighthearted) commentary like this blog is enough to convert a firm Remainer to Brexit. Of course there are hurdles, but the article breezes over our negotiating trump cards if it mentions them at all. As I mentioned on another thread, while supportive of the EU for a wide range of reasons, I am rapidly losing the conviction that Remaining is the best economic choice. The likelihood of a short-lived drop in business investment seems pretty strong but I really don't envisage the trading relationship with Europe to look very different 5 years from now. Can you convince me why it should? Should we accept the withdrawal of financial passporting yet agree not to put tariffs on German and French cars. Why would we do that? Is that what Germany wants?
In reply to pasbury:
In fact Children may well have worse prospects in many parts of the EU if you look at the evidence. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy have very high youth unemployment because the EU itself is imposing extremely hard fiscal measures against these countries in order to maintain the failing Euro as a functioning currency. This has essentially caused demand to disappear from these countries economies and caused a crisis of legitmcay that is the root cause of the unwanted right wing explosion in Europe we are seeing.
To me the EU seems like a destructive force at present not a cohesive one for the youth of Europe today. The EU has over reached itself. It was supposed to ensure peace and stability in Europe but it is actually doing the opposite by trying to integrate disparate economies and cultures into one financial and economic bloc with currency that only works for the core. Unless the economic gutting of the periphery is addressed properly the EU is likely to rip itself apart in political turmoil; hopefully the current movements will bring about change that will head that off.
In fact Children may well have worse prospects in many parts of the EU if you look at the evidence. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy have very high youth unemployment because the EU itself is imposing extremely hard fiscal measures against these countries in order to maintain the failing Euro as a functioning currency. This has essentially caused demand to disappear from these countries economies and caused a crisis of legitmcay that is the root cause of the unwanted right wing explosion in Europe we are seeing.
To me the EU seems like a destructive force at present not a cohesive one for the youth of Europe today. The EU has over reached itself. It was supposed to ensure peace and stability in Europe but it is actually doing the opposite by trying to integrate disparate economies and cultures into one financial and economic bloc with currency that only works for the core. Unless the economic gutting of the periphery is addressed properly the EU is likely to rip itself apart in political turmoil; hopefully the current movements will bring about change that will head that off.
3
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...