UKC

Quite simply isn't going to happen.

Our governments are clueless about how to actually do it, and I'm convinced it's impossible.

This country has shot itself in the foot both politicially and economically.

Is it possible to have a government that actually listens to its people, and is it possible for us as a country to seek solutions to problems bigger than whether or not we are part of a large trading block and wasting time effort and conflict over such an immotive topic.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I also actually think that we might not end up 'Brexiting'. If we don't, and Nigel Farage makes a return to UKIP, we might see an resurgence of the UKIP vote. Now that Tim Farron has resigned, we might end up with Jo Swanson. A Lib Dem leader who lots of Democrats have already stated they would vote for. Labour have demonstrated to the Scottish people, that they haven't been completely wiped out - could there be a major Labour resurgence in Scotland?

Oh and Labour seemingly forcing the Tory's to come out and state that they will be scaling back austerity and potentially increasing public sector pay for the first time in god knows how many years. This has got to be one (many!!) of Corbyn's major victories.

All of that, with the conservatives seemingly getting any and every decision wrong. The major headlines; 'weak and wobbly', 'coalition of chaos'. People say Labour should stop cheering as they haven't won the election. They said that (including me) that Labour were staring down the barrel of a gun facing political annihilation.

The only party facing political annihilation now is the Conservative party.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


They don't know how to do it, they have no clue, they have no positioning, no strategy, not even a majority.

But it will happen, art 50 is triggered, the legal mechanism is clear. In 1.5 years, will we have passed all the major laws we need (immigration, great repeal bills etc etc) ? Will we have replaced more than 700 international treaties, are we going to have a fta with the EU ?

In 1.5 years, even with a parliamentary majority, that's already impossible, without, even more impossible. The only way we could be ready in time would be with a massive transfer of power to the executive, which is pretty scary.

Whichever way you look at it, whichever type of brexit you can imagine, it's looks pretty much fucked to me.

In reply to JayK:


Too late for that ! It's done, Theresa May triggered art 50, with no preparations, she f*cked us, and there is nothing we can do. It's happening. Whether we are ready or not.

In reply to RomTheBear:

youtube.com/watch?v=9EH1G4EwljM&

In reply to RomTheBear:

The French PM has left the door open for us not to Brexit (if we eventually change our minds).

In reply to Timmd:

It's such an unholy mess that I did wonder whether there couldn't be some sort of 'trial separation'... agree some basic stuff but accept significant compromises on both sides - e.g. we won't pay 100 billion but won't get any more grants, accept free movement in return for passporting etc etc etc with a firm agreement to revisit negotiations in 5 years time.

As far as possible kick the can down the alley, in other words, while both sides evolve.

In reply to JayK:

>. Labour have demonstrated to the Scottish people, that they haven't been completely wiped out - could there be a major Labour resurgence in Scotland?

Hopefully the votors will realise that it is no longer safe to vote Labour ( as they might actually win) and with Momentum in charge of Labour and with their tails up, that will wake up voters, and stop the hard left from taking power at the next election.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Save us from Jeremy Corbyn he's pretty spineless, and changes his mind too much to suit the topic

In reply to Timmd:

I'm sure we'll always be welcome to re-join. But again, no majority for that in parliament, and that seems unlilely. Give it 20 years.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

It probably isn't possible for government of the form we have to tackle the really big problems we face as a species, the commitments required are huge and the payback distant and uncertain. There will always be someone willing to offer the cheaper easier option and we choose short term gain every time.

Brexit is by comparison with something like meaningful action on climate change a small problem. It is perfectly possible (if pointless) for us to leave the EU on reasonable terms, honoring our commitments and adopting a relationship with them like Norway's. It requires government to undertake a public information program to explain the unpopular compromises they'll have to make. It requires honest statesmanship. We won't because the government has instead been conned into backing the undeliverable version meaning talks will inevitably stall and we'll be faced in 18 months with our 'no deal' ruin dressed up as a bullish victory for plucky little Britain proud and uncowed to save face. My only hope is nobody with power and one eye on their place in history will want to be indelibly associated with that decision so back to the people we go for a final decision. Will the press barons be powerful enough to drown out the voices of those who see brexit for what it is a second time around? I honestly have no idea.

I still think we're more likely to leave than not but I do still have hope.
jk

In reply to jkarran:
Why have all the pro Brexit who think it was all such a great idea to Brexit, gone quiet?

Are they still defending how great Brexit will be for everyone??

Triggering Article 50 was the easy bit, decoupling the UK from the EU, won't be, and we are probably going to get a raw deal, which I anticipated prior to the in /out vote.

I still insist that Brexit won't transpire into anything that actually has real meaning, other than an excuse to put prices up and shed jobs.lol

This mess might drag on for years.....

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


They are sitting back and laughing at the conspiracy theory type nutbags who are still posting nonsense like; "Brexit quite simply isn't going to happen. Our governments are clueless about how to actually do it, and I'm convinced it's impossible.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


OK, I'll confess up, I did vote leave in the end, even though I was completely undecided at the time.
The actual pros and cons are way above my pay grade of understanding, but I'm still not convinced the EU is the best thing since sliced bread. Anyway ...

I voted leave as an anti-establishment vote. At the time, all I could see was decades of Tory rule bleakly stretching out ahead of me, not a good option in my view.
I think I said at the time, hopefully the vote will be leave, then Cameron will resign and there'll be a GE resulting in a Lab/LibDem coalition. I was almost right, at least the Tories are well and truly on the ropes now, and hopefully I'll get to enjoy another Labour government in my lifetime. I feel considerably more optimistic than I did 13 months ago.

As for Brexit, seeing as Macron and Merkel have said we can come back in, I say do it. We may well be better off being out in the end, but the process of getting there is, by every passing day, a total f*ck up.

Who knows?!?!

In reply to Big Ger:
" ...nonsense like; ...Our governments are clueless about how to actually do it..."

Are you sure that's nonsense?
"The British Government has still not sent papers outlining its opening position for Brexit talks to the European Union, despite negotiations beginning on Monday.

EU sources told The Independent Brussels had sent its “positioning papers” to London four days ago and while similar documents were expected in return, nothing has arrived as Theresa May’s administration struggles to get on its feet.

Brexit Secretary David Davis confirmed on Thursday that talks to pull Britain out of the EU will begin on Monday regardless, despite cabinet splits over how to approach them and Ms May’s withdrawal plans not even being cemented in a Queen’s Speech."
- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-talks-opening-position...

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Selective quoting there mate.

Did/does anyone "know how to do Brexit", how may times has it happened for us to learn from?

In reply to Big Ger:
Were you expecting me to select an alternative quote which explains how the government is well on top of the Brexit process and very clear what to do next? I haven't got all night...

Maybe knowing that we haven't done a Brexit before might have been an incentive for the government to come up with some semblance of a plan. No chance: they're arrogant, complacent and lazy.

Try this if you want some more arguments as to how the government is hopelessly at sea:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/06/15/brexit-talks-start-on-monday-and...

In reply to Big Ger:


Sorry Ger, no conspiracy here, our (not mine or yours) government are genuinely clueless.

In reply to Lusk:

F*ck my old boots, thanks for the chaos you've helped cause on a whim!

In reply to Hugh J:


But that's meaningless Hugh, keeping within context; no one had a clue as to how to do Brexit, as this is the first time Article 50 has been invoked.

In reply to Hugh J:
It wasn't a whim, we needed a revolution, which are always painful, a British one, by votes.
The Tories have been totally destablised now, or would you be happy with continuing austerity going on for hell knows how many more years. Those chickens are coming home to roost for them now.


I should be thanking Cameron for setting up the referendum really, the way it's all blown up in their faces!

In reply to Big Ger:

Perhaps it would have been better for a "tinpot" country like Greece to try it first then?

In reply to Lusk:

Sorry Lusk, it sounds like you're scrambling for excuses. Revolution? Most people who shout that are just pissed off with the status quo but have no idea what to replace it with.

In reply to Big Ger:
"no one had a clue as to how to do Brexit, as this is the first time Article 50 has been invoked."

That really is no excuse. If you're going to do something for the first time, you at least plan for it, you work out scenarios, you come up with processes. But there's nothing: nobody has the slightest clue how to exit the EU because no effort was made to make any kind of plan. I find it quite beyond belief, the sheer lunatic ineptitude of the whole operation. It's as if involving Article 50 was some kind of magic wand that would do away with our membership overnight and reset everything to pre-EU days without any kind of hard work or effort.

In reply to Hugh J:

I'm pissed off and I know exactly what to replace the cause of my pissed offness with, a Labour Govt.
A serious probability now than it was 13 months ago.
This is getting repetitive.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Watching the European Parliament now, and the lead EU negotiator now says that the 'Door' that Macron said was open to back out of A50 is a door that has no rebates or opt outs.

If the EU really want the UK to back out, why make it more politically difficult for the Conservatives, and much more expensive for the UK , and so risking alienating Remainers with this tactic, who might conclude that it is better in those circumstances to stick to the plan to leave, as it will not be the status que, but a 'Hard Brentry '

Not a good tactic in my view from their best negotiator !

In reply to DanielByrd:


But Momentum are not spineless, and that is who you are voting for when you vote for Corbyn. As soon as Corbyn gets elected you will see his abdomen start to move and bulge as the Momentum alien that has got inside him starts pushing its way out of him.

In reply to Bob Kemp:




And, just how exactly were we supposed to "plan" for the intransigence, incoherence, and incompetence of the Ubber -bureaucracy of the EU?

Are you telling me that they have their sh!t totally together on an Brexit plan?

In reply to Big Ger:
Obviously you are right. The best approach to huge upheaval is to run around like headless chickens. Works every time.

In reply to MG:


Oh dear, your ability to read the invisible writing is your only worthwhile ability, isn't it? Dealing with what is actually written is your biggest let down.

In reply to Big Ger:
Leaving aside the issue of supposed intransigence and incompetence, which is a separate argument, the EU got a Brexit plan together in April. I don't know how good it is, but at least they have one.

In reply to Big Ger:



Where's that then? And yes I think so. But hey I sit in a European country so read some different newspapers to you. You'd be surprised how low down the scale Brexit is in the foreign press.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Not just TM, but parliament with the support of 80% (?) of the Labour party.

I know we all want to hold up May as the pinata to bash, but would Labour have not triggered article 50 if they had been in power? And is refusing to hold a referendum itself not less democratic than what Cameron offered?

In reply to Lusk:

I'm not sure that voting out has helped us get where we want to be.

Besides, the EU was more likely to keep Tory excesses in check. We now have May and others talking about this great opportunity to rip up the rule book.

There's every chance a new Tory leader will emerge, with just enough charisma to win back the 5-10 point lead that they need to stay in power if yet another election is called. This will be especially so if the growing activism of the left starts to overstep its mark and the undecided/swing voter develops a revulsion to far-left politics, seeing Corbyn as the incubator of/beholden to the "loony left" that he was rumoured to be.

Then what do we have: a hard-line Tory govt, with majority support and no EU oversight.

In reply to David Martin:

Looney left? I am beginning to think Corbyn is the only politician who is talking any sense at the moment, wether he can deliver is a different thing entirely.

In reply to David Martin:


Holding a referendum without releasing a whitepaper to the public, detailing the position of the UK and the ramifications should we leave, is anti-democratic IMO. It left the debate open to lies and rhetoric that could not be fact-checked, and meant the public did not have a clue what we were voting for.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

He might be talking sense. But there is a not-so-fringe proportion of the left who seem to rival radical Islam in their abilities to put all critical faculties and self-doubt to one side. Given the decline in left thinking over recent decades, the mainstream left has appeared reticent to be critical of this more extreme element's views, probably as they represented a sort of vanguard movement, or re-calibration of the range of thinking, to keep moderate views alive.

Maybe social media isn't an entirely accurate reflection of society at large. But it has been striking in the last few weeks the level of left-wing grand-standing and laying blame for all societies failings at the feet of the Tories. It seems there is no limit to what can be claimed, and there's a massive resurgence in left-activism, emboldened by Corbyn's relative success. The protest on Downing Street the other day seemed to exemplify this, but the outright hatred being vented on Facebook comments, thrown at anyone who opposes Corbyn has been remarkable. The exact bullying the left accuses the right of goes completely unchallenged when the left resorts to the same. That is the loony left; entirely bereft of limits and rife with hypocrisy. Corbyn has drawn huge support from these people and they will be demanding he supports them. In my old place of work, Corbyn personally lent support for their protests, even when they were completely misguided, which showed a concerning lack of critical thinking on his part.

I can't help but feel the left is at real risk of overstepping its mandate, and ignoring that the majority still didn't vote for left candidates. There's an entire half of the population that won't be buying in to this, no matter how incompetent May is.

In reply to Ciro:

The public should have been more than capable of picking through the spin. For me the result reflects more on the general public than it does on Cameron. We can't pin all society's failings or viewpoints on individuals.

In reply to David Martin:


How?

What sort of agreement are we going to attempt to negotiate with the EU?

What's our contingency plan if that negotiation fails?

We're almost a full a year on and it's still not clear what we've voted for. If we were to re-run the vote tomorrow, we still wouldn't be able to make a fully informed decision as "brexit means brexit" is about as detailed a roadmap for the future of the UK outside the EU as we've got.

In reply to Ciro:


And that in itself should be your answer. Who in their right mind votes for something as unclear as this? It is like voting for a political party with no manifesto.

That a majority went for it anyway would surely indicate that a substantial proportion of the population just don't care about the cost or are so desperate to distance themselves from the EU that they'll choose anything that vaguely promises to deliver it.

That doesn't make the referendum undemocratic.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


The point is, Corbyn is not in control of his supporters, he is the stalking horse to Momentum taking power . He can talk sense all he wants, but as soon as he is given power you will find out who really is in charge.

In reply to Jim C:

You're right, of course; far better put in charge someone who isn't talking any sense at all. You can certainly trust her to deliver ... er, what is she promising again?

In reply to john arran:


No one is saying May is remotely competent John , but I remember the militant tendency , and for me it survives within Momentum.( even the Morning Star says so)

I have never voted Labour or Conservative, but in a choice between a Rock and a hard place, you have to pick the least disasterous option.

In reply to David Martin:



That's only one interpretation, though, and there is evidence to suggest that it isn't the right one. Equally possible is that a substantial number didn't know why they should care about the EU so were ambivalent but believed the overwhelmingly pro-brexit press (which suggested that there would be tangible benefits to people from leaving). Polls stated prior to the referendum that only about 10% of people thought the EU was an important issue politically (and the relative absence of discussion on it during the recent election campaign indicates that might not be far different). Further polling during the EU referendum campaign included the nugget that the vast majority of those who wanted to be out wouldn't accept being financially poorer to be outside the EU. So i think it isn't fair to infer from the results that the majority wanted out at any cost.


I'm not sure what "undemocratic" means in this context. Based on flawed information? It absolutely was. At what point does that become sufficiently inaccurate as to prejudice the result? To my mind, that (together with the closeness of the result) indicates that we should at least be looking for a middle ground, but yet we're intent on leaving every EU institution...

In reply to David Martin:

7000 deals to negotiate in less than two years. It's physically impossible. Brexit will never happen.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Maybe, but political parties will only be willing to turn around and say as much once public opinion decisively turns away from "there's been a vote, now we have to go through with it".

Until that happens, to refuse to undertake Brexit is political suicide - more so than going ahead with the failed idea.

Again, that points to the general public having to change their views by a substantial margin. They still don't appear capable of doing so, even with all the evidence amassed post-referendum about what a stupid idea it is.

In reply to Big Ger:



Greenland did it, it took 3 years for a tiny country of 30,000 people. So I imagine it will be a breeze for one of the largest economies in the EU with a population of 60 million to do it in 18 months.

I could almost respect the Tory Brexiteers if they were competent, but it seems they're incompetent beyond my wildest expectations.

In reply to Jim C:


err... the electorate? As in, if the more regressive tactics of the old far left take over then they'll be out of power again for a long time.

In reply to Big Ger:


intransigence I'll give you but so far the EU has been anything but incoherent or incompetent over Brexit. On the contrary they have published detailed negotiating guidelines, approved by every one of the EU 27. And they appear to have won Davis's "row of the summer" over the phasing of discussions.

In reply to Jim C:




He's worsening our best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Its negotiating 101.

In reply to jkarran:

That's the best summing up of the situation I've seen so far- honest statesmanship sadly lacking on all sides indeed (I.E a meaningful conversation about the negatives and positives without the rhetoric and dogma of the eurosceptic press)

In reply to Bob Hughes:


But did you hear Davis then saying that parallel talkers were perfectly in Line with the EU A50 guidelines,
' Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'

In reply to pasbury:


You really think the hard core in Momentum will think logically like that ?

In reply to Jim C:



You're confusing parallelism with dependency.

In reply to Jim C:



That doesn't mean parallel talks. It means trade will be discussed after sufficient progress is made in the divorce proceedings. All Davis is doing is reserving the right to unpick the divorce agreement if he's not happy with the trade discussions. It's ok in theory but in practice he's conceded to discussing the trade agreement under even more time pressure than he would have done anyway and unpicking the whole agreement against a ticking clock will work against the U.K. more than it will work against the EU.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Why will it work against us more than them?

The whole thing seems like a bit of a silly argument, why does it matter what order things are discussed in when nothing's finalised until the end?

In reply to thomasadixon:



Not silly at all they want to wring £100 million out of us despite the fact they said there was no bill for leaving ( It appears they could not legally impose one) so they want to try and get money out if us by threatening not to start talks unless we agree to pay them a ransom paid against trade talks.
Nice people, building trust

In reply to thomasadixon:


2 reasons:

1. Crashing out with no deal will affect the U.K. More than the EU. This is of course a matter of opinion
2. Because it is the EU which controls the timetable. If they get worried (if point one above turns out not to be true) they can extend the talks. The U.K. can't.


3 reasons (sorry...)
1. Because the sooner you start the more time you have
2. The EU can extract concessions in return for agreeing to start on the trade talks
3. It makes it harder for the U.K. To explicitly tie concession on the divorce agreement to things they want in the trade agreement

In theory the U.K. Could unpick the divorce agreement but in practice the EU will do the same in return and the talks will collapse. It is very frustrating trying to negotiate with someone who is constantly unpicking things which were already agreed because you end up making no progress at all.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

They don't actually control the timescale, we'd have to agree to extend. We're both bound by the current deadline. The idea that a timescale is bad for us only holds if you think they hold the upper hand (as you said), if we'll agree to anything if pressed. Hopefully we won't cave like that. These issues affect both sides.

I'd say the sensible tactic is to just get on with what they will talk about and make clear we won't extend the deadline. I think that they still think we won't leave, if pressed. To get any kind of deal we need to make clear that we are, regardless of what they decide.

In reply to thomasadixon:


I had a good laugh again. Thank you.

In reply to Bob Hughes:
<'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'


What it does mean is that assuming they both quickly 'agree' to protect the citizens living in the respective EU/UK countries as promised, then that deal will not actually be agreed( according to the EU) until two years later,and only IF we have a overall deal.

So , under their own rule, there can be NO quick deal on rights of the citizens to remain, they will have to wait at least two more years to be sure , and if there is no overall deal,then that right to remain 'agreement' falls.
( as nothing is agreed until everything is agreed)

In reply to Jim C:



I'm not so sure that there'll be a quick deal on that. Although both sides say it's a top priority the positions are pretty far apart.


Isn't "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" a British talking point? ive heard BoJo and David Davis say it a lot, not so much from the EU

In reply to Bob Hughes:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-d...

It's part of the core principles in their negotiating framework.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Thanks