/ Hard border within the UK

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
MG - on 04 Dec 2017
Is this the effective outcome, assuming the leaks are correct?
skog on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

What is this "UK" you speak of..?
Shani - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

Deep.
pasbury on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

ha - the re-unification of Ireland! I didn't know that was in the manifesto of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
2
cb294 - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

I wonder how they will spin this so the DUP will not withdraw the confidence and supply agreement.

CB
1
summo on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

I think having a long view at the planning stage is key like Hadrian or offa, that way in a few centuries time it could make a great long distance trail.
pasbury on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to cb294:

A billion quid might do it.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

I think this is the beginning of the end for Brexit. If Northern Ireland get to stay in the single market the SNP will demand the same for Scotland with the votes to ensure the Scottish Parliament will refuse legislative consent to Brexit if they don't get it. Which leaves May asking Westminster to explicitly overrule the devolved government. If she does the challenge to devolution gives the SNP a reason for Indy Ref 2.0.

More likely she will use the Irish problem to gradually sideline the hard Brexiters and steer the whole of the UK towards a solution which is pretty much the same as the EEA with a bit of a gloss on it. At which point a lot of people are going to wonder what the point is.
6
Doug on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

Ukraine ?
jkarran - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I think this is the beginning of the end for Brexit...

Seems distinctly possible.

In the mean time it's very hard to imagine how they've brought the DUP along with them on this, I doubt even another billion pound bung would do it. Interesting times ahead as ever.
jk
1
summo on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Is it still not Brexit, with some version of an eea trade deal?

The ni border is about trade and customs etc.. so exiting the eu leaving behind CAP, fisheries etc.. But still having a trade deal will keep most people contented? And I'd say that's the whole point in having negotiations.

The snp will moan no matter what happens.
15
pasbury on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> In the mean time it's very hard to imagine how they've brought the DUP along with them on this, I doubt even another billion pound bung would do it. Interesting times ahead as ever.

They haven't: DUP are 'expressing doubts' as they want the same regulatory framework in the province as in the rest of the UK! And they hold a few cards.....
Xharlie on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

That's the M25, then, to keep the Londoners out of the rest of the country?
jkarran - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> They haven't: DUP are 'expressing doubts' as they want the same regulatory framework in the province as in the rest of the UK! And they hold a few cards.....

Indeed so have the Con's (yet again) promised something they can't deliver or have the DUP agreed to something they can't be seen to be delivering in exchange for something else? It doesn't make much sense at the moment.
jk
1
MG - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Indeed so have the Con's (yet again) promised something they can't deliver or have the DUP agreed to something they can't be seen to be delivering in exchange for something else? It doesn't make much sense at the moment.

Does May need the DUP for this? Corbyn will go along with it - after all it brings a united Ireland closer, if nothing else.
Ramblin dave - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Latest word from Westminster is that they haven't conceded NI, it's just that they kept telling everybody the password to Stormont & now there's simply no way to know who's in charge of it at any given time.

(Stolen from Twitter...)
pasbury on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

I have the feeling that nobody has agreed anything with anybody:

May with her hard-liners
Cons & DUP
UK & ROI
May & Junckers

We can all agree with you on this though:

> It doesn't make much sense at the moment.


Shani - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

The Irish Times is reporting that:

> "A British government source suggested there was “a significant difference” between the phrase “continued regulatory alignment” and “no regulatory divergence” between the two parts of Ireland.........DUP MP Sammy Wilson told BBC Talkback the British government had made clear today the UK will leave the EU in its entirety and is committed to no economic or territorial divergence."

I really cannot put a cigarette paper between the phrase “continued regulatory alignment” and “no regulatory divergence” and there is even less room if the DUP's desire is to be fulfilled ("the UK will leave the EU in its entirety and is committed to no economic or territorial divergence").
pasbury on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

Remember Bird and Fortune? Their satire would have been delicious at the moment (RIP John Fortune).
Andy Hardy on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> They haven't: DUP are 'expressing doubts' as they want the same regulatory framework in the province as in the rest of the UK! [...]

Yes they want to be just like the rest of the UK, apart from those snowflake libtard gay marriages and abortions.
pasbury on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Scotland, Wales and London want the same 'deal' presumably thinking it means staying in the single market and customs union. Probably Cornwall will follow.

I wonder why?
1
summo on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Don't think it matters, as the UK has pretty much met or exceeded the eu' s negotiation criteria.. juncker will just move the goal posts. Zero cash for the eu and hard Brexit all round, if the eu doesn't now concede some ground like everyone else has.
22
Shani - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

> ... if the eu doesn't now concede some ground like everyone else has.

Can you tell me what the DUP has conceded, please?
summo on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Can you tell me what the DUP has conceded, please?

Not much I'll give you that. But then with a billion in the bank they can't grumble!!
12
Bob Hughes - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

apparently it was the DUP that scuppered the deal
Shani - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:
> Not much I'll give you that. But then with a billion in the bank they can't grumble!!

So you infer that everyone has "concede[d] some ground" (including the DUP), and to evidence that, you point out that they have been given a "billion in the bank".

You ARE chief negotiator and all-round Brexit Bulldog, David Davis, and I claim my £5!



Is being in receipt of £1bn really a 'concession'?
Post edited at 16:39
6
Pete Pozman - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm really hoping you're right about May. When she put the Three Brexshiteers in charge of the process I thought she was either a complete idiot or shrewder than a really shrewd Machiavelli type person. Can it be she is going to land us with a really soft version of leaving the EU because the political and economic nightmare that the Moggmentumistas want has now become self evident even to fools like Davis.
Fly in the ointment is the sound of shovels in the night as the UVF hard men dig up their weapon caches.
2
Andy Hardy on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Mogglodytes
john arran - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Did anyone else think it significant that we recently had the first (to my knowledge anyway) government hint of the possibility of no Brexit at all, when Jeremy Hunt said: “If we don’t back Theresa May, we will have no Brexit.”?

Admittedly it's couched as a call to arms but it still seemed significant to me. Am I guilty of the same kind of wishful thinking that I'm often levelling at Brexiters?
1
summo on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> apparently it was the DUP that scuppered the deal

I thought it was juncker... who was looking for anything to slow things down?
19
pasbury on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

You are living in a fantasy world.
3
Ciro - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

> Don't think it matters, as the UK has pretty much met or exceeded the eu' s negotiation criteria.. juncker will just move the goal posts. Zero cash for the eu and hard Brexit all round, if the eu doesn't now concede some ground like everyone else has.

Why would the EU concede ground? They hold all the cards, it's us who are faced with a choice between blustering a bit and then accepting their terms, or flouncing off and committing harakiri...
3
Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> You are living in a fantasy world.

... and/or not bothering to follow the facts (news).
3
summo on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Why would the EU concede ground? They hold all the cards, it's us who are faced with a choice between blustering a bit and then accepting their terms, or flouncing off and committing harakiri...

They hold cards, but the UK has cash. They'll need to decide their priorities soon. They could hold all the aces, but if they have no money, they can't bet and a cheap pair jacks (ar $es) wins.
25
Ciro - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> Does May need the DUP for this? Corbyn will go along with it - after all it brings a united Ireland closer, if nothing else.

She might not need them for this vote, but she can't afford to lose them for everything else.
summo on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> You are living in a fantasy world.

Juncker doesn't have to let Ireland or the dup decide the negotiation. But he will as it slows the game.
13
Shani - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to john arran:
No matter what wording is agreed:

- the DUP's expectation is identical trade & customs status with the UK.

- the UK's BREXIT program is premised on non-identical trade & customs status between the UK and EU (that is the 'take back control' bit).

- the UK are assuring the DUP of identical trade & customs status with the UK and whatever the wording is, have effectively conceded identical trade & customs status across the island of Ireland.

Anyone notice an impossibility here?

Furthermore, any concession offered to NI will be seized on by Scotland - independence by the back door.

David Cameron, where are you?
Post edited at 18:34
Ciro - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

> They hold cards, but the UK has cash. They'll need to decide their priorities soon. They could hold all the aces, but if they have no money, they can't bet and a cheap pair jacks (ar $es) wins.

What?

Germany is europe's largest economy, then there's the small matter of another 26 of them. We're on our own.
5
ian caton on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

So far so obvious, so what are they thinking?

Blag their way through?

May had enough and wants out?

You have to assume a neuron or two.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Just for fun I think everyone should start referring to the possibility that Northern Ireland while technically outside the EU has an informal border which implicitly puts it within the EU as the Vatican option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93European_Union_relations
Post edited at 18:49
1
Ciro - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

On the one hand, haha, on the other, FFS are you trying to ignite civil war? :D
Shani - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to ian caton:
> So far so obvious, so what are they thinking?

This is the problem; the NI issue isn't just a border dispute about 'trade and movement of people', it is a mental barrier tied up with nuanced and complex identities rooted in contradictions, deep traditions, and a rich and sometimes bloody past. You can't just throw economists and lawyers at this problem, you need a historian as well.

And this the crux of the matter - no change in arrangements between NI & the EU, no change in arrangements between NI & the UK, and, Brexit-driven changes between the UK & the EU, CANNOT be satisfied.
Post edited at 18:57
Bogwalloper - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

> I thought it was juncker... who was looking for anything to slow things down?

Change the record pal.

W
8
Pete Pozman - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:
Moggtrotters...?
Post edited at 19:08
tom_in_edinburgh - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> On the one hand, haha, on the other, FFS are you trying to ignite civil war? :D

I have a vision of the DUP MPs doing a full-on Ian Paisley to the point their blood pressure goes off the scale and their faces gradually turn purple and their eyes bulge and their skull swells until finally the whole thing goes pop like an over-ripe blueberry as they scream THE POPE OF ROME and NEVER.
1
wercat on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

countdown to an election starts soon?
jkarran - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to wercat:

I hope not, it's too soon. The only way this nightmare ends is if an electable party runs on a pledge to offer a second confirmation referendum with remain the alternative. Labour aren't ready to do that yet, they're not leading so we wait for them to follow. Elect them tomorrow and we stay on the same disastrous track repeating the will of the people mantra as we wreck our country. It might be the best hope now for the hard liners, I doubt the conservatives have the authority left to railroad it through parliament!
Jj
1
Shani - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to wercat:

Well things are OBVIOUSLY messed up in government. Why give the DUP a £1bn sweetner to then launch today's surprise upon them?

It is incredible that today's position statement was not run by the DUP beforehand.

Something is massively wrong. Something big is brewing...
1
wercat on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

A bit of creative thinking - move the Thirlmere zip proposal to the new hard border for "adventure tourism"

I'm sure some local community groups in the border area might put in some effort ....
Eric9Points - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

The thing that astounds me about people in general is that the default view of the tories is that they're competent.

Not only have the pillocks most likely damaged the economic prospects of this country for decades to come but they've also put the unity of the UK on the line for no good reason.

5
Martin W on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to ian caton:

> You have to assume a neuron or two.

On the basis of what evidence? None so far that I have seen.
1
thomasadixon - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

Incredible that anyone thought it'd be okay with the DUP (loyalists generally) to treat NI differently to the rest of the UK.
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

yes, its not like they have different laws on same sex marriage and abortion, or anything. exceptionalism has no place in Ulster, none at all.
1
Ciro - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

> Juncker doesn't have to let Ireland or the dup decide the negotiation. But he will as it slows the game.

At every stage in these negotiations, the EU can (and will) allow the countries most affected by the matter up for discussion to have the final say. The fact that each state will have a veto on the final agreement is one of the EU's strongest cards, and they're not going to throw it away.

It's got nothing to do with slowing things down, it's just steering the negotiations at all times towards the best possible outcome for them. Which is exactly what you'd expect us to do, if we had any chance of getting hold of the wheel.
3
thomasadixon - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Local law is different all over.

People seem to be focussing on the idea of a border being a flashpoint for republicans. It is, sure. The confirmation that there is a border, that NI is British and not joined with Eire, is essential to loyalists. That ranks higher than anything, including the EU.
ian caton on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to Martin W:

No evidence at all. I just think you get a better analyses by assuming there is some intelligence somewhere.

Otherwise "incompetence" doesn't come close.
1
MG - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

Incredible the future of the UK financially and very likely existentially is now at the whim of 12 political and religious extremists.
4
Shani - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to ian caton:
> No evidence at all. I just think you get a better analyses by assuming there is some intelligence somewhere.

> Otherwise "incompetence" doesn't come close.

Well, giving £1bn to the DUP and then negotiating on their behalf with a deal which the DUP would find disagreeable, forcing them to respond with a high profile rebuttal, is humiliating and embarrassing in equal measure for everyone concerned.

Westminster must have assumed the DUP could be bought off or just have little understanding of the sensitivities in Ireland. But the Tories NEED the DUP.

The DUP must think Westminster don't know or don't care about NI politics. They'll feel that Westminster have tried to buy them off and that they are expendable in pursuit of Brexit. Trust will have been lost between them. Both will be seeking reassurance of their own entrenched position.

The cost of Brexit is very high; the Union is at risk. If that breaks, well several generations of political turmoil and nationalistic trouble will follow as our political ties with NI, Scotland and even the union between England and Wales are fractured.
Post edited at 22:26
2
wercat on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:
> Incredible the future of the UK financially and very likely existentially is now at the whim of 12 political and religious extremists.

That just shows how much "sovereignty" we're taking back

Just to be clear Eggshitters. we don't want Britain to fail, we want the traitor-treason Brexiters to fail


I fyou think I'm making light of shite it is trying to control the deep deep deep deep anger boiling up over what the Eggshit has done to my country
Post edited at 22:25
9
wercat on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

The last time I came near to being this angry and upset was when our country waged illegal war on Iraq, ignoring all we learned about waging wars of Aggression at Nuremburg
7
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to wercat:

Eggs hitters...?!

I don’t like the sound of that!
1
MG - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to wercat:

> The last time I came near to being this angry and upset was when our country waged illegal war on Iraq, ignoring all we learned about waging wars of Aggression at Nuremburg

Yes, I know. Lunatics in control, here and in the US. Unfortunately liberal democracy and rules-based cooperation between countries both seem to be dying
5
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Local law is different all over.

Well, yes, that’s what makes it local

The point being that NI already has one set of local laws that are markedly different from the other jurisdictions in the UK, regarding reproductive and marital arrangements, and reflecting the specific circumstances in the province.

This leaves them in a weak position when they want to persuade us that under no circumstances will they accept regulations that set them apart from the rest of the UK on other matters

Yes, those are indeed the same as the rest of the UK just now. And so would the abortion law be, were it not for the fact they made it different.

The exceptionalist cat is out of the bag already, let out by the Unionists. If they hold brexit to ransom over this, then that billion pound bung may end proving very costly to them

> People seem to be focussing on the idea of a border being a flashpoint for republicans. It is, sure. The confirmation that there is a border, that NI is British and not joined with Eire, is essential to loyalists. That ranks higher than anything, including the EU.

A problem without a solution. More things that should have been though about a bit more last spring and summer.

2
MG - on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

May should call the DUPs bluff. Either they put up with the proposal or most likely they get Corbyn. Do they really want that?
2
pasbury on 04 Dec 2017
In reply to wercat:

I'm with you on this, I've been angry since the 23rd Jun 2016 and fairly cross for several months before that.

The bullshit birds are finally coming home to roost; depositing their reality poo on remainers, leavers, and everyone else caught up in this sorry debacle.
3
jkarran - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> It is incredible that today's position statement was not run by the DUP beforehand.
> Something is massively wrong. Something big is brewing...

Ay, smacks of staggering arrogance or crass stupidity. More likely game playing. Damned if I can figure out the game though let alone who's winning.
Jk
Roadrunner5 - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Local law is different all over.

> People seem to be focussing on the idea of a border being a flashpoint for republicans. It is, sure. The confirmation that there is a border, that NI is British and not joined with Eire, is essential to loyalists. That ranks higher than anything, including the EU.

Sounds like its all off.

Putting a hard border either between the Republic and NI or a hard border between NI and Great Britain is going to mean one side loses out massively.

The DUP have gone crazy over this even being suggested.

Who would have thought this would be such a massive issue? The London Centric thinking here is incredible.
Post edited at 00:37
2
ian caton on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

Obviously I agree with you.

Much as I loath May and her colleagues I think it a mistake to not credit them with some intelligence. They obviously know all of what you say, they are successful politicians after all.

So there must be method in the madness, even if obtuse.
BnB - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to ian caton:
> Much as I loath May and her colleagues I think it a mistake to not credit them with some intelligence. They obviously know all of what you say, they are successful politicians after all.

> So there must be method in the madness, even if obtuse.

^^This^^

The proposed deal in its current form grants the DUP its key demand: no hard border. Why then the obstructionism? This appears to be one or more of:

political sabre-rattling by the DUP for a local electorate and regional advantage, or

a strategy by May to crush hard Brexit, since, if NI won't move towards the EU without the UK, then the UK must move with it, or

a tactic to secure concessions from the EU that politically it cannot grant the UK but which it could defend in the name of peace in Ireland

a right old mess
Post edited at 07:27
Dave Kerr - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> David Cameron, where are you?

I think it's important that we not forget the colossal, short sighted, self serving arrogance that man.

Shani - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to ian caton:

> Much as I loath May and her colleagues I think it a mistake to not credit them with some intelligence. They obviously know all of what you say, they are successful politicians after all.

> So there must be method in the madness, even if obtuse.

I was musing on this last night. Incompetence and 13D chess can look the same whilst he game plays out. The brilliance of the winning strategy is only evident in the end. Maybe May is playing 13D chess.
Dave Kerr - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> I was musing on this last night. Incompetence and 13D chess can look the same whilst he game plays out. The brilliance of the winning strategy is only evident in the end. Maybe May is playing 13D chess.

I think it was Mark Twain who said "never attribute to 13D chess that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
ian caton on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

Or someone was "asleep at the wheel" and woke up just in time.
ian caton on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

Regardless of the DUP, how was it going to get past Redwood, Cash et al. ?

The only logic I can see is that they hoped to use a wording that they could spin both ways, on the basis of it being 'worth a go'.
summo on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

I'd say all of them, it's a show as there is no reason for any this bit of negotiation to be publically announced stage by stage; unless each side wanted to show they are fighting for their respective corners; but might need to conceed something later.

It will just be similar to the other issues where one side says I don't think we have anything in common and we can't start trade talks this side of Xmas, then 2 weeks later all is well again.
Shani - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to ian caton:

> Regardless of the DUP, how was it going to get past Redwood, Cash et al. ?

> The only logic I can see is that they hoped to use a wording that they could spin both ways, on the basis of it being 'worth a go'.

I'm reliably informed that the DUP have been in contact with DEXEU all week, so this situation shouldn't have arisen. It suggests that the DUP are being played.
Shani - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> I'm reliably informed that the DUP have been in contact with DEXEU all week, so this situation shouldn't have arisen. It suggests that the DUP are being played.

....or that it was all staged; the DUP knew all along.....
Jim C - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Can you tell me what the DUP has conceded, please?

I guess the DUP could have wanted 2 billion and they may have conceded to accept only one billion.
(See what a good negotiator May is;)
1
Jim C - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> ....or that it was all staged; the DUP knew all along.....

It's a bit suspicious that the EU were talking May's negotiating skills up yesterday, that would indicate to me that the EU think they have got the best of the deal, and now want to help May to sell that deal to us.
Shani - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> I guess the DUP could have wanted 2 billion and they may have conceded to accept only one billion.

> (See what a good negotiator May is;)

True - but by all accounts, £1bn was deemed an expensive shake of the money tree!
1
neilh - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

It just reminds me of the FTA agreement between the EU and Canada where it all fell down at the last minute because of Belgium and then another way was found.

I am glad there is alot of compromise and discussion- even if it seems fraught at times- it stops somebody with a huge majority of forcing their blueprint on everybody. The DUP issue is allowing everybody to step back for a couple of days and doublecheck the dots on the "i" s etc.

The sable rattling by the hard and idioitic Brexiters ito me is spin...it is their redlines that keep moving. Everybody else seems to be willing to reach a good compromised deal.
Jim C - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> True - but by all accounts, £1bn was deemed an expensive shake of the money tree!

Hard to know when we only hear what the final deal was.

Now Scotland and Wales will be queuing up for May to shake the money tree again to get them on side too, now that the DUP has got a billion, that will prob be the min starting price for a deal.
Pete Pozman - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Maybe it's the DUP who, on the basis of not tolerating different arrangements from the rest of the UK, but also wanting no change to the present non border, are trying to steer the whole of the rest of the UK into this new "customs partnership" thingy.
If so all power to them.
And maybe May has steered them without telling anyone.
Looks like the Moggtrotters won't get to smash up our economy and society after all...
2
Shani - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> Hard to know when we only hear what the final deal was.

> Now Scotland and Wales will be queuing up for May to shake the money tree again to get them on side too, now that the DUP has got a billion, that will prob be the min starting price for a deal.

It is a can of worms - the 'IN' deal secured by NI will be sought by Scotland and quite possibly London (inside M25). And as Cornwall & Lincoln are both Brexit areas, but have since sought some kind of special arrangement (due to a lack of foreign labour to help with farming), they may well be eyeing up any special deals as well.
1
Dave Garnett - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to ian caton:
> Regardless of the DUP, how was it going to get past Redwood, Cash et al. ?

I think we may be approaching the moment of truth when the moderates in the Conservative party have to face them down. There is a perfectly logical solution that would be acceptable to Eire and the EU, would comply with both the Good Friday Agreement and the referendum result based on the question actually asked, and which would immediately strengthen our economic position and our currency. All we have to do is remain within the single market and the customs union.

A small but vocal minority on the right are constantly telling us that nothing less than the most extreme version of Brexit is mandated by the referendum result and have been beating the sovereignty drum to drown out any sensible discussion. It's long past time they were firmly told that what they want would not only be economically disastrous but is practically and politically impossible, and is most definitely not what people voted for by what was in any case a very small majority.

I can quite see that this risks splitting the Tory party and may precipitate a general election, but some things are more important than propping up a minority government and this is one of them.
Post edited at 10:19
2
jkarran - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Hopefully you're right and this process leads us to the settlement Norway has, no doubt with the odd trumpeted tweak to justify the billions spent haggling over it and the hundreds of billions lost to the uncertainty that haggling caused. Better still perhaps we actually get a say in whether we want something quite so pointless. I suspect the answer would still be yes if that's the choice we were offered but either way, by that point it doesn't really matter so much.
jk
2
wercat on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:
And it is a possible compromise solution to this, ahem, Omnishambles, to use a word in conservative use (in more than one sense)
Post edited at 11:17
1
neilh - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Your description is what is happening. TM has by default got the Brexit extremists over a barrel, as if the nutter extremists get their way then an election will follow as sure as night follows day.

Meanwhile not a a word from the Labour Party.

2
Dave Garnett - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Meanwhile not a a word from the Labour Party.

Yes. I think Corbyn is just paralysed by this. He must know (and will certainly have been told) that there is a pile of easy votes available if he would just argue a convincing case for remaining or, at least, a soft Brexit. The fact that he can't bring himself to do it is interesting, even to head off the obvious danger from Emily Thornberry.
toad - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh: urgent question from labour today, isn’t there?

1
Shani - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Yes. I think Corbyn is just paralysed by this. He must know (and will certainly have been told) that there is a pile of easy votes available if he would just argue a convincing case for remaining or, at least, a soft Brexit. The fact that he can't bring himself to do it is interesting, even to head off the obvious danger from Emily Thornberry.

JC is an absolute Brexiteer - as was his mentor, Tony Benn.
neilh - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to toad:

How about some statements in the press. An urgent question in the HofC as hardly earthshattering. They should have been all over this yesterday.
krikoman - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Meanwhile not a a word from the Labour Party.

He's not running the show is he?

Labour will ask for another referendum, when we've got the full measure of the f*ck up the Tories have lead us into. What's the point of saying anything yet?

the more people see what an unholy f*ck up Brexit is the easier it will be to force another vote on it, maybe even another election with Brexit as a major issue.
4
krikoman - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Yes. I think Corbyn is just paralysed by this. He must know (and will certainly have been told) that there is a pile of easy votes available if he would just argue a convincing case for remaining or, at least, a soft Brexit. The fact that he can't bring himself to do it is interesting, even to head off the obvious danger from Emily Thornberry.

Would you vote Labour if they said soft Brexit?
2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

Sure, but with the government doing such a wonderful job of hanging itself, I can see why Labour don't want to shift the focus on to their own Brexit confusion.
1
john arran - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> JC is an absolute Brexiteer - as was his mentor, Tony Benn.

Just like May. Pretended to be remainers during the referendum because they suspected their real views might not be shared with the majority of voters and so would reduce their chances of high office. So much for principled politicians.
2
Martin W on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to ian caton:

> Much as I loathe May and her colleagues I think it a mistake to not credit them with some intelligence. They obviously know all of what you say, they are successful politicians after all.

Successful in the sense of having achieved high office, maybe. In the sense of having delivered anything of value while holding such posts, much more debatable. As Home Secretary May utterly failed to achieve any of the immigration targets her party promised in 2010. She's utterly failing to deliver against the weasel words around social mobility she uttered on entering number 10:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-from-the-new-prime-minister-theresa-may

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/02/alan-milburn-government-not-comitted-to-social...

And so far she and her 'team' seem to be utterly failing to deliver any kind of Brexit that doesn't involve thoroughly p!ssing off our current treaty partners in the EU and sundry regions of the UK.

They might think they have some 'clever' tactics up their sleeve (I suspect they're no cleverer than Cameron's schoolboy-in-short-trousers 'tactic' of not taken comfort breaks during meetings) but the only strategy they have is focussed entirely on the goal of keeping hold of the reins of power because they take it as read that having anyone but themselves in charge would be a disaster. That's what they mean by "doing the best for the UK": whatever it takes to keep the other lot out, however much damage they have to cause in the process.
1
neilh - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Is that 100% Labour policy to get another referendum or your speculation/hope?
Bob Hughes - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Yes. I think Corbyn is just paralysed by this. He must know (and will certainly have been told) that there is a pile of easy votes available if he would just argue a convincing case for remaining

An interesting piece in Politico claims that if Labour threw their chips in for Remain they would hand a massive majority to the Tories because of the way the leave / remain votes are distributed across the country. Leave votes are widely distributed but remain votes are concentrated in a smaller number of constituencies so the electoral maths supports Labour's current position of ambiguity.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-map-redrawn-labour-tories/

Dave Garnett - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Would you vote Labour if they said soft Brexit?

Yes. I might anyway unless the LibDems get their act together.
Bob Hughes - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to thread:

Its interesting to hear how Davis is spinning today. Regulatory alignment means EU and UK will have the same regulatory objectives but achieved in different ways, and applies to the whole of the UK, not just NI. This sounds a lot like the Swiss model.
2
Dave Garnett - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:


That's an interesting and pretty scary analysis.

I think my best long-term strategy is to encourage the kids to emigrate and then join them. Solves the student debt issue too. It's almost like a deliberate Year Zero policy.
ian caton on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Martin W:

You accurately expand my meaning of "successful".
Robert Durran - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Yes. I might anyway unless the LibDems get their act together.

The Lib Dems have got their act together; their policy is for a second referendum (which would almost certainly result in us staying in the EU). But as usual they are screwed by the first past the post system - ortherwise their strong remain message would be bringing them huge electoral support
1
krikoman - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Is that 100% Labour policy to get another referendum or your speculation/hope?

JC told me in bed last night, I wasn't supposed to say anything oooopsie.


It's just my speculation and hope I was like JC a 7/10 sort of guy ( but voted to stay), but it's fast becoming a monumental f*ckup and is going to cost us too much.

having said that, there does need to be some massive reforms and a little more accountability / less wastage.
krikoman - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The Lib Dems have got their act together; their policy is for a second referendum (which would almost certainly result in us staying in the EU).

But that's their ONLY good policy, and I don't think the electorate are yet ready to forgive the "no increase in tuition fees" error.
4
Ramblin dave - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> That's an interesting and pretty scary analysis.

Although the counterpoint is to ask how high a priority leave / remain is for different voters and whether (say) Labour have anything to offer to traditional Labour supporters who voted leave that would make them feel satisfied that their issues were being addressed by other means. I genuinely don't know, and it seems a bit academic at the moment, but that article is doing a "what if" for the scenario where remain / leave replaces left / right as Britain's main political fault line, which doesn't seem like a given.
Post edited at 13:52
Robert Durran - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> But that's their ONLY good policy.

Well I've been voting for them regularly for years on their other policies!

> I don't think the electorate are yet ready to forgive the "no increase in tuition fees" error.

They should be - it's in the past.

2
jkarran - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Nobody wins the next general election on an explicitly anti-brexit platform. The LibDems can't because FPTP and significant long-term voter loyalty/inertia mean they couldn't hope to implement it from where they are today. Labour can't because it needs to hold its curious coalition together as best it can, they may gain a few moderate remain tory voters but with their position to the left of norm at the moment it won't be the required landslide from blue>red given they'll alienate a big chunk of their traditional working class vote in return. A landslide which may never be big enough given the leave/remain geographical distribution though it's hard to know.

The only viable alternative to both parties continuing to push 'out at any cost' is for Labour to make the 'pro-democracy' offer of an accept and leave / reject and remain referendum on the final terms of the deal. To me this seems doable:
+It absolves MP's of responsibility for the consequences
+It's a fact based choice
+It can be sold to Labour Leave voters without alienating all of them
+It will appeal to all the Tory remain voters and explicitly anti-brexit stance would
+It appeals to Labour remainers by offering both hope and fairness
+It mostly sidesteps accusations of subverting democracy (though plenty will be forcefully and angrilly made)
+It's hard for the tories to fight even if they double down on brexit (how few really want to anyway)
+It allows some focus to be maintained on pressing social issues
+Did I mention it absolves MPs of responsibility...
Post edited at 14:17
2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> But that's their ONLY good policy, and I don't think the electorate are yet ready to forgive the "no increase in tuition fees" error.

I'm more inclined to forgive that than their whole-hearted surrender when in coalition to deliver the austerity agenda, then followed by their peddling of austerity-lite in lieu of the proper public investment we desperately need. Centrist should be a position, not mean "whichever way (we think) the wind blows".
4
SDM on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> At every stage in these negotiations, the EU can (and will) allow the countries most affected by the matter up for discussion to have the final say. The fact that each state will have a veto on the final agreement is one of the EU's strongest cards, and they're not going to throw it away.

> It's got nothing to do with slowing things down, it's just steering the negotiations at all times towards the best possible outcome for them. Which is exactly what you'd expect us to do, if we had any chance of getting hold of the wheel.

We have hold of the wheel and the ability to achieve the best possible outcome for ourselves at any stage.

Apparently it would go against the will of the people though...
Ciro - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> An interesting piece in Politico claims that if Labour threw their chips in for Remain they would hand a massive majority to the Tories because of the way the leave / remain votes are distributed across the country. Leave votes are widely distributed but remain votes are concentrated in a smaller number of constituencies so the electoral maths supports Labour's current position of ambiguity.


I suspect throwing their chips in for remain will never happen for this reason, even if they have decided we should remain - would be far less risky to simply back a referendum on the final deal and let then make the case for staying when the time comes.

Today's emergency question was used to press the government repeatedly to put the possibility of staying in the customs union back on the table, and also to ask them to remove the exit date from legislation - encouraging signs for an eventual soft brexit position with the option to cancel brexit altogether if that turns out to be "the will of the people" by the end of the negotiations.

But for the moment the Tory fantasy brexit position is slowly imploding, so it makes sense to mostly sit back and watch that continue. To do otherwise would risk alienating those who still haven't realised the weak position we are in, and also open them up to accusations of "wanting britain to fail" and undermining our negotiating position.
2
Ciro - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to SDM:

> We have hold of the wheel and the ability to achieve the best possible outcome for ourselves at any stage.

> Apparently it would go against the will of the people though...

That sounds to me like control of the handbrake... in which case I agree, and hope to <insert deity of choice> we pull it
neilh - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

It does not help your cause when you put it across as a Labour policy !!!!!

Clearly it is not and there is no sign of that on the drawing board--- despite alot of us wishing it was so across all parties.
tripehound - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:
Brexit was a bonkers idea from day one, but now it is plainly ludicrous, it needs ditching.
3
L noeldarlow on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

It's difficult to find anything meaningful to say about a bunch of clowns running through a minefield, except to wonder who's going to clean up the mess.
1
Ciro - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Clearly it is not and there is no sign of that on the drawing board--- despite alot of us wishing it was so across all parties.

Whether they privately back a second referendum or not, I would think there's no way they could publicly commit to it for the moment - it would alienate everyone who still wants brexit, along with the many people who will be not that politically engaged, tired of hearing about brexit, and just want someone to sort it out. Corbyn has said recently that he wouldn't rule it out, and that's as much as we're going to get for now.

Hopefully as the reality of our position becomes more and more apparent, public opinion will shift to the point where a second referedum can be put on the table by a legitimate candidate for government, but for now I think that policy option is only available for the smaller parties.
pasbury on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to noeldarlow:

That'll be the next generation - who voted conclusively against leaving.
krikoman - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Well I've been voting for them regularly for years on their other policies!

> They should be - it's in the past.

Ha ha nice one, like the 1970s are in the past. Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, I find it's a massive blot on their appeal, in the past or not.

I've been known to vote for them in the past
Andy Hardy on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

It depends where you live: I live in a tory / libdem marginal, so to stop the tories I have to vote libdem. I suppose I should be glad that at least my vote *might* make a difference
Tanke - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Analysis on thread do not take into consideration fact British electorate majority vote leave to stop immigrants coming from EU.
Who is going to represent the application of theirs desires if this was pivotal dialectic?
krikoman - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> It does not help your cause when you put it across as a Labour policy !!!!!

I wasn't aware I had, either a cause or put it across a Labour policy.

> Clearly it is not and there is no sign of that on the drawing board--- despite alot of us wishing it was so across all parties.

It isn't at present, but who knows, aren't we all just looking into the tea leaves?

It would be very silly to announce now what they are going to do, it makes no sense either politically or practically, at present. Besides that it's easier to simply watch to Tories and their allies the DUP make a bollocks of it all and ride in at the end one their mighty stead.

MG - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Tanke:

It's not relevant to the thread. It appears free movement will come to an end.
1
neilh - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:
Strangely I suspect that because of all the compromises they might be able to do it. If they had a huge majority in the HofC they would have just steam rollered everything through( which would have been a disaster). It is a coalition in all but name keeping the extreme Brexiters at bay.

And we at least know there will be some form of regulatory convergence or whatever phrase they come up with which is so obvious to anybody in the middle ground for the sake of everybody/common sense.
Post edited at 17:11
krikoman - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Meanwhile not a a word from the Labour Party.

from the man himself sometime this morning
"The real reason for today’s failure is the grubby deal the Government did with the DUP after the election. It is disappointing that there has not been progress in the Brexit negotiations after months of delays and grandstanding. Labour has been clear from the outset that we need a jobs first Brexit deal that works for the whole of the United Kingdom. Each passing day provides further evidence that Theresa May’s Government is completely ill-equipped to negotiate a successful Brexit deal for our country.

So maybe he did say something after all, maybe you weren't listening, or maybe it wasn't reported.

Apparently Nick Robinson reckons he didn't bother either.

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2017/12/05/bbcs-nick-robinson-caught-twisting-truth-twice-12-hours/
2
deepsoup - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:
> .. and I don't think the electorate are yet ready to forgive the "no increase in tuition fees" error.

I can forgive that. It's their complicity in f*cking over the NHS I can't forgive.
1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

-10 points for linking the Canary. Sorry. Blanket rule.
1
neilh - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Is that a press statement or something he actually went on BBC and said?
BnB - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> from the man himself sometime this morning

> "The real reason for today’s failure is the grubby deal the Government did with the DUP after the election. It is disappointing that there has not been progress in the Brexit negotiations after months of delays and grandstanding. Labour has been clear from the outset that we need a jobs first Brexit deal that works for the whole of the United Kingdom. Each passing day provides further evidence that Theresa May’s Government is completely ill-equipped to negotiate a successful Brexit deal for our country.

> So maybe he did say something after all, maybe you weren't listening, or maybe it wasn't reported.

> Apparently Nick Robinson reckons he didn't bother either.


Maybe because it's vacuous drivel. We can all see how difficult it is to chart a course so don't criticise like a coward. Come up with some effing proposals that mean something not empty soundbites. "Jobs-first Brexit" my arse.
6
wbo - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

As opposed to the firm , well defined and oh so successful positions so clearly elucidated by the current negotiating teams? Remind me who is reputedly in charge?
1
thomasadixon - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> The point being that NI already has one set of local laws that are markedly different from the other jurisdictions in the UK, regarding reproductive and marital arrangements, and reflecting the specific circumstances in the province.

Which you can see as well as I is quite different. Pasbury's response said it all, they're not going to accept what'll look like the unification of Ireland!

> This leaves them in a weak position when they want to persuade us that under no circumstances will they accept regulations that set them apart from the rest of the UK on other matters

This isn't about point scoring, and they don't need to persuade you. In relations with the rest of the world NI is the UK, I don't understand why anyone would think they'd accept this. It doesn't even solve a problem for us, it just creates a new one - a border between NI and the rest of the UK, entirely created and administered by us just for the EUs benefit!

> A problem without a solution. More things that should have been though about a bit more last spring and summer.

There's a pretty straightforward solution, no tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK equals no need for border checks.
8
krikoman - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Maybe because it's vacuous drivel. We can all see how difficult it is to chart a course so don't criticise like a coward. Come up with some effing proposals that mean something not empty soundbites. "Jobs-first Brexit" my arse.

Meanwhile the Tory / DUP love-in is doing precisely what? Fighting against each other and not knowing what the other is doing or saying. The bribe we gave then didn't last very long did it?

It might well be vacuous drivel, but it was still a bit more than nothing, which of course was what was reported as being said, wasn't it?
2
MG - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:


> There's a pretty straightforward solution, no tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK equals no need for border checks.

Exactly what we have now. Well done for f*cking it up.
1
Shani - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to wbo:

> As opposed to the firm , well defined and oh so successful positions so clearly elucidated by the current negotiating teams? Remind me who is reputedly in charge?

Davis is shicking bad: http://jackofkent.com/2017/11/the-early-history-of-the-58-brexit-sector-analyses/
andyfallsoff - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There's a pretty straightforward solution, no tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK equals no need for border checks.

Are you deliberately ignoring the need for checks due to regulatory conformity or aren't you aware that is also a point?
1
Ciro - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> -10 points for linking the Canary. Sorry. Blanket rule.

Way to avoid addressing the issue...

Here's a direct link to Nick Robinson aaccusing Jeremy Corbyn of ducking the issue of the day and talking about "just about anything else" for bringing up the plight of some people being persecuted by another government who have apparently had our military help, and asking for assurances that they no longer have that help.

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/937767504025354240

And here's a link to what's happening to those people, in case you think it is "just about anything else".

https://news.sky.com/feature/rohingya-crisis-11121896

And here's Nick doubling down with "Since I first tweeted @jeremycorbyn has now tweeted about Brexit.", and refusing to apologise or engage with anyone pointing out that genocide is an important issue for the leader of the opposition to raise, or that the labour press office had put out Corbyn's statement before Robinson started tweeting.

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/937776273413337088

Do you think that's acceptable behaviour for a supposedly impartial news presenter from our public broadcasting service?
3
Ciro - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There's a pretty straightforward solution, no tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK equals no need for border checks.

Yes, but who's going to tell the brexiteers we're staying in the single market and keeping the four freedoms?
George Ormerod - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There's a pretty straightforward solution, no tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK equals no need for border checks.

It's not that straightforward - it's not about tariffs, it's about meeting the right standards and regulations. You can have no tariffs, but you will require a hard border to confirm that the goods meet the appropriate standards. Unless you're in the single market, or have regulatory equivalence - which is just being in the single market in all but name, which it seems is where the government is now going. Except they've got to dress it up for the insane Brexit wing of their own party.

If it wasn't so tragic, this whole Brexit debacle would be f*cking hilarious.

2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Way to avoid addressing the issue...

I'm not avoiding any issue. The Canary is obfuscating, misleading, gaslighting arse-gravy and its journalism is of less value than pretty much anything I can think of. It sees its job as making its readership more stupid in order to advance its political viewpoint. That someone would link to it to highlight a supposed lack of journalistic integrity is ironic in the extreme.

Anyway, back on topic...

1
George Ormerod - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> Exactly what we have now. Well done for f*cking it up.

The usual Brexit cheerleaders have gone a bit quiet. Maybe even their extreme cognitive dissonance can't overcome the latest dose of reality.
2
Ciro - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Here's a direct link to Nick Robinson aaccusing Jeremy Corbyn of ducking the issue of the day and talking about "just about anything else" for bringing up the plight of some people being persecuted by another government who have apparently had our military help, and asking for assurances that they no longer have that help.

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/937767504025354240

And here's a link to what's happening to those people, in case you think it is "just about anything else".

https://news.sky.com/feature/rohingya-crisis-11121896

And here's Nick doubling down with "Since I first tweeted @jeremycorbyn has now tweeted about Brexit.", and refusing to apologise or engage with anyone pointing out that genocide is an important issue for the leader of the opposition to raise, or that the labour press office had put out Corbyn's statement before Robinson started tweeting.

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/937776273413337088

Do you think that's acceptable behaviour for a supposedly impartial news presenter from our public broadcasting service?
2
Tony Jones - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:
> Yes, but who's going to tell the brexiteers we're staying in the single market and keeping the four freedoms?

Well, maybe, if there was a new vote and there were only, say, 49.9% of them, then we could ignore the brexiteers because, as we know now, it's all about the will of the people. (Or some such bollocks.)
Post edited at 22:48
2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

In terms of this thread and the importance of this topic (and saying this as a Labour member and voter), I couldn't give a shiny shit about Nick Robinson's Twitter account. Sorry.
2
Ciro - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> In terms of this thread and the importance of this topic (and saying this as a Labour member and voter), I couldn't give a shiny shit about Nick Robinson's Twitter account. Sorry.

No need to apologise - you're perfectly entitled to be happy with it.
Ciro - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

> Well, maybe, if there was a new vote and there were only, say, 49.9% of them, then we could ignore the brexiteers because, as we know now, it's all about the will of the people. (Or some such bollocks.)

Ah, shame... it's not such a straightforward solution then?
Lusk - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

Loving your sources ... 2 twitters, Trump's favourite medium, and Sky!
Thanks for not shortening the links, saved me looking at them.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Yes, but who's going to tell the brexiteers we're staying in the single market and keeping the four freedoms?

ME, ME, ME! Please! I'll even try not to laugh.
2
jimtitt - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There's a pretty straightforward solution, no tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK equals no need for border checks.

Either your naiivety or your ignorance is breathtaking.
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 05 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There's a pretty straightforward solution, no tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK equals no need for border checks.

So someone in Belfast buys a TV from a shop in Dublin. It would be an export from an EU country to a non-EU country. Exports to outside the EU are outside the scope of VAT so no Irish VAT is paid. The person in Belfast doesn't tell HMRC and pays no UK VAT. VAT is not a tariff but it is a lot more money than the actual tariffs on TVs.

summo on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Yes, but who's going to tell the brexiteers we're staying in the single market and keeping the four freedoms?

I voted out and have no objection to keeping trade deal or free movement. I'd be happy just see the UK end cap, fisheries, bank rolling Strasbourg etc.. There is much more to the eu than trade, which is the problem many people have. Not every Brexiteer is some rabid edl supporter.
4
MonkeyPuzzle - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> No need to apologise - you're perfectly entitled to be happy with it.

Oh look, it appears your own standards of accurately reflecting someone's opinion are right up there with the Canary. And Nick Robinson.
2
jkarran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There's a pretty straightforward solution, no tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK equals no need for border checks.

Yeah, simples. Now square that circle with all the other tosh you were promised and the EU's clearly voiced 'no-cherrypicking' position.

Do you really still think it's simple?

I mean there is a relatively simple solution to achieving tariff free frictionless borders between the UK and the EU but it's not fashionable at the moment...
jk
Post edited at 09:16
neilh - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

That is technically wrong. there are no checks even for non_EU goods when they cross the border. Customs or regulatory officials do not open up every case and check the paperwork for regulatory conformity.Even for stuff from China etc this does not happen.

For example a ship from China with 20,000 containers on it is cleared through UK customs in China.

It is pretty slick these days.

And in reverse, when I send stuff out, its pretty much the same even for countries which are notorious for controls like Japan.

You are confusing two different issues....customschecks and regulatory compliance.
jkarran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to George Ormerod:

> The usual Brexit cheerleaders have gone a bit quiet. Maybe even their extreme cognitive dissonance can't overcome the latest dose of reality.

Nah, it just takes a day or too for the latest re-calibration routines to filter out and install. They'll be back with the next tranche of correctly worded excuses and accusations shortly.
jk
Post edited at 09:13
3
wercat on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:
Nick Robinson is one of those "impartial" BBC people who gratuitously used the term "Remoaner" himself as if it had no implicit value-judgement several times and also allowed EggShitters to use the same term without challenge. I could go on but he is a highly paid piece of rubbish


Source - being a long term listener to the BBC, in recent years listening a lot more critically as standards fall.
Post edited at 09:40
2
thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

See neilh's response. They don't check for conformity at the border.
thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to George Ormerod:

Or maybe they've gone to bed like I did. There were only ever a few leave voters talking on this site and it's often a bit like talking to a wall. I only posted cause otherwise no one was putting the other side of the issue in NI.
1
thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> So someone in Belfast buys a TV from a shop in Dublin. It would be an export from an EU country to a non-EU country. Exports to outside the EU are outside the scope of VAT so no Irish VAT is paid. The person in Belfast doesn't tell HMRC and pays no UK VAT. VAT is not a tariff but it is a lot more money than the actual tariffs on TVs.

So you don't allow them to not pay VAT when exporting to the UK. I bought goods in Dublin when I was there, I paid VAT even though I was bringing it back to the UK.

You guys are endlessly looking for problems, at least try and think of solutions too, even if you end up deciding they don't work. At the end of the day it's up to the EU. If they won't agree then I guess we'll end up with a hard border, that can't be helped and frankly isn't the end of the world, even if it isn't what people want. The border exists, it's a fact of life.
6
krikoman - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> In terms of this thread and the importance of this topic (and saying this as a Labour member and voter), I couldn't give a shiny shit about Nick Robinson's Twitter account. Sorry.

That's part of the problem though isn't it?

You should care!
You should care because Nick is part of our media and part of the BBC which, in case you forgot, is supposed to be impartial and honest.

The fact you don't care means he get's away with it lies and bias, that's what we end up with and no one gives a f*ck.

If you can't see it's all part of the obfuscation of what Labour is actually doing, and saying, then it's a sad indictment of where we've got to.
3
wercat on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:
I must admit I do now see the case for May keeping her cards very close to her chest and not being transparent- after all it seems she borrowed them and a great wad of stake money from a "friend" without asking or telling them what she was doing.
Post edited at 09:45
skog on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> If they won't agree then I guess we'll end up with a hard border, that can't be helped and frankly isn't the end of the world, even if it isn't what people want

How on earth can you blame this one on the EU?

The UK leaving the EU but staying in the customs union, and keeping mostly free movement of people, goods and services - going for a Norway/Iceland/Switzerland type model - would be entirely consistent with the referendum result, and wouldn't create this problem.

There's no hard border just now, and it's "the UK" (read: Theresa and her goons) who want to change that. There are plenty of things you can blame the EU for, but this isn't one of them!
3
MG - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You guys are endlessly looking for problems, at least try and think of solutions too, even if you end up deciding they don't work

There are lots of solutions "you guys" have offered
- remain in the EU,
-leave but remain in the EEA,
-leave that but stay in the EFTA,
-leave that but accept some fudge that is roughly the same to keep some loons on board.

The only problem is you and fellow extremist zealots reject all these and have the country held to ransom.
3
Doug on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

ever been shopping in Andorra? no/very low VAT but frequent road blocks on the road to Toulouse by French customs to check you haven't bought more than your tax free allowance. I assume its the same on the Spanish side.
wercat on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:


> There's a pretty straightforward solution, no tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK equals no need for border checks.

Dear Thomas,

could you please descibe how this satisfies the various interested parties in these Islands (other than rabid Brexiteers) as well as the requirements for international trade and the EU having a defined border within which its term and conditions apply?
Does our new found sovereignty not allow us to do as we like?
1
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> If you can't see it's all part of the obfuscation of what Labour is actually doing, and saying, then it's a sad indictment of where we've got to.

What are Labour doing? This is what Ben Bradshaw said yesyerday
"Every @UKLabour MP speaking in today’s Urgent Question on #brexitshambles except Kate Hoey has supported UK staying in the Single Market & Customs Union. Hope our leadership is listening."
But that doesn't appear to be policy. Since voting with (whipping their MPs) the Tories for article 50 what is Labour actually doing?
1
john arran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Nah, it just takes a day or too for the latest re-calibration routines to filter out and install. They'll be back with the next tranche of correctly worded excuses and accusations shortly.

But is the Brexit-shaped hole shrinking?
1
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Oh look, it appears your own standards of accurately reflecting someone's opinion are right up there with the Canary. And Nick Robinson.

Well it would seem odd to interpret unhappiness from "I couldn't give a shiny shit"...
MG - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I see David Davis has now admitted his department has no assessments of the effects of brexit. Marvellous.
1
wercat on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:
Do you think he was a type who was good at exams at school and sailed through despite doing little revision or work until the eve of the exam? If so, perhaps he thought it would work for Brexit?


On a serious note that is such a dereliction of duty - it's like a pilot of a plane deciding to do something unexpected without having even familiarised himself with the type or taken any responsibility for airworthiness or pre-flight checks.

We need to get rid of him
Post edited at 10:14
1
neilh - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Unreal.Absolutely flabbergasting.Probably down to David Cameron not allowing the civil service to prepare for a no vote.

Perhaps they were just relying on what the BofE were saying( which is a realistc guide)

Talk about flying by the seat of your pants.
wercat on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:


Here is a recent summary of the situation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vLhcg_FU9g
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

I tend to reserve the term "brexiteers" for those pushing for a hard brexit, rather than simply everyone who voted leave
tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> If they won't agree then I guess we'll end up with a hard border, that can't be helped and frankly isn't the end of the world, even if it isn't what people want. The border exists, it's a fact of life.

Do you remember the troubles? The history of that area is decades long simmering civil war not 'Oh well, that's just the way it is'. We don't need that again or the IRA blowing sh*t up in mainland Britain just so some incompetent d*ckheads like Fox and Davis get their chance to negotiate better trade deals than the EU. Which, based on their relative performance to the EU negotiators in the Brexit talks, seems extremely unlikely.
2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

It's his Twitter account, not the News at Ten.

It's an irritating feature of the Jeremy Corbyn personality cult that all perceived biases against him become more important than the actual subject at hand. I write this having voted, twice for his leadership of Labour and for Labour at the last GE.

I'm not saying I don't care about the misrepresentation of Labour's position in general, as you'll notice that I prefixed my comment with "In terms of this thread and the importance of this topic...", but, Nick Robinson's lazy or disingenuous commentary aside, Corbyn waiting until 7.45pm to make any kind of statement on the matter is par for the course for a party just as divided by Brexit as the government. I understand why he'd let the government hang itself - I would - but for an opposition party facing a riven government going from disaster to disaster, Labour have been awfully quiet for months. Labour are clearly waiting to see how this lands before backing the winning horse as it crosses the line. I don't blame them politically, but it doesn't exactly show a strong alternative vision as to how this should pan out.
1
wbo - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

I'd imagine it will turn out to be Jeremy Corbyns fault.
jkarran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Unreal.Absolutely flabbergasting.Probably down to David Cameron not allowing the civil service to prepare for a no vote.

I'm not sure this is quite what it sounds, there appears to be a lot of wordplay going on around the defined meaning of 'analysis'. This is one part obfuscation and one part party political maneuvering. How many parts shameless-lying and incompetence are still required to bake the perfect turd seems less clear.
jk
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> What are Labour doing? This is what Ben Bradshaw said yesyerday

> "Every @UKLabour MP speaking in today’s Urgent Question on #brexitshambles except Kate Hoey has supported UK staying in the Single Market & Customs Union. Hope our leadership is listening."

> But that doesn't appear to be policy. Since voting with (whipping their MPs) the Tories for article 50 what is Labour actually doing?

Waiting. Other than encouraging moderation and ensuring the government don't do anything illegal I don't think there's much else they can do. The government are "negotiating" a political event of some magnitude, if the opposition fights them too hard they'll be accused of derailing the talks and putting the future of the country at risk. Whether we like it or not, the Tories are in charge for now and we have to wait for events to unfold. In the plus side, it doesn't look like it's going to take long for the government to collapse under its own weight, then we'll see what the opposition is made of.
Ramblin dave - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:
> Probably down to David Cameron not allowing the civil service to prepare for a no vote.

Also, possibly, down to Team Brexit being keen to get Article 50 triggered as quickly as possible after the referendum to minimize the risk that people might change their minds about the whole thing.
Post edited at 10:37
1
MG - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I think Nick Robinson was accurate. Labour and Corbyn do prefer to talk about anything else. Yes, there was one press release no one read or knew about until the tweet, but that was it. Brexit is the most serious matter facing the UK for decades, at least, Labour should be dominating the conversation, not relying on an obscure 100 word press release to say nothing significant.
1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:
As an aside, David Davis doesn't believe in impact assessments and "I am not a fan of economic models because they have all proven wrong,".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42249854

This reminds me of a contractor (think gigantic Japanese multi-national) who, when quizzed on why their forecasts were merely the whole contract budget spread over the duration of the programme, asked me how they could see (one to three months) into the future. They did handily offer to, at the end of each month, give me a "retrospective forecast", which they felt would be more accurate. David Davis might find himself at home there, when he's done being a shit politician.
Post edited at 11:26
2
Wee Davie - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Come on the DUP. Let's force a dissolution of Parliament and a new vote!
MG - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> Is this the effective outcome, assuming the leaks are correct?

So the answer to this was "no". The outcome seems to be chaos. Or will May pull something out of the hat? Oh, the suspense!!
thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> Do you remember the troubles? The history of that area is decades long simmering civil war not 'Oh well, that's just the way it is'. We don't need that again or the IRA blowing sh*t up in mainland Britain just so some incompetent d*ckheads like Fox and Davis get their chance to negotiate better trade deals than the EU. Which, based on their relative performance to the EU negotiators in the Brexit talks, seems extremely unlikely.

Vaguely, I was young for most of it but I do remember a bomb going off in London when I was there.

The agreement states that NI is part of the UK unless/until a majority of NI want otherwise. Sinn Fein signed up to this, they accepted that the border is between NI and Eire. As it is part of the UK there should not be a border between NI and the rest of the UK. That would be a change to the agreement, and that is what Ireland are pushing for, not us. Shock, horror, the DUP don't want this border. No one should be surprised.
Post edited at 11:35
3
neilh - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I do not think major employers like the banks , pharma companies, motor car companies will be too impressed. Does not look good to the outside world.

Even as a small manufacturing exporter I was a bit shocked. Not knowing or having analysed the impact is in all honesty pretty basic stuff.

But to be fair do not know how that compares with the B of E reports done for the govt.Maybe there is an overlap.
Post edited at 11:35
Wee Davie - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

I get the feeling this whole DUP/ hard border/ hard Brexiteers clash has been brewing since the start and May is hoping for a stalemate/ collapse of the whole farce. Although the Leave vote was technically democratic and binding at the start I doubt the political will exists to carry it out amongst the majority of UK politicians. This latest 'no impact assessments done' is no surprise to me, given the blethering about 'need to know/ confidentiality during negotiations' garbage we were treated to a couple weeks ago. It's like something from Yes Minister.
summo on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> I think Nick Robinson was accurate. Labour and Corbyn do prefer to talk about anything else.

I think you should give Corbyn some slack, he's a busy guy it's Xmas after all, those woolly jumpers and homemade Xmas chutneys aren't going to make themselves.

Not mention the GQ photo shoot. Perhaps there are greater priorities just now!

4
Ramblin dave - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Wee Davie:

> Come on the DUP. Let's force a dissolution of Parliament and a new vote!

I have this happy fantasy that since it's becoming apparent that the government won't be able to keep the hard-Brexit headbangers and the DUP both onside at the same time as actually progressing the talks, the remaining grownups in the party will tell both the DUP and the nutters to, as the current saying goes, "go whistle", come to a single issue agreement with (at least) the Lib Dems and SNP to sort out a soft Brexit as quickly and efficiently as possible despite the inevitable nutter-rebellion, and try to run a minority government on the rest in which they have to try to find policies that they can get actually a broad base of cross-party support for on a case-by-case basis.

Can anyone tell me all the reasons why I'm deluding myself here?
1
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> I see David Davis has now admitted his department has no assessments of the effects of brexit. Marvellous.

It's ok, they're going to produce some impact assessments “a little closer to the negotiating timetable”. Plenty of time.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Waiting. Other than encouraging moderation and ensuring the government don't do anything illegal I don't think there's much else they can do. The government are "negotiating" a political event of some magnitude, if the opposition fights them too hard they'll be accused of derailing the talks and putting the future of the country at risk. Whether we like it or not, the Tories are in charge for now and we have to wait for events to unfold. In the plus side, it doesn't look like it's going to take long for the government to collapse under its own weight, then we'll see what the opposition is made of.

Voting for article 50 was hardly "waiting". And supporting remaining in the single market and customs union would hardly be rushing anything. It looks pretty much like holding no position at all.
1
deepsoup - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Wee Davie:
> Although the Leave vote was technically democratic and binding at the start ...

It was never meant to be binding, if it had been the threshold for a successful vote to change the status quo would have been much higher than 50%, probably 70%.

As Farage himself said in an interview on the 17th May (when he thought the result would go the other way), a 52-48 result would be "unfinished business by a long way" and he would have been campaigning for a second referendum, whereas a two-thirds to one-third result would settle it.

I'm not so sure it was democratic either.
The young were disenfranchised, EU citizens living working and raising children in the UK were denied a vote. The process was rushed leaving little time for proper reporting and fact checking of the various claims (compare it to the Scottish independence referendum).

Also the campaigning and reporting throughout was a f*cking disgrace, never in British political history have so many pants been on fire.
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Voting for article 50 was hardly "waiting". And supporting remaining in the single market and customs union would hardly be rushing anything. It looks pretty much like holding no position at all.

I was responding to the question what have they been doing *since* voting for article 50, not before it.

With regard to the vote, I wasn't particularly happy with it but I can see why they did - any obstruction there would have seen them accused of preventing the government from executing the "will of the people", which could have been very damaging. As embarrassing as the current shambles is, we probably needed to see it to start convincing the floating voters that a hard brexit is a bad idea.
krikoman - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> It's his Twitter account, not the News at Ten.

Which would be fine, but his tag (if that's what you call it) is Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson

Note the BBC bit.

It's not about a personality cult, it's about a bit of honesty in the media.

If you look at the comments above, it's pretty obvious that the message presented by the media is that Labour,

A) said nothing.

B) Were more concerned about frippery, than important issues (Myanmar supposedly is now frippery)

C) Were hiding from the media.

So I could give two f*cks about Nick myself, but he should use his own tweet ID and not the BBC if he's going to talk shite.

As for what you want Labour to actually say, what would you propose?

They have little if no influence, all that would happen is the Tories would jump on whatever was said, and start opening a rift in the party again.

the best thing they can do is let the Tories f*ck it up and come up with suggestions on how to fix things when we ALL know what they're going to offer us.

The rate they are going we'll be paying more than we did when we were in, with none of the benefits and less of a market in the rest of the world.

It won't be difficult to offer to do a better job when they've finished digging their own hole, will it.

You don't show your cards too early or you're pissing away the opportunity.
1
SDM on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> It's his Twitter account, not the News at Ten.

In 2017, a senior journalist's social media accounts need to be held up to the same standards as the news at 10 because of how people access the news these days and how journalists use their social media accounts.

With his position, he can't use twitter to break news and distribute his analysis and then seek to hide behind "It's only twitter" (not that Robinson himself has made this argument).
krikoman - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> I think Nick Robinson was accurate. Labour and Corbyn do prefer to talk about anything else. Yes, there was one press release no one read or knew about until the tweet, but that was it.

Why not? Why wasn't it publicised, even saying nothing, it was a statement.

I'm left wondering what influence you think Labour have on the whole Brexit talks.
The Tories don't seem to be listening to anyone, including their own ministers.

Once again you seem to be blaming the Labour party for the shithole we've been dropped in by the Tories, and since it happened they just keep making things worse.

What possible thing could Labour say that would make a difference?
1
Andy Hardy on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> [...]

> What possible thing could Labour say that would make a difference?

"Let's revoke Article 50, do 58 impact studies, put those in the public domain, and then re-run the referendum" would get my vote.
1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to SDM:

> In 2017, a senior journalist's social media accounts need to be held up to the same standards as the news at 10 because of how people access the news these days and how journalists use their social media accounts.

Not according to BBC Social Media guidelines it doesn't.



girlymonkey - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> At the end of the day it's up to the EU.

Why is it up to the EU? The UK are the ones who have caused the problem, why should someone else have to solve it?!

>If they won't agree then I guess we'll end up with a hard border, that can't be helped and frankly isn't the end of the world, even if it isn't what people want.

Maybe you don't remember the troubles? It doesn't just affect NI, the UK was bombed a lot. I remember growing up and hearing about bombings regularly on the news, thankfully I was never directly affected. I have friends who grew up in NI and it really would be hugely scary for them.

To be so flippant about what is a MASSIVE issue is horrendously insensitive and shows a huge level of navel gazing.

2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Which would be fine, but his tag (if that's what you call it) is Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson

> Note the BBC bit.

Note the BBC's guidelines do not state that he has to adhere to editorial standards using his Twitter feed.

> It's not about a personality cult, it's about a bit of honesty in the media.

> If you look at the comments above, it's pretty obvious that the message presented by the media is that Labour,

> A) said nothing.

Even their statement didn't really say anything. Standard opposition attack on the government's position. "Jobs-first Brexit" is worthy of George Osborne at his most vapid.

> B) Were more concerned about frippery, than important issues (Myanmar supposedly is now frippery)

I don't agree that Myanmar is frippery, but that's your inference. Robinson said Labour wanted to talk about anything but Brexit, and I'd say that's within the range of reasonable interpretations of their actions of the last 18 months.

> C) Were hiding from the media.

One statement at 7.45pm on a day of potentially huge political ramifications. Again, not how I would characterise it, but within a reasonable range of interpretation.

> So I could give two f*cks about Nick myself, but he should use his own tweet ID and not the BBC if he's going to talk shite.

That would just be confusing and pointless. Corbyn supporters would just be pointing to the bias on his personal account and saying that undermined his position as a journalist instead.

> As for what you want Labour to actually say, what would you propose?

Read my post. I'd stay as quiet as I could get away with. You can't call this taking a position though.

> They have little if no influence, all that would happen is the Tories would jump on whatever was said, and start opening a rift in the party again.

> the best thing they can do is let the Tories f*ck it up and come up with suggestions on how to fix things when we ALL know what they're going to offer us.

As above.

> The rate they are going we'll be paying more than we did when we were in, with none of the benefits and less of a market in the rest of the world.

> It won't be difficult to offer to do a better job when they've finished digging their own hole, will it.

> You don't show your cards too early or you're pissing away the opportunity.

Or, they're waiting to back the horse as it crosses the line. It's politically wise, in the light that they don't have a strong position on Brexit themselves.

1
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> "Let's revoke Article 50, do 58 impact studies, put those in the public domain, and then re-run the referendum" would get my vote.

It might get your vote, but it would lose some others. Are you sure now would be the right time to draw those battle lines?

Andy Hardy on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

Time is a luxury we don't have. This issue should transcend party politics. It would make more sense for the remainder of this parliament for MPs to align themselves as remain or leave and vote accordingly. Maybe the use of whips should be abolished too.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> I was responding to the question what have they been doing *since* voting for article 50, not before it.

So they haven’t done anything since they did something stupid.

> With regard to the vote, I wasn't particularly happy with it but I can see why they did - any obstruction there would have seen them accused of preventing the government from executing the "will of the people", which could have been very damaging. As embarrassing as the current shambles is, we probably needed to see it to start convincing the floating voters that a hard brexit is a bad idea.

I don't agree. Labour could simply have said that impact assessments should be commissioned and studied prior to article 50 being triggered. But now we have 15 months before we crash out of the eu, deal or no deal. How close to the line are Labour going to leave it before their cunning plan is revealed.
Shani - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:
The five stages of David Davis:

1. We have 58/9 impact assessments.
2. I have not read the 58/9 impact assessments
3. You can't have the 58/9 impact assessments due to confidentiality issues
4. You can have the 58/9 impact assessments, heavily redacted
5. There are no 58/9 impact assessments

What. A. Laughing. Stock.
Post edited at 13:44
wercat on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:
didn't you forget his ultra-complacent remark about how straightforward the negotiations would be for us?


I was pretty amazed even before the referendum that no information about how Brexit would affect our national interests - at least that would have provided a sensible escape sequence - A government's first duty is to protect the national and personal interests of its citizens and despite any plebiscite if it sees a course of action as not being in the national interest it should not pursue it under any circumstances.

Have the children and traitors forgotten that?
Post edited at 13:45
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

Otherwise known as lying https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/938378696066465793

Perhaps it isn't a job he wanted to keep anyway.
Shani - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Incredible that Brexiteers are not clamouring for this lying buffoon to be replaced. Surely they should be pushing for the best people to fulfill such a position? Surely a liar cannot be the best of negotiators?

Come on Brexiteers, don't be shy!
2
john arran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

Seems pretty clear to me: Impact Assessment is to Sectoral Analysis as Regulatory Convergence is to Lack of Regulatory Divergence.
thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to wercat:

Can you explain why it doesn't?

> Does our new found sovereignty not allow us to do as we like?

If by do as you like you mean force the EU to do something then of course it doesn't. It allows us to do as we like within the UK, and in international agreements to make whatever agreements we like - providing, of course that whoever we're making the agreement with agrees as well.

Girlymonkey:

> Why is it up to the EU? The UK are the ones who have caused the problem, why should someone else have to solve it?!

Because it's an agreement between two parties, both have to sign up! Neither side can find a resolution on their own.

> Maybe you don't remember the troubles? It doesn't just affect NI, the UK was bombed a lot. I remember growing up and hearing about bombings regularly on the news, thankfully I was never directly affected. I have friends who grew up in NI and it really would be hugely scary for them.

See my reply above.

> To be so flippant about what is a MASSIVE issue is horrendously insensitive and shows a huge level of navel gazing.

Tell that to all those gloating, like pasbury and tom_in_edinburgh. As far as I can see it's very serious and it's almost unbelievable that this agreement was almost made without consulting the loyalist side. Tell that to the Irish PM and the EU who are demanding that we put up a border between NI and the UK too.
5
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Time is a luxury we don't have. This issue should transcend party politics. It would make more sense for the remainder of this parliament for MPs to align themselves as remain or leave and vote accordingly. Maybe the use of whips should be abolished too.

Indeed, time is a luxury we don't have, but that means timing is crucial. There's only going to be one or two shots at affecting change, which means (like it or not) political manouvering to be in the right place at the right time. Transcending party politics is a lovely thought, but the reality is that the situation is under the "control" (I use the word loosely) of our two party system.
MG - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Once again you seem to be blaming the Labour party for the shithole we've been dropped in by the Tories, and since it happened they just keep making things worse.

I'm blaming both

> What possible thing could Labour say that would make a difference?

Corbyn could have not supported the government with a three-line whip on every brexit vote
Corbyn could have articulated a clear alternative vision (EEA,EFTA, customs, whatever)
Corbyn could have been active and visible rather than muttering in the background etc.

Of course he's not doing this because he is actually as supportive of brexit as Boris and Davis and the rest but doesn't want people to think that, hence the (effective) silence on it all.

Starmer would I imagine be quite and effective voice if he had some honest support from his party
2
wercat on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
Can you honestly, hand on heart say that you are certain that Brexit is in our national interest? Whatever turmoil it causes.

BTW, google the Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings for a taste. I've worked with several colleagues who suffered in the Troubles - one recalled diving under vehicles at the Divis flats as a heavy machine gun spattered the road they were in. Another's strange psychological state and work behaviour was, he told me, something that happened after being blown headfirst into a lorry wheelarch while serving in the paras in NI. I met a dropout in Kings Cross who settled beside me and eventually told me about being shot in the head by the provos before falling out of normal life. A friend had several of his soldiersand their relatives killed by the coach bomb on the M62 in the early 70s. Another friend confided his nightmares for 2 decades after getting out after several tours there.

They are the ones who were lucky enough to survive
Post edited at 14:03
2
SDM on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Note the BBC's guidelines do not state that he has to adhere to editorial standards using his Twitter feed.

Disappointing to learn that the BBC's guidelines are not fit for purpose. Their journalists' twitter accounts are integrated into the BBC's news pages. To claim that editorial standards do not apply is very poor.

Sadly, while it is disappointing, it isn't surprising; standards at the BBC just aren't what they were.
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> I don't agree. Labour could simply have said that impact assessments should be commissioned and studied prior to article 50 being triggered. But now we have 15 months before we crash out of the eu, deal or no deal. How close to the line are Labour going to leave it before their cunning plan is revealed.

I agree they could have done - as I said I wasn't particularly happy with it at the time, but I can see why they chose the path they did.

We are where we are, and I'm not sure what arguing over what the opposition could have done can achieve. The Tories got us in this mess, and are currently in charge of it. The rest of us need to keep advocating for a less damaging outcome than hard brexit and hope that public opinion shifts to allow it. Criticising the opposition for not doing enough, as I see it, benefits nobody other than the hard brexiteers.
MG - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> The rest of us need to keep advocating for a less damaging outcome than hard brexit and hope that public opinion shifts to allow it. Criticising the opposition for not doing enough, as I see it, benefits nobody other than the hard brexiteers.

How does it help them? In any case, isn't the whole point of an opposition to, well, oppose, rather than support, the government? IF they can't think of any alternatives, what is the point of them existing?
skog on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Tell that to the Irish PM and the EU who are demanding that we put up a border between NI and the UK too.

They aren't, they're demanding that the existing border between NI and ROI be kept fairly soft.

It's the UK which wants to put up a hard border to isolate it from the EU's free movement zone.
2
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> I agree they could have done - as I said I wasn't particularly happy with it at the time, but I can see why they chose the path they did.

> We are where we are, and I'm not sure what arguing over what the opposition could have done can achieve. The Tories got us in this mess, and are currently in charge of it. The rest of us need to keep advocating for a less damaging outcome than hard brexit and hope that public opinion shifts to allow it. Criticising the opposition for not doing enough, as I see it, benefits nobody other than the hard brexiteers.

If they disagree with leaving the single market and the customs union then they could oppose that. Otherwise what are they for?
Shani - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Seems pretty clear to me: Impact Assessment is to Sectoral Analysis as Regulatory Convergence is to Lack of Regulatory Divergence.

You mean like 'Take back control' means 'hand control to the DUP - you as an resident of England/Scotland/Wales can't vote for, AND you have to sub them £1bn'?
MonkeyPuzzle - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> We are where we are, and I'm not sure what arguing over what the opposition could have done can achieve. The Tories got us in this mess, and are currently in charge of it. The rest of us need to keep advocating for a less damaging outcome than hard brexit and hope that public opinion shifts to allow it. Criticising the opposition for not doing enough, as I see it, benefits nobody other than the hard brexiteers.

This government could collapse at any moment. Currently we don't have a good idea of what the likely alternative government would do. Two years is a hell of a long time with 19 DUP nutters barely propping up this Tory minority government.
earlsdonwhu - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

The trouble is that 29 impact studies will say these sectors are going to be screwed while the others will say Brexit offers them the chance of a brilliant future.

It's all shambollox.
1
jkarran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> The trouble is that 29 impact studies will say these sectors are going to be screwed while the others will say Brexit offers them the chance of a brilliant future.

Interesting. I appreciate you're probably making basically making a rhetorical point and you may not actually believe there are many/any but which sectors do you (or others) think are likely to have a significantly brighter future outside the EU? Would be especially interested if anybody's ideas were accompanied by a ranked list of sectors by overall value, taxed value and in employment number terms. That would be genuinely interesting.

The ukc brexiteers do seem rather subdued at the moment.
jk
Post edited at 15:45
2
tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> The trouble is that 29 impact studies will say these sectors are going to be screwed while the others will say Brexit offers them the chance of a brilliant future.

If there were studies that said there was a chance of a brilliant future they wouldn't be secret. If reports are kept secret they say stuff that doesn't suit the governments argument. Classic example being the McCrone report which said an independent Scotland would be rich off North Sea oil and was classified by the UK government in the run up to the first devolution referendum so the politicians could tell us it would be an economic disaster.

1
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> How does it help them? In any case, isn't the whole point of an opposition to, well, oppose, rather than support, the government? IF they can't think of any alternatives, what is the point of them existing?

It distracts from blaming those who are leading the charge out of europe and the single market.

Despite other areas of political alignment, as a europhilic SNP supporter there's a lot that I disagree with the labour leadership on and it would be easy enough for me to sit here an have a go. But as someone said earlier, brexit should be beyond party politics. We all know Corbyn is not a fan of the EU, but he has appointed a shadow brexit minister who's vocally for a "soft brexit" of staying in the customs union, and stated personally that he wouldn't rule out a second referendum on the results of the negotiations with the EU. Why not work with that? The government coalition is on shaky ground, if Labour are keeping their options open, we should encourage them to come down on the side of the softest possible brexit when the time comes to show their hand. If we continue to fight among ourselves, they might just decide that "we can do a better job of a hard brexit than the tories" is a more winnable position.

girlymonkey - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:


> Because it's an agreement between two parties, both have to sign up! Neither side can find a resolution on their own.

No, the EU don't have to sign up to anything. We screwed up, they have no obligation to get us out of our mess. They would quite like to stay friends with us and would like to cooperate, but they don't have to!


> Tell that to all those gloating, like pasbury and tom_in_edinburgh. As far as I can see it's very serious and it's almost unbelievable that this agreement was almost made without consulting the loyalist side. Tell that to the Irish PM and the EU who are demanding that we put up a border between NI and the UK too.

No one is gloating, more laughing because crying is the alternative! It would be the best sitcom ever if it didn't impact my life!

No one is telling us we have to put up a border between NI and ROI except the DUP. Everyone else would be delighted if we just stay in customs union and keep freedom of movement!
4
Andy Hardy on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

>[...]

> The ukc brexiteers do seem rather subdued at the moment.

> jk

I have just popped out of my bubble to see what was happening in the comments section of the mail online - there appears to be as many comments calling for a halt to brexit as there are calling for Davis, May and the chuckle brothers to get the sack. Even the leavers recognise what a monumental screw up the negotiations have been
1
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> If they disagree with leaving the single market and the customs union then they could oppose that. Otherwise what are they for?

Well, some within the party might say they're for taking over the running of the country *after* the tories have destroyed their political credentials for a decade by screwing up brexit. I'd say we should encourage them to intervene on our behalf first... and to do that we have to convince them that they'll be supported if they do.
jkarran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I've been chatting with a few on facebook, they're still fully on board with it, the harder and more belligerent the better. Also now pushing for Rees-Mogg to be put in charge (facepalm). Still I fear (hope?) they're from the further reaches of the brexiteer spectrum and that however bad the news gets the solution will remain doubling down on the belligerence and isolationism.

I've also been told the solution to the Irish issue is to make them leave too. It's been nearly a hundred years!
jk
Post edited at 16:10
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> This government could collapse at any moment. Currently we don't have a good idea of what the likely alternative government would do. Two years is a hell of a long time with 19 DUP nutters barely propping up this Tory minority government.

Well, we only have ourselves to blame for voting in the Conservative/DUP coalition. Can you blame Labour for keeping their position open when at the last election we voted for the party of hard brexit?
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Well, some within the party might say they're for taking over the running of the country *after* the tories have destroyed their political credentials for a decade by screwing up brexit.

It won't just be the Tory party's credentials that'll be buggered.

> I'd say we should encourage them to intervene on our behalf first... and to do that we have to convince them that they'll be supported if they do.

You think we should convince them by not saying what we want them to do?

Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> You think we should convince them by not saying what we want them to do?

Not at all. I'm saying we should be loud and clear about what we want them to do, but drop the complaints and recriminations over what we think they should have done. We won't change public opinion by squabbling over the past.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Not at all. I'm saying we should be loud and clear about what we want them to do, but drop the complaints and recriminations over what we think they should have done. We won't change public opinion by squabbling over the past.

Supporting staying in the single market and the customs union is what I am loudly and very clearly suggesting they do now. What are you arguing about?
wercat on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

sorry, but I voted Lib Dem
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think we're largely in agreement. I was just pointing out that I think asking "what have labour done?" is handing ammo to the opposition
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to wercat:

I made that mistake once too
3
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> I think we're largely in agreement. I was just pointing out that I think asking "what have labour done?" is handing ammo to the opposition

They are the opposition. At least they're supposed to be, but they're doing bugger all opposing, Corbyn on PMQ today was particularly useless. And you can hardly point out what you think they should do without acknowledging they've been crap at it so far.
1
MG - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> . We won't change public opinion by squabbling over the past.

I don't see how starting the world right now helps at all. You could equally say ignore what the Tories or DUP have done in the past. Parties' behaviour up to this point is a good indication of what will happen next unless the flaws are pointed.
Tanke - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:
'73% of British who worried about immigration voted to leave'.*
Is pivotal issue for all turmoil political in Britain is you imperititve must be to satisfy these British citizens who democratically for this wish.
Question:to apply result of vote is possible without 'Hard' border at Eire?
If not then you forced from the circumstance to have hard border at Eire seem only logical path.How else you stop more immigrants entering?
Democratic vote mechanism is final decision-British not want EU immigrants worried take employment and housing-this is reason and cause,British voted,now must obey vote and reason for vote.

*Source Inependant newspaper
Post edited at 16:56
3
MG - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Tanke:


The vote was on leaving the EU, not on setting up borders with razor wire and machine guns.
Tanke - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Ye this i am aware but how you stop immigration without?
MG - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Tanke:

The easiest way is to crash the economy, which seems to be happening bso don't worry.
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> They are the opposition. At least they're supposed to be, but they're doing bugger all opposing, Corbyn on PMQ today was particularly useless. And you can hardly point out what you think they should do without acknowledging they've been crap at it so far.

Very constructive.
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> I don't see how starting the world right now helps at all. You could equally say ignore what the Tories or DUP have done in the past. Parties' behaviour up to this point is a good indication of what will happen next unless the flaws are pointed.

Well, if we were pinning our hopes on the Tories or the DUP coming out firing on our side, I would indeed suggest downlplaying what they'd done in the past and concentrating on what we hoped they would do in the future. But we're not.
jkarran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Tanke:

What's your first language Tanke? The difference between your excellent spelling and your really odd sentence assembly is hard to understand. Are you using a translator?
Jk
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Very constructive.

Suggesting a push for remaining in the single market and customs union is a bit more constructive than your "ssshhh, keep quiet".
GrahamD - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to girlymonkey:

> No, the EU don't have to sign up to anything. We screwed up, they have no obligation to get us out of our mess. They would quite like to stay friends with us and would like to cooperate, but they don't have to!

I think people miss the point about negotiating with the EU. Its not 2 parties negotiating, its one trying to negotiate with 27.

girlymonkey - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

Indeed, a very valid point
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Suggesting a push for remaining in the single market and customs union is a bit more constructive than your "ssshhh, keep quiet".

"They are the opposition. At least they're supposed to be, but they're doing bugger all opposing, Corbyn on PMQ today was particularly useless. And you can hardly point out what you think they should do without acknowledging they've been crap at it so far."

Was simply an attack on Corbyn, there was nothing constructive about it. Which is absolutely your right to do, but I don't see how it advances the cause of pushing for remaining in the single market and customs union.

Keir Starmer might replace Corbyn one day, but even if there was a will for it now, the government could pretty much collapse at any time so there's no time for a change of leadership and the party to regroup around the new leader. For now Corbyn is the guy we need to persuade to lead us (with the help of the SNP and others) to that goal.
Shani - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to GrahamD:
Actually it is at least 3 (The Cabinet, DUP, and Hard Brexiteers) negotiating with 27.
Post edited at 18:30
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> "They are the opposition. At least they're supposed to be, but they're doing bugger all opposing, Corbyn on PMQ today was particularly useless. And you can hardly point out what you think they should do without acknowledging they've been crap at it so far."

> Was simply an attack on Corbyn, there was nothing constructive about it. Which is absolutely your right to do, but I don't see how it advances the cause of pushing for remaining in the single market and customs union.

I'm pointing out what I want them to be doing, because they aren't doing it. It isn't an attack, merely stating what's happening, that you view it as an attack is remarkably thin-skinned.

> Keir Starmer might replace Corbyn one day, but even if there was a will for it now, the government could pretty much collapse at any time so there's no time for a change of leadership and the party to regroup around the new leader. For now Corbyn is the guy we need to persuade to lead us (with the help of the SNP and others) to that goal.

Maybe, but if he's happy to take us out of the eu, the single market and the customs union then maybe not.
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think the tone of the conversations we have shapes the political climate we are in, but we obviously disagree over the importance of that so I guess there's no point in us going around in circles
Jim C - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Tanke:
> Ye this i am aware but how you stop immigration without?

It seems that immigration already down significantly, and there is nothing in place as yet. No need for guns or wire it seems, ( not that anyone has suggested that) we don't need to physically hurt anyone, it appears you just need hurt their feelings and they stay away .
Post edited at 18:54
3
Tanke - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> It seems that immigration already down significantly.... we don't need to physically hurt anyone, it appears you just need hurt their feelings and they stay away .

There is from referendum on EU more noticable animosity directed to EU person from British citizen which previous more the hidden which threat to safety only for being EU citizen.
In employment i hearing of harder to get work for EU citizen get sneered at for be here more open.
Not tea party invite cause less EU citizen what to come here but feel less safe personal and the discrimination of employments from current climate is reason family in Europe worry when you go to Britain as hear of EU citizen killed for talk in Polish or other not English language.
Jim C - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:


> The ukc brexiteers do seem rather subdued at the moment.

And what do you infer from that?


andyfallsoff - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Jim C:

What are your thoughts on whether that's a good or bad thing?
keith-ratcliffe on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:
Can anyone enlighten me about the status of the Isle of Man in all this. Is there a golden opportunity for a creative solution there?
jkarran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> And what do you infer from that?

What do you think about how all of this is panning out Jim? All going swimmingly, pretty much as you expected?How do you feel about the government failing to undertake proper assessments of the impact of the various choices they have to make on the economy? I mean you'd have hoped that'd be something they'd do right, that this isn't a huge experiment with your future at stake being lashed up by crooks, dupes and dimwits who haven't even had a responsible adult perform a basic risk assessment before they flipped the switch to set it in motion? The negligence and contempt on display now would be both career ending and criminal in many fields.

Still, hold your nose and stick with it, if we've learned anything about lying governments it's that the end almost always justifies the means. Once the final verdict is in the judicial reviews and public enquires are all done almost nobody ever looks back and thinks what the actual f*** were they playing at, where were the checks, the scrutiny, the integrity...
jk
Post edited at 19:57
1
Ciro - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to Jim C:

> It seems that immigration already down significantly, and there is nothing in place as yet. No need for guns or wire it seems, ( not that anyone has suggested that) we don't need to physically hurt anyone, it appears you just need hurt their feelings and they stay away .

Trashing your economy certainly cuts the numbers of economic migrants.
jkarran - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
> Can anyone enlighten me about the status of the Isle of Man in all this. Is there a golden opportunity for a creative solution there?

It's outside all of this. Its financial services heavy economy is likely to be badly damaged by the harder versions of brexit, rendered irrelevant by London taking on its "low tax, ruled by British-ish law, edge of Europe but non EU" USP if the hardliners get their way. Still at least they've put some effort into tourism again of late (particularly outdoors/adventure) and with their currency tied to sterling they'll remain affordable as European holidays become a luxury again for many.
jk
Post edited at 19:58
2
thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to girlymonkey:

> No, the EU don't have to sign up to anything. We screwed up, they have no obligation to get us out of our mess. They would quite like to stay friends with us and would like to cooperate, but they don't have to!

They don't have to do anything, absolutely. But if they don't want a hard border with us then they have to come to some sort of agreement with us, the UK. Not mess with NI.

> No one is telling us we have to put up a border between NI and ROI except the DUP. Everyone else would be delighted if we just stay in customs union and keep freedom of movement!

The NI border exists already, it's not being put up, and the form it takes in future will depend on the EUs relationship with the UK. Both main parties promised we would leave the customs union and end freedom of movement. If the EU won't move on to the new relationship between us before we agree on the border I can't see how we're getting anywhere. That's their choice, not ours.

The funny thing is this isn't really that big a deal, nothing's signed until everything is. Maybe they were just making promises to get through to the next stage, knowing they'd change it later. Then it got public and the DUP couldn't admit to it? Doesn't look like it though.
11
thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> I think people miss the point about negotiating with the EU. Its not 2 parties negotiating, its one trying to negotiate with 27.

They keep telling us they're united and operate as one, and the EU has the power to negotiate trade deals, not individual states. That's 1.
3
MonkeyPuzzle - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The NI border exists already, it's not being put up, and the form it takes in future will depend on the EUs relationship with the UK. Both main parties promised we would leave the customs union and end freedom of movement. If the EU won't move on to the new relationship between us before we agree on the border I can't see how we're getting anywhere. That's their choice, not ours.

Yes, currently the road signs change all of a sudden, often half way through a town or village. No matter whose choice you thin it is (clue: the ones who voted to change everything) we all have to live with the consequences of further dividing a part of the world we've worked so f*cking hard to become less divided. Enjoy your blue passport.
3
MonkeyPuzzle - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> They keep telling us they're united and operate as one, and the EU has the power to negotiate trade deals, not individual states. That's 1.

Correct. The EU negotiates and then they need 28 states to agree to the outcome.
girlymonkey - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:

> They don't have to do anything, absolutely. But if they don't want a hard border with us then they have to come to some sort of agreement with us, the UK. Not mess with NI.

No, we screwed up, it's us that need to fix it! We are screwing them over yet you expect them to bend over backwards to accommodate us.


> The NI border exists already, it's not being put up, and the form it takes in future will depend on the EUs relationship with the UK. Both main parties promised we would leave the customs union and end freedom of movement.

Before the referendum, there were no such promises, in fact many people were saying that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market. We're back to the same old problem, it was all a monumental cock up where no one actually planned any proposals, there was no white paper of what would happen and then the 'leaders' of the movement all ran away.

>If the EU won't move on to the new relationship between us before we agree on the border I can't see how we're getting anywhere. That's their choice, not ours.

Again, we cocked up, so we need to move not them. I think they are being incredibly patient. I wouldn't blame them if they walked away from it all due to the amount they have been messed around, particularly this week!

> The funny thing is this isn't really that big a deal, nothing's signed until everything is. Maybe they were just making promises to get through to the next stage, knowing they'd change it later. Then it got public and the DUP couldn't admit to it? Doesn't look like it though.

Isn't a big deal??! Destroying NI peace process is a big deal to me! Please go and read up more on it. You can't agree something and then go back on it no matter what (it's called lying!), but particularly not something so sensitive.
3
summo on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Isn't a big deal??! Destroying NI peace process is a big deal to me! Please go and read up more on it.

Exactly. Sinn Fein don't want peace and democracy as it stands, they won't even take their seats in the UK parliament and the NI government is currently a shambles. If folk start blowing up innocent people in shopping centres because some trade tariff put 5% on their food then it is because they wanted to go back to war anyway and Brexit is just an excuse. With or without Brexit there won't ever be long term peace in ireland/ni as they both can't have what they want.

13
girlymonkey - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

Indeed, I'm not justifying the flare up of troubles, but it has to be acknowledged that that this is the reality. The longer the peace process can be successful, the less chance there is of troubles restarting with future generations. As young people get used to peace and live in a more international and collaborative society, the more chance of real change. While there are still a lot of the perpetrators of the troubles who are still alive, they will never truly be a thing of the past as they won't let it be. There are still 'peace walls' in many places in Belfast (don't know about the rest of NI), which shows that the cracks are still only papered over, not healed. Progress was being made and little England and the DUP seem determined to put the whole process back to the beginning
3
summo on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to girlymonkey:

The future generations don't stand a chance whilst education and housing are divided by religious and political beliefs. The next generation are already being conditioned by their own population, Brexit will be blamed for many things of course, but it has not forced them to live as a divided society as they currently do.
5
Sir Chasm - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

> The future generations don't stand a chance whilst education and housing are divided by religious and political beliefs. The next generation are already being conditioned by their own population, Brexit will be blamed for many things of course, but it has not forced them to live as a divided society as they currently do.

But they are currently living relatively peacefully. If trouble escalates post brexit your claim that brexit has nothing to do with that would look rather naive.
2
girlymonkey - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:
Indeed, and not giving any legitimacy to the likes of the DUP would help things too!!

There are projects working hard to reduce divisions, but it's a slow process. I was running with a woman from NI yesterday and she was chatting about all of this. I think over here people just don't understand how deep rooted the hatred, mistrust and tribal mentalities go. Things ARE changing, but it will take a couple of generations for it to be really apparent. Being in the EU has been key to this. Access to EU courts for neutrality, everyone having the common European identity so that you can have some common identity rather than just British or Irish, EU money funding projects which aid integration. The EU is not perfect, but they have have been hugely infuential in this area and we really need to be so careful to maintain this. It's nearly 20 years since the Good Friday agreement, it would be tragic to lose this progress

Intersetingly, taken from Wikipedia:
The British-Irish Agreement came into force on 2 December 1999. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was the only major political group in Northern Ireland to oppose the Good Friday Agreement.
Post edited at 08:44
2
MG - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to thomasadixon:
> Both main parties promised we would leave the customs union and end freedom of movement.

Repeatedly lying about things doesn't make them true. From Labour's manifesto

"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"

You really are odious - a full house of brexiteer vices: liar, zealot, xenophobe, ignorant.
2
Sir Chasm - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

To be fair, "retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union" is not quite the same as remaining in the single market and customs union.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

> Exactly. Sinn Fein don't want peace and democracy as it stands, they won't even take their seats in the UK parliament

How could an Irish republican swear allegiance to the queen without lying? If we believe in democracy and we want the views of the population of northern ireland represented fairly at westminster we need to get rid of the loyalty oath and any other barriers which prevent irish republicans taking their seats.

Of course if we did that the DUP MPs votes would be pretty much cancelled out by Sinn Fein MP votes. Its not going to happen with the Tories in power just like EU residents in the UK are never going to find it easy to get British citizenship in case they vote for a pro-EU party.


2
krikoman - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> "Let's revoke Article 50, do 58 impact studies, put those in the public domain, and then re-run the referendum" would get my vote.

Supposing they said this today, how do you get to vote for it? There's no way YOU can do anything is there?

The Tories are still in power, there's no way that Labour saying this would change anything, except cause more splits.

All of what you've said is fine, but it needs to be done when it can have an impact, which isn't now. The Tories are weakening themselves every day, interesting the desire to change the referendum hasn't changed that much. The dissatisfaction with the Tories is rocketing though.

It make so much more sense to wait and then demonstrate just how much of a f*ckup the Tories have made of things, after all it doesn't look like it's going to get any better.

Ad the leaving date gets closer, that's the time to show your colours, even if that only goes as far as suggesting another referendum, at least then people with know what they are voting for.
1
neilh - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I thought the latest polls still showed TM and JC roughly neck and neck. Tony Blair has politely pointed out that by now JC should be seriously well clear of TM if people bought into your view.

pasbury on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

http://survation.com/labour-extends-polling-lead-8-points-conservatives/

Hardly neck & neck, usual poll provisos apply of course.
skog on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Supposing they said this today, how do you get to vote for it? There's no way YOU can do anything is there?

> The Tories are still in power, there's no way that Labour saying this would change anything, except cause more splits.

> All of what you've said is fine, but it needs to be done when it can have an impact, which isn't now. The Tories are weakening themselves every day, interesting the desire to change the referendum hasn't changed that much. The dissatisfaction with the Tories is rocketing though.

> It make so much more sense to wait and then demonstrate just how much of a f*ckup the Tories have made of things, after all it doesn't look like it's going to get any better.

> Ad the leaving date gets closer, that's the time to show your colours, even if that only goes as far as suggesting another referendum, at least then people with know what they are voting for.

This, to me, really just shows what's wrong with politics just now.

Whatever happened to taking the lead, to trying to persuade people, rather than just tailoring everything you say and do to what you think will win or save you most votes? To doing or proposing unpopular things because they're right, and to trying to take people with you on that?

If Labour had a reasonable, credible, sensible plan and kept talking about it at the same time as showing what the Tories were doing wrong, they could be gradually winning support - from the public, and from other parties, including moderate Tories.

Moderate Tories aren't going to break rank and risk bringing down the government when they aren't even sure what the opposition stand for! But if Labour provided a viable alternative they might, or at least might use it as a way to force their own party towards a more sensible line.

A big part of the reason we have such an awful government just now is that it really isn't clear that the opposition have anything better to offer.
2
neilh - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to pasbury:
20 points is considered a reasonable lead .

8 is chicken feed
1
jkarran - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:
> Whatever happened to taking the lead, to trying to persuade people, rather than just tailoring everything you say and do to what you think will win or save you most votes? To doing or proposing unpopular things because they're right, and to trying to take people with you on that?

The problem with that is you win support for something almost none of your MP's believe is in their constituents interests (brexit) making reversing that position costlier when public opinion shifts. Wait and do the right thing or lead the way to the wrong thing now or try to lead the way to the right thing shooting yourself in the head in the process? They really should be starting to push harder for a final refurendum on 'the deal'.

I can understand their reluctance!

> A big part of the reason we have such an awful government just now is that it really isn't clear that the opposition have anything better to offer.

They have a very different offering on everything but brexit. Problem is with brexit they can't implement any of it. Not sure how aware the electorate is of that mind so perhaps it's no impediment to winning an election, the Tories certainly aren't going to be labouring that point!

Yes, some clear, honest leadership would be great but I fear a great failure electorally.
jk
Post edited at 12:27
pasbury on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> 20 points is considered a reasonable lead .

The last time that happened at an election was, looking at a chart here http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7529 in about 1931.

You are way off the mark.
summo on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> How could an Irish republican swear allegiance to the queen without lying?

Didn't stop Corbyn?

Besides if the queen can shake the hand of people who were very senior in a terrorist organisation which openly murder members of her family, then I think there would be a workable solution if Sinn Fein showed willing too.

5
MG - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

> Didn't stop Corbyn?

I think the difference is Sinn Fein fundamentally don't recognize the UK as a legitimate state. The stumbling block isn't so much the queen, as being loyal to the UK.
krikoman - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> This, to me, really just shows what's wrong with politics just now.

> Whatever happened to taking the lead, to trying to persuade people, rather than just tailoring everything you say and do to what you think will win or save you most votes? To doing or proposing unpopular things because they're right, and to trying to take people with you on that?

Persuade people to do what, we've just had an election. Why wouldn't you wait until it's likely we'll be having another one?
If you mean persuade people Brexit is a shit idea, then again the Tories are doing this by themselves. Don't forget there are large numbers of people who STILL want Brexit.

You won't get a vote of no confidence in TM yet, it's too soon.

Besides that, like I said earlier although people are pissed off with the Tories handling of Brexit, something like a 25% change on those thinking it's going badly, the percentage of people pro and anti brexit remains roughly the same.

Who do you cater for that?

I believe, given the situation it's better to maintain the status quo, let May destroy herself, and when it time for the next election, sometime next year, you then present an alternative to re-run the referendum or carry on regardless.

MG - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

So, to be clear, you think there is no point in an a opposition until within a year or so of an election?
skog on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Persuade people to do what, we've just had an election. Why wouldn't you wait until it's likely we'll be having another one?

Persuade people that they'd be better supporting your party than the current shower, and persuade potential rebel Tory MPs to become actual rebel Tory MPs by giving them something they can support, giving a rebellion a chance of success.

Even if you can't persuade Tories to break ranks, if the government sees opinion polls swinging massively against them they'll be much more likely to think about changing policies to win back support.

You don't have to win elections to influence policy - just ask Mr. Farage.
Shani - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to summo:

> Besides if the queen can shake the hand of people who were very senior in a terrorist organisation which openly murder members of her family, then I think there would be a workable solution if Sinn Fein showed willing too.

It is this kind of loaded language that perpetuates problems in NI (and the ME).

As the DUP illustrate at the moment, just a single word or two can cause a reaction. Your simplistic understanding of the NI situation is evident throughout this thread.

I don't expect you to realise it, but you are part of the problem.
4
summo on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

No I'm just not a supporter of terrorists, of any ilk.
6
neilh - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to pasbury:

Think we are getting our wires crossed. As I understand it a 20 point lead across a few polls broadly translates into a good chance of a reasonable majority in the HofC.

Put is this way if the polling differences are broadly similar-- you have whats in place at the moment-stalemate.
krikoman - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> So, to be clear, you think there is no point in an a opposition until within a year or so of an election?

I believe the referendum is a unique situation, the electorate still don't have the facts, most are still expecting the £350m a week for the NHS.

While I deplore the Tories, I have some sympathy in the situation they find themselves, carrying out the "will of the people" when most of them realise it's a shit idea.

The fact remains that the majority of people who voted, voted out, in a lot of their minds nothing has changed.

Let's not forget who got us into this shit in the first place, as much as you like to keep blaming JC or the Labour party it was Cameron who decided this was a walkover.

As for any opposition in this situation, the Tories are their own best opposition, They don't know what they are doing so how do you oppose that?

When they have any concrete proposals then you have something to oppose.

The coalition with the DUP was pointed out to be a bit of a bad idea, if I remember rightly, and so it has come to pass. 1-0 to Labour I'd say.
Andy Hardy on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

They could certainly lobby to get the impact assessments done. That would be a start. Trouble is JC does want brexit, which puts him on the same side as JR-M, and the other lunatics
krikoman - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> Persuade people that they'd be better supporting your party than the current shower, and persuade potential rebel Tory MPs to become actual rebel Tory MPs by giving them something they can support, giving a rebellion a chance of success.

> Even if you can't persuade Tories to break ranks, if the government sees opinion polls swinging massively against them they'll be much more likely to think about changing policies to win back support.

> You don't have to win elections to influence policy - just ask Mr. Farage.

But this whole bollocks is of the Tories making, they could have so easily averted all of this current bollocks by simply saying, We'll negotiate with Brussels, find out the implications, let everyone know, and then have another referendum on the out come of those negotiations.

The problem with that for them was, the Brexiteers in their party would have caused ructions. So because she's taken the weakest option, to try and please everyone, we're now in the situation where we know very little of the consequences and what's going to happen, even though we're 18 months down the line!!

People moaning on here the Labour isn't doing enough, maybe you should have voted for Labour when you last had the chance!
1
krikoman - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> They could certainly lobby to get the impact assessments done. That would be a start.

Since we only learnt about this yesterday, how do you know this isn't a plan in the pipeline?

>Trouble is JC does want brexit, which puts him on the same side as JR-M, and the other lunatics

I don't see any evidence for this, I'm open to persuasion though, if you've got some. This sounds a bit like a "he's not electable" meme to me.

Andy Hardy on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

My assumption about JCs position on brexit is based on his voting record, and his tutelage under Benn, another europhobe.

As I said upthread we would make more sense to the outside world if our parliament reconfigured itself to leave and remain because only the lib Dems are united on europe
skog on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:
> But this whole bollocks is of the Tories making, they could have so easily averted all of this current bollocks by simply saying, We'll negotiate with Brussels, find out the implications, let everyone know, and then have another referendum on the out come of those negotiations.

Well, yes. All the more reason for the opposition to, well, oppose it!

> People moaning on here the Labour isn't doing enough, maybe you should have voted for Labour when you last had the chance!

Vote for a party which doesn't stand for what I believe in, and has voted in support of the current government's Brexit strategy at almost every stage - in particular whipping its MPs to pass legislation which shafted countless EU citizens resident in the UK? (And all the more credit to the minority of Labour MPs who defied this.)

No thanks.

I did vote (and knock doors) for the party most likely to beat the Tories in my constituency, though. We lost by 148 votes.
Post edited at 17:14
tom_in_edinburgh - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> I think the difference is Sinn Fein fundamentally don't recognize the UK as a legitimate state. The stumbling block isn't so much the queen, as being loyal to the UK.

Yes - they don't think that Northern Ireland is legitimately part of the UK (as well as being republicans and against monarchy). My view is it shouldn't matter. If an MP is elected and his party manifesto says X then they should not be forced to take an oath which implies (not X) in order to sit in parliament. Otherwise you can never have the X point of view represented.
1
Sir Chasm - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

And voting with the Tories for article 50 aided and abetted May.
krikoman - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> Vote for a party which doesn't stand for what I beieve in, and has voted in support of the current government's Brexit strategy at almost every stage - in particular whipping its MPs to pass legislation which shafted countless EU citizens resident in the UK? (And all the more credit to the minority of Labour MPs who defied this.)

You seem to forget we're having Brexit because of a referendum, for what the people asked for, you know democracy and all that.

You also seem to forget Labour doing this, "Labour pledges to guarantee rights of EU citizens in Brexit talks."

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2017-labour-pledges-to-guarentee-rights-of...

I don't think they voted for "the current strategy" as you put it, but rather to continue with the negotiations.

Since no one knows what sort of deal we'll eventually end up with how do you know how shit it will be?

You're making me sound like a Brexiteer here, FFS!!

I don't understand what you expect the outcome would be for Labour to say, we want to stay in. If you weren't so against Labour, you could vent you spleen elsewhere.

I'm at a loss to see any benefit from making a move in reversing the referendum at this stage.

Hopefully it'll become self evident to all but the hardest leavers, that it's not right for the UK, and the suggestion of a re-run will be a piece of piss to get through parliament.

But once again, we need to KNOW what we're voting for, not just me and you but, Joe Bloggs trudging home after another 12 hour shift.

wercat on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

what do we do if you have a plebiscite wanting something not in the national interest and a government whose duty is to protect the national interest but who have agreed not to??? Help!
skog on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> You seem to forget we're having Brexit because of a referendum, for what the people asked for, you know democracy and all that.

What makes you think I forget that? Have a read of some of my posts, if you can be bothered; otherwise please don't make stuff up!

> You also seem to forget Labour doing this, "Labour pledges to guarantee rights of EU citizens in Brexit talks."


No, I don't forget those empty words. Labour supported the implementation of article 50 (and other Brexit-related bills) without any conditions, rather than taking those chances to get some safeguards, so they're responsible for the results of that.

> I don't think they voted for "the current strategy" as you put it, but rather to continue with the negotiations.
> Since no one knows what sort of deal we'll eventually end up with how do you know how shit it will be?
> You're making me sound like a Brexiteer here, FFS!!

Yes, so it appears!

> If you weren't so against Labour, you could vent you spleen elsewhere.

Eh? Labour have been complicit in hurting my family, many of my friends, and a lot of other people, and appear content to support whatever kind of Brexit the Tories fancy. I'm not venting my spleen, I'm telling you that along with the Tories and UKIP, they aren't a party I can support.

There are a lot of great, well-meaning people in Labour; indeed one of my best friends is an organiser and former councillor for them. He's as aghast at the current state of the party as I am.

> I'm at a loss to see any benefit from making a move in reversing the referendum at this stage.

Again, did I even suggest that?!
Ian W - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> Well, yes. All the more reason for the opposition to, well, oppose it!

Its no wonder its such a shitstorm, given that TM was a strong remainer, who now has to deliver a hard brexit to please the hard right in her party, and JC, who was a probable brexiteer, but definite fence sitter, leads the official opposition, who should be opposing the government.
Both of them are having to do something they dont believe in.

Doug on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> given that TM was a strong remainer,
If TM = Teresa May not obviously true. She was pretty quiet during the campaign & I'm sure Corbyn gave more speeches in favour of remain than she did
Ian W - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to Doug:

She was the one very publicly holding a Better together placard on numerous occasions..........
skog on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> She was the one very publicly holding a Better together placard on numerous occasions..........

Without meaning to be overly pedantic, Better Together was a different team, for a different referendum!

I agree with the rest of what you said, but TM seemed to me to be a reluctant remainer, doing it out of party loyalty more than anything else.
Ian W - on 07 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

Sadly, I think shes reluctant to do anything at the moment!
She's certainly taken over the mantle of worst PM in living memory from Gordon Brown. Depending on your age obviously.........
Jim C - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to Dave Kerr:

> I think it's important that we not forget the colossal, short sighted, self serving arrogance that man.

To be fair, Cameron went to the EU and asked them nicely to give him some concessions to take back to help him win the referendum, and they refused, Cameron is not entirely to blame. ( but mostly)
3
Jim C - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to Doug:

> If TM = Teresa May not obviously true. She was pretty quiet during the campaign & I'm sure Corbyn gave more speeches in favour of remain than she did

We're Corbyns speeches , apparently in favour of remaining, not mostly lists of all the things that were wrong with the EU, but then he said let's stay in anyway?
1
BnB - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:
Have the good folk of UKC (on both sides) finally worked out how it goes now?

As I've been saying for 17 months now, both sides take apparently entrenched and irreconcilable positions, decry the unwillingness of the other party to bend to their will, fight among themselves (very privately in one case and very publicly in another), and when they look like finally converging a vocal minority interest will put a spanner in the works. But in the end a fudge is found.

Today's agreement is just a talk about talks of course but could you please spare us some of the hand-wringing for the next round of talks and maybe consider that the need for so much compromise at every level and every stage isn't necessarily a bad thing. The UK has to live with itself as well as the new relationship when all these negotiations are in the past.
Post edited at 07:37
4
neilh - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:
Excellent news for all sides.
Post edited at 07:46
1
BnB - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Excellent news for all sides.

I was a tad surprised it emerged today and not hard up against the Sunday deadline. Makes you wonder how much of the disagreement was for show.
1
summo on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

> I was a tad surprised it emerged today and not hard up against the Sunday deadline. Makes you wonder how much of the disagreement was for show.

Probably just done to keep ukc's advert revenue up. If negotiations 'quieten' down, they'll have to find people to dry tool or repeatedly abseil a classic route.
neilh - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

Christmas season beckons, good for all sides to wrap it up now.

1
MG - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:
It’s certainly good news. But I do still think your view that this was all cunning tactics is wrong. Davis admitted he has done f*ck all. May, who is vaguely pragmatic, took over at the last minute and basically agreed to everything (which is fine by me) to avoid the increasingly obvious meltdown any other outcome would have precipitated.
2
BnB - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> It’s certainly good news. But I do still think your view that this was all cunning tactics is wrong.

That's not what I said. I simply mused about the tactical element in a follow up to my OP. The real essence of my post this morning dealt with the textbook trajectory of the negotiations which I've been calmly arguing ever since June 2016. Why not acknowledge that the hand-wringing on UKC has been overdone (in respect of the course of the negotiations rather than the referendum result) instead of trying to score a petty point on a minor piece of conjecture.

And yes, I agree that today we have good news and I'm equally delighted that May has softened our approach.



3
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

Yes you have and I have agreed with most of what you have said throughout this period. A rare beacon of sanity amongst the feeding frenzy of "f*cking annoyed of UKC" brigade.
MG - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

> That's not what I said. I simply mused about the tactical element in a follow up to my OP. The real essence of my post this morning dealt with the textbook trajectory of the negotiations which I've been calmly arguing ever since June 2016.

You’ve often referred to the negotiations as a “game of blink” and such like, which to me implies a tactical approach.

> Why not acknowledge that the hand-wringing on UKC has been overdone (in respect of the course of the negotiations rather than the referendum result) instead of trying to score a petty point on a minor piece of conjecture.

I’m not scoring points, I just think you are wrong in your interpretation. I think it entirely possible the hard brexiteers could have forced a collapse with only minor, uncrtontrollable, differences in events. They may still manage this. OK, you were right in saying it (whatever “it” turned out to be) would be last minute, but I don’t think that was really in dispute.

4
krikoman - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:
> No, I don't forget those empty words. Labour supported the implementation of article 50 (and other Brexit-related bills) without any conditions, rather than taking those chances to get some safeguards, so they're responsible for the results of that.


Because that's what the people asked for!!
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

"The people" ? ? ? Who are 'the' people?
4
Andy Hardy on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

The Labour party could have delayed triggering Art. 50 until we were prepared, both in terms of the risk assessments that may or may not have been done, calculating what our liabilities to the EU are and also in forcing the government to commit to a position on our post brexit relationship with the EU, so that once A50 is triggered we didn't waste the first year in avoidable pointless arguments which we couldn't win because we weren't prepped for. But no JC whipped his MPs through the lobby - the irony - thus ensuring that the UK gets the worst possible outcome, and for what? Politics before national interest all the way.
3
MonkeyPuzzle - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

They would have lost the vote even if they'd whipped all Labour MPs in the opposite direction. TM had a clear, although small, majority at the time and Labour had to be seen honouring the referendum result. Both major parties have been in numerous impossible positions because of the close result and will be in many more. I have little sympathy for the Tories as they were the ones who brought this on us all. I do wish they'd been sharper in their opposition at times but blaming Labour for this is ridiculous.
1
Shani - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> Is this the effective outcome, assuming the leaks are correct?

Well, what we have today is partly 'no change' and partly 'kicking the can down the road' as far as the Brexiteers go.

We have not 'taken back control' as 'full alignment' between Eire/EU and NI means that NI is wagged by Ireland/EU, and the UK is wagged by NI - unless NI wants a special deal. If it does, then it gets unfettered access to the UK.

Scotland will be after this deal, along with the new state of M25 and Financeville.
2
cb294 - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> The Labour party could have delayed triggering Art. 50 until we were prepared, .....

Political suicide, unless you win. No need to give the "will of the people" brigade any ammo when you are going to lose the vote in any case.

CB
krikoman - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> "The people" ? ? ? Who are 'the' people?

Well let's try and work that one out shall we?

The people of Poland, probably not, the people of the mist, probably not them either.

Maybe it's the people who voted from Brexit in the referendum. Not matter whether you, OR I for that matter, like it. We had a referendum and the result or which was to leave the EU.
2
skog on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

"The people" asked for Labour to unconditionally support the Tories in triggering article 50, without any assurances or concessions regarding what would be done next?

I don't remember being asked that question. Perhaps the ballot slips were different over your way?
krikoman - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:
> The Labour party could have delayed triggering Art. 50 until we were prepared, both in terms of the risk assessments that may or may not have been done, calculating what our liabilities to the EU are and also in forcing the government to commit to a position on our post brexit relationship with the EU, so that once A50 is triggered we didn't waste the first year in avoidable pointless arguments which we couldn't win because we weren't prepped for. But no JC whipped his MPs through the lobby - the irony - thus ensuring that the UK gets the worst possible outcome, and for what? Politics before national interest all the way.

Didn't the EU refuse to negotiate anything, until we triggered article 50?

So how exactly would we have progressed anything?

If they'd have voted against, you know as well as I do they'd have been accused of delaying "the will of the people" (See above for "Who the People are?")

I also think you need to look at who, has f*cked up these negotiations, and who's lied about risk assessments and being prepared.
Post edited at 12:30
2
krikoman - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> "The people" asked for Labour to unconditionally support the Tories in triggering article 50, without any assurances or concessions regarding what would be done next?

> I don't remember being asked that question. Perhaps the ballot slips were different over your way?

Yes, that's exactly what it said, maybe you did have a different ballot sheet.

I can see why you're so angry now, perhaps you could ask for a re-run.
1
skog on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Yes, that's exactly what it said, maybe you did have a different ballot sheet.

> I can see why you're so angry now, perhaps you could ask for a re-run.

Oooookay.

My ballot paper looked like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/2016_EU_Referendum_Ballot_Paper.jpg

Could you give me a link to the one you had, please?
skog on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to cb294:

> Political suicide, unless you win. No need to give the "will of the people" brigade any ammo when you are going to lose the vote in any case.

"The Labour party is determined to deliver a successful British exit from the EU, as that is what the people have voted for. It is clear to us that this exit must be well-planned, and that we must ensure that safeguards are in place to protect people, rights, and jobs - a Brexit for the Many, not for the Few as the Tories would have it.

To that end, we will of course support the triggering of article 50 - as soon as we have an acceptable plan for the outcome we want for our country, and how we intend to get there - but we cannot simply sign a blank cheque to let this government do as they wish."

A competent party leadership could have said something along those lines, no doubt phrased much better than I could manage, and sold it to the electorate.

This tells me that Labour either lacks such ability, or just didn't want to do that.
1
cb294 - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

No, I do not think so. Even if what you quote is actually what Labour wanted (reasonably likely) it would have been a pointless sacrifice. No chance of preventing the immediate triggering of Art. 50, but a big open goal for the Tories and the Brexit supporting press to paint them as traitors to the will of the people (TM).

As it was, Labour could point at their voting record, claim that they had supported the referendum decision, and put the onus on the government to deliver, while leaning back with a bucket of popcorn. Ideal strategy regardless of whether they wanted to remain, or achieve a hard or soft brexit. Textbook opposition strategy IMO.

CB
jkarran - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> A competent party leadership could have said something along those lines, no doubt phrased much better than I could manage, and sold it to the electorate.

Nice. Now filtered through the Sun, Mail etc for those who don't read press releases or listen to the Today program:

STALINIST TRAITOR CORBYN BLOCKS BREXIT!

> This tells me that Labour either lacks such ability, or just didn't want to do that.

They lack the ability but that isn't something within their power to change.
jk

skog on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to cb294 and jkarran:

If the Labour Party truly lacks the ability to sell to its supporters the notion that Brexit should be a considered and controlled process, they probably really have had their day.

I'll reserve my support for those who at least appear to be trying to stand for something worthwhile; there are still at least three parties I could consider casting a vote for in the right circumstances.

You might be right, though, to be honest - it's hard to escape the conclusion that it just doesn't matter, nothing we can do will make any difference, and we might as well just leave it to the powergamers to play it out amongst themselves. As far as I can tell this is the Corbynistas' plan - leave them to it, hope they mess up spectacularly, and build a brave new world from the ashes.
cb294 - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

I have been supporting losing causes since I have been old enough to vote. Thinking of it, I believe I only ever voted with the winners once, at least at state and federal level. Thus, I had to learn to appreciate skillful opposition work, as this was the best my side could realistically deliver.

An acquired taste, I admit, but better than giving up ones principles just to end up on the winning side!

CB
Andy Hardy on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I didn't say anything about starting negotiations before A50, I was talking about preparing for the negotiations beforehand.

skog on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to cb294:

> I have been supporting losing causes since I have been old enough to vote.

Yes, so have I, for the most.

> but better than giving up ones principles just to end up on the winning side!

But that's exactly what Labour are doing - failing to stand up for anything at all, for fear of losing.

Really, what have they achieved so far in opposition to this weakest of weak governments?

Even the DUP, who make UKIP look like a cuddly bunch of moderates, have been more effective in reining in the excesses of the Tories!
cb294 - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> Really, what have they achieved so far in opposition to this weakest of weak governments?

> Even the DUP, who make UKIP look like a cuddly bunch of moderates, have been more effective in reining in the excesses of the Tories!

Easier to do something when you can blackmail a minority government by threatening to withdraw the confidence and supply agreement, not really opposition work.

CB
MG - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Nice. Now filtered through the Sun, Mail etc for those who don't read press releases or listen to the Today program:

> STALINIST TRAITOR CORBYN BLOCKS BREXIT!

Come on! Blair or even Brown would have been making mincemeat of May. We see flashes of what's possible occasionally from Starmer and Benn and the like. Corbyn is just woeful.
2
Ciro - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> "The Labour party is determined to deliver a successful British exit from the EU, as that is what the people have voted for. It is clear to us that this exit must be well-planned, and that we must ensure that safeguards are in place to protect people, rights, and jobs - a Brexit for the Many, not for the Few as the Tories would have it.

> To that end, we will of course support the triggering of article 50 - as soon as we have an acceptable plan for the outcome we want for our country, and how we intend to get there - but we cannot simply sign a blank cheque to let this government do as they wish."

> A competent party leadership could have said something along those lines, no doubt phrased much better than I could manage, and sold it to the electorate.

> This tells me that Labour either lacks such ability, or just didn't want to do that.

Selling it to the electorate wouldn't gain anything. To affect any change they would have had to sell it to enough Tory backbenchers to make them rebel against the government, whilst it was pushing through the most important piece of legislation for decades. Do you really think that was likely? There certainly would have been the usual horse trading going on while they were deciding... I imagine if they thought they could inflict a defeat on the Tories they would have gone for it.

Otherwise they would have been gambling the possibility of losing a chunk of the electorate (and thus losing the possibility of gaining control and affecting real change at a later date) for what end? To make those of us who don't want to leave feel better?
1
jkarran - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Blair and Brown had at least a couple of major tabloids on side, there is no plurality of reporting these days for those who don't consume broadsheets or the more serious TV and radio news&comment shows.

I don't honestly know how good Corbyn is at getting his message across, I suspect much of it flows through channels you and I don't tend to access. For that I doubt it's reaching many swing voters but I doubt the plan is for him to, if he can engage and energise the young/disenfranchised his constituency MPs can engage the undecided on their doorsteps. Despite the fact I did vote for him it's not him I voted for, it was a break with the bland undifferentiated politics of the coalition years, for what Miliband could and should have done better than Corbyn probably can.

I'm also with some of the others on this, waiting makes a lot of sense. I've no idea if that's strategy or paralysis. If Labour take power before public support has turned against or hardened for brexit they risk owning it and it'll ruin the party as it ruins us. Almost nobody in Labour wants to do it, almost nobody believes it can be done well.
jk
skog on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:
> To affect any change they would have had to sell it to enough Tory backbenchers to make them rebel against the government

Not really - they'd just have needed to get enough Tory backbenchers considering it actively - and enough is potentially quite a small number this parliament - that the government would feel the need to compromise with -them- to keep their support.
Post edited at 14:09
jkarran - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:
> If the Labour Party truly lacks the ability to sell to its supporters the notion that Brexit should be a considered and controlled process, they probably really have had their day.

I'm not saying they lack the ability. They lack a high profile, trusted and unfiltered communication channel to the masses.

> You might be right, though, to be honest - it's hard to escape the conclusion that it just doesn't matter, nothing we can do will make any difference, and we might as well just leave it to the powergamers to play it out amongst themselves. As far as I can tell this is the Corbynistas' plan - leave them to it, hope they mess up spectacularly, and build a brave new world from the ashes.

That's not what I mean when I say there's merit in waiting. Labour need to be able to follow the public out of brexit if it isn't to destroy them. If they push too hard too soon the public will push back and it will never happen.
jk
Post edited at 14:11
skog on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:
What I'm hearing, then, is that Labour are the party of doing nothing in particular, in the hope that, someday, it might leave them better placed to do something unspecified.

If they cared, they'd take a risk. This just isn't a priority for them (as a party, that is - individual members vary, of course).
Post edited at 14:41
2
jkarran - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

Hear what you want.
I'm talking about the specific circumstances they find themselves in right now.
jk
summo on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> What I'm hearing, then, is that Labour are the party of doing nothing in particular, in the hope that, someday, it might leave them better placed to do something unspecified.
> If they cared, they'd take a risk.

A fair summary of Corbyn's CV.

3
krikoman - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to skog:

> Even the DUP, who make UKIP look like a cuddly bunch of moderates, have been more effective in reining in the excesses of the Tories!

It would be difficult for the Tories to bribe the Labour party as they did with the DUP, woulndn't it.

As far as lost causes are concerned for the last 30 years I'e been living in safe Tory seats, nothing even close, besides the latest election and that was still some way away. So my vote is worth nothing.
SDM on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

I think the whole idea that Labour may be waiting for the conservatives to self-destruct before they swoop in to save the day is complete pie in the sky nonsense.

It is time to invoke Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

What possible grounds do we have for believing that a) Labour are playing this game and b) are capable of spinning this effectively?

Labour have no grand plan and we are sleepwalking towards a total economic and human rights disaster.

When we see evidence to the contrary, I will gladly admit to getting it all wrong. But remember, this is a party that hasn't had a sniff of power despite the omnishambles that is the current (and previous) government.

There is no master plan or at least there is no evidence that there is or ever has been one.
2
krikoman - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:
> That's not what I mean when I say there's merit in waiting. Labour need to be able to follow the public out of brexit if it isn't to destroy them. If they push too hard too soon the public will push back and it will never happen.

Totally agree, there isn't enough public support, even though people think TM is doing shit job, and though this perception has increase of 25% people thinking it's getting worse. Meanwhile the same poll suggested the preference for Brexit had changed little since the referendum.

We're all doomed!

1
krikoman - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to SDM:

> I think the whole idea that Labour may be waiting for the conservatives to self-destruct before they swoop in to save the day is complete pie in the sky nonsense.

In which case it doesn't matter does it, to be honest I only think remainers are hoping this, and it makes sense to me.

But at the moment they are continuing with the result of the referendum.

It would be stupid to have another referendum, without have some definitive facts on what it'll cost us and possible effects.

If we don't then we might as well stick with shit promises painted on the sides of buses.

If nothing else, we now know it's going to cost us somewhere around £37bn.
We certainly won't be walking away without paying a penny!!
jkarran - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to SDM:

> I think the whole idea that Labour may be waiting for the conservatives to self-destruct before they swoop in to save the day is complete pie in the sky nonsense.
> Labour have no grand plan and we are sleepwalking towards a total economic and human rights disaster.

I clearly said I have no idea if it's strategy or paralysis and I do agree we're sleepwalking toward disaster. However I believe currently the Labour party's only choice is whether to be consumed by that disaster or to wait and see if it can be averted. Act now to either go all in for brexit or alienate the public who aren't yet ready to countenance them standing against it (for a second chance) and they either own the Conservative's disaster or they have no say in it, frozen out of power, branded traitors to democracy (or some such BS). For that reason I don't much care what's causing their reticence, I'm just glad they haven't yet chosen oblivion.

> When we see evidence to the contrary, I will gladly admit to getting it all wrong. But remember, this is a party that hasn't had a sniff of power despite the omnishambles that is the current (and previous) government.

I'm not sure how they would have a sniff of power, they win or they lose elections. They lost but only just despite the poll predicted Tory landslide. Is that a sniff?

> There is no master plan or at least there is no evidence that there is or ever has been one.

I tend to agree there probably isn't but I'm not too concerned so long as they are able to react appropriately when the opportunity arises. That I'm far from certain of but under our f****d electoral system what other hope is there.
jk
tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Totally agree, there isn't enough public support, even though people think TM is doing shit job, and though this perception has increase of 25% people thinking it's getting worse. Meanwhile the same poll suggested the preference for Brexit had changed little since the referendum.

The fact that public's view of Brexit has not changed more quickly is an indictment of the incompetence and timidity of Labour and remain politicians. Everybody is standing around politely waiting for it to fall apart on its own rather than doing their best to kick the crap out of it.
1
krikoman - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The fact that public's view of Brexit has not changed more quickly is an indictment of the incompetence and timidity of Labour and remain politicians. Everybody is standing around politely waiting for it to fall apart on its own rather than doing their best to kick the crap out of it.

Just remember, this bit, the one we've just scrapped through, is supposed to be the EASY bit, and that isn't really finalised yet, with Scotland and Ireland at odds with each other. The DUP says it needs tweaking a"a bit" whatever that means.

Everyone thinking TM has pulled something magical out of the bag, there's a whole load of shit to get through yet.

Once again though, there are many Labour voters who want to leave, what are they supposed to do? You keep blaming the Labour party because they aren't doing what YOU want them to. It could be said they are doing exactly what the Labour Brexiteers want and voted for.

You'd be better off blaming the f*cking DUP, as without them it would have all fallen apart already.


Lusk - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I think this is the beginning of the end for Brexit ....

It appears to progressing nicely (!)

Why has this thread turned into pulling Labour apart?
Is it because Project Fear were predicting a return to the 'Troubles', and surprise, surprise, they've come to some sort of arrangement, and now they have to attack Labour because they refuse to have a Remain stance?
1
ian caton on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

Basically we gave in, well 95%.

So the European court bit is limited to 8 years.

Perhaps, genuinely, I have missed the other compromises the EU has made.
pasbury on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Unfortunately I think Labour have one overriding aim and that is to force a general election somehow.

Anything else is an afterthought.
MG - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to Lusk:

I’m curious. As a brexiteer, are you happy with this deal? It a looks an awful lot like £40b to remain but without any influence to me, and still not clear enough to prevent a lot of businesses moving.
skog on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to Lusk:

> Is it because Project Fear were predicting a return to the 'Troubles', and surprise, surprise, they've come to some sort of arrangement, and now they have to attack Labour because they refuse to have a Remain stance?

No.
Shani - on 08 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> I’m curious. As a brexiteer, are you happy with this deal? It a looks an awful lot like £40b to remain but without any influence to me, and still not clear enough to prevent a lot of businesses moving.

There is NO deal. It is a collection of ambiguous sentences. There were no stated objectives with Brexit from the outset so we don't know what success looks like - but it is nothing like its claimed we now have. We've been defanged at best. Wagged by the EU and NI dog.
Bogwalloper - on 08 Dec 2017

If you need a gauge on how it's going follow the pound / Euro on XE.com

When Tusk gave his speech this morning the pound soared from 1.138 to 1.151 in a couple of hours.

Then the witch stuck her oar in and over the rest of the afternoon the pound fell to 1.135

The markets are still not convinced.

W





1
BnB - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:
> If you need a gauge on how it's going follow the pound / Euro on XE.com

> When Tusk gave his speech this morning the pound soared from 1.138 to 1.151 in a couple of hours.

> Then the witch stuck her oar in and over the rest of the afternoon the pound fell to 1.135

> The markets are still not convinced.

Markets don't work as you imagine. You have to look at more than intra-day movements. What actually happened was GBP grew quite substantially (+3.5%) against the EUR over a three week period running up to yesterday's accord and in expectation thereof. Once the deal was announced, investors took their profit. It's known as "buy the rumour, sell the news"

Over the last 3 months GBP is up 5%, even allowing for yesterday's profit-taking. Markets are gaining confidence in the pound.

No doubt someone will point out that it is still below its June 16 level, and they'd be right. But that isn't the point I'm responding to and I'm not defending Brexit. I'm trying to add some economic common sense to the UKC mix.
Post edited at 07:58
3
BnB - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:
> I’m curious. As a brexiteer, are you happy with this deal? It a looks an awful lot like £40b to remain but without any influence to me, and still not clear enough to prevent a lot of businesses moving.

I understand that the figure of €39bn ("only" £34bn) is made up of c€18bn into the EU budget in 2019 and some €21bn into the EU's credit facility in 2020. I'm not clear whether the first part, being equal to 2 years' normal net contributions is effectively a down-payment on a transitional deal or whether we'll pay more for that eventuality. In the former case that would seem a pretty reasonable price, but I simply don't know.

However, we also stand to receive back from the European Investment Bank a sum in excess of €40bn which means the effect on the UK's cash flows, if not its balance sheet (it "owns" the bank funds today) will be neutered.

Above all, €39bn is very much less than the €100bn the EU originally floated. You asked me yesterday where the EU had compromised and I suggest here is a good place to look.
Post edited at 08:19
neilh - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:
And then there is US interest rates which come into the equation .

The devaluation was probably looking back long overdue and a possible correction to the value of the £.Well that’s my take on it.
neilh - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

Nice to know that Nigel Farage’s pension now securely funded. I must have a look at the value of a pension pot to fund £70 k plus a year.
BnB - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> And then there is US interest rates which come into the equation .

> The devaluation was probably looking back long overdue and a possible correction to the value of the £.Well that’s my take on it.

I suspect you understand currency fluctuations better than me, having considerable experience thereof, but I can see that GBP vs USD has been adversely affected by the prospect of more aggressive interest rate rises in the USA.
BnB - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:
> Nice to know that Nigel Farage’s pension now securely funded. I must have a look at the value of a pension pot to fund £70 k plus a year.

About £2.5m based on current bond prices.
Post edited at 08:39
neilh - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

About right I reckon!
neilh - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:
It’s always a mystery if I am honest. I have just learnt to hedge both ways.
BnB - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:

> It’s always a mystery if I am honest. I have just learnt to hedge both ways.

Then I could still learn a thing or two from you!!
Postmanpat on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> There is NO deal. It is a collection of ambiguous sentences. There were no stated objectives with Brexit from the outset so we don't know what success looks like - but it is nothing like its claimed we now have. We've been defanged at best. Wagged by the EU and NI dog.

It was never supposed to be a "deal". It was designed as a waypost en route to a deal. "Creative ambiguity" was always going to be part it. It's how the world works. Did you never see "Yes, Minister!"?
2
ian caton on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

To be fair what Labour is doing, whatever it is, is helping. There is no way the Brexiteers would have gone along with this if it wasn't fear of Corbyn, and his near certainty of winning a general election.
1
Shani - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It was never supposed to be a "deal". It was designed as a waypost en route to a deal. "Creative ambiguity" was always going to be part it. It's how the world works. Did you never see "Yes, Minister!"?

Brexit is so devisive that just kicking the can down the road stores up bigger problems. I'm annoyed that we're locked in to a very soft brexit but have lost our voice in the EU, and are still paying the bills.

This is a wet non-brexit.

Sir Humphrey would be proud.
1
Postmanpat on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Brexit is so devisive that just kicking the can down the road stores up bigger problems. I'm annoyed that we're locked in to a very soft brexit but have lost our voice in the EU, and are still paying the bills.

>
Quite possibly. But do not fear, when the EU tears itself apart we can renegotiate.......
8
RomTheBear on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:
> I understand that the figure of €39bn ("only" £34bn) is made up of c€18bn into the EU budget in 2019 and some €21bn into the EU's credit facility in 2020. I'm not clear whether the first part, being equal to 2 years' normal net contributions is effectively a down-payment on a transitional deal or whether we'll pay more for that eventuality. In the former case that would seem a pretty reasonable price, but I simply don't know.

> However, we also stand to receive back from the European Investment Bank a sum in excess of €40bn which means the effect on the UK's cash flows, if not its balance sheet (it "owns" the bank funds today) will be neutered.

> Above all, €39bn is very much less than the €100bn the EU originally floated. You asked me yesterday where the EU had compromised and I suggest here is a good place to look.

The EU never floated any figure, they floated a methodology, clever analysts then derived from that gross estimations of between 80/100bn eur gross, or 40/60bn eur net.

If you read the joint paper it seems the U.K. gov has basically accepted the methodology on every single point the EC has put forward.
Which isn’t surprising, really, they don’t really have a choice, the only surprising thing is that it took so long for the U.K. gov to get there, especially given how irrelevant these sums are.
A grave miscalculation in my view, accepting the methodology sooner would have been cheaper overall - because it would have left more time to negotiate the real stuff that matters - especially when it’s pretty obvious with a simple back of the fag packet pay-off matrix that we were going to have to get there.

Although it may seem like an total capitulation to some, this was the only rational outcome, and it’s reassuring to see that the U.K. gov was finally able to get there, despite having made a total mess of it. The uncertainty they’ve created probably cost us way more than 40bn already...
Post edited at 10:02
4
BnB - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
I agree with you that the actual bill is pretty irrelevant. A one-off payment of 1.4% of GDP, roughly equal to one year's insipid growth, especially when neutralised by the return of our cash bank balance, simply isn't significant when measured against the momentousness of a once in a century change of economic direction. The effects of that, positive or negative, will be felt far more keenly.

Edit to add that you've changed your post to exclude the part I referenced.
Post edited at 09:59
Pete Pozman - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

It took so long because the disaster capitalist Brexit lot want the negotiations to fail so that we attain their Ayn Rand libertarian offshore tax haven nirvana. They are not concerned with taking back control of our borders only their own money.
3
RomTheBear on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:
> I agree with you that the actual bill is pretty irrelevant. A one-off payment of 1.4% of GDP, roughly equal to one year's insipid growth, especially when neutralised by the return of our cash bank balance, simply isn't significant when measured against the momentousness of a once in a century change of economic direction. The effects of that, positive or negative, will be felt far more keenly.

> Edit to add that you've changed your post to exclude the part I referenced.

Exactly, if you look at the hit to GDP, effects of inflation and so on since the EU ref, reputational damage, etc etc.. we’ve probably inflicted ourselves much bigger damage already by faffing about for a year.
Especially when anybody with a rational view could see that the U.K. was going to have to accept whatever the EU wanted, as long as it was better than the cost of a cliff edge no deal.

The sad thing in all of this is that it now leaves very little time to get a relatively good deal.

The next part now will be very interesting. I think the U.K. can actually still get a good deal. Because it doesn’t matter that much economically to the EU whether they give us a good or bad deal, all we need to do is nudge them into giving us a good deal by compromising on what’s costing them politically (ie, freedom of movement, customs union and single market rules).

Otherwise, we’ll surely get a bad deal (think something like CETA)
Post edited at 10:20
2
BnB - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Exactly, if you look at the hit to GDP, effects of inflation and so on since the EU ref, reputational damage, etc etc.. we’ve probably inflicted ourselves much bigger damage already by faffing about for a year.

> Especially when anybody with a rational view could see that the U.K. was going to have to accept whatever the EU wanted, as long as it was better than the cost of a cliff edge no deal.

> The sad thing in all of this is that it now leaves very little time to get a relatively good deal.

I don't think we can talk about a hit to GDP yet. Forecasts are just that and the economy is showing more resilience than the man on the Clapham omnibus is aware of, or any Guardian journalist is happy to admit to. Time is short of course but I've said all along that by Mar 19 we'll only have the outline of a deal agreed and the deadline will be extended, not least by transitional arrangements, in order to facilitate a more detailed agreement.
neilh - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

And meanwhile manufacturing globally is incredibly positive. I keep coming across factories which have their capacity all sold for 2018.

Last week spoke to 1 in Japan, 1 in Czech and 1 in mid-west. All sold out for 2018.

The number of off the shelf industrial components which are now on back order is surprising( such as simple clips for cable ties).If you speak to fabricators in the uk most are on 8 week’s lead time which is unheard off.
RomTheBear on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

> I don't think we can talk about a hit to GDP yet.

We surely can, the U.K. economy should be growing at about twice the rate it does now, when you consider the context in the US and the EU and past trend.

> or any Guardian journalist is happy to admit to. Time is short of course but I've said all along that by Mar 19 we'll only have the outline of a deal agreed and the deadline will be extended, not least by transitional arrangements, in order to facilitate a more detailed agreement.

Of course we’ll have a deal, well, assuming talks don’t break down because of U.K. political instability.
The real question is what kind, and that depends on what the UK gov wants to do. If we’re going towards really leaving the customs union and the single market, then things are going to get pretty dire, pretty quickly, no matter what the brexiteers are saying, some things are just mechanical. Now if they go down the route of being out just in name but stay in in practice, that’s a different story.

It would be of course a total travestis, but at the end of the day, this may make everybody somewhat happy.



3
BnB - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

The economy is being suppressed by uncertainty as much as by structural weaknesses. We see this mirrored by our order intake fluctuating almost in perfect harmony with the levels of uncertainty emanating from Westminster and Brussels. Yesterday was plain bonkers after the deal was struck as no doubt it was in factories and offices up and down the land. Remove the uncertainty and growth will pick up.
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to neilh:
> And meanwhile manufacturing globally is incredibly positive. I keep coming across factories which have their capacity all sold for 2018.

And UK companies should be spending their time working out how to take advantage of that and plan new products and capacity. Instead they are dicking about, wasting management time worrying about how their supply chains will survive Brexit and holding off investment because everything is uncertain. That's the hidden opportunity cost of politicians wasting everybody's time on a purely ideological project which is economically completely unnecessary and counter productive.
Post edited at 12:14
Dr.S at work - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Glad to see you sticking it to the SNP!
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Dr.S at work:
> Glad to see you sticking it to the SNP!

The SNP's plan was the softest possible form of independence with no border, complete freedom of movement, the same currency and widespread co-operation so most things stayed the same.

The people feeding the press FUD about currency and disruption during the independence debate are the same right wing morons who feed the press FUD about the EU. They hate Holyrood and Scottish Independence because it takes power away from London and they hate the EU for the same reason.
Post edited at 13:32
3
David Riley - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> cost of politicians wasting everybody's time on a purely ideological project which is completely unnecessary and counter productive.

The EU is the politicians ideological project.
5
Shani - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I think the SNP should be dusting off their proposal for Scotland to stay in the single market ("Scotland's Place In Europe"). You know - the plan for Scotland to stay in EEA and for which she was attacked by the media - yet looks a lot like what is assured for NI. The Telegraph wheeled out Professor Michael Keating - a constitutional expert no less;

"SNP proposals for Scotland only to join the European Economic Area would create “the most complex arrangement imaginable” by erecting trade barriers with both England and the EU, one of the country’s most eminent constitutional experts has warned.

Professor Michael Keating, who is director of Edinburgh University’s Centre on Constitutional Change, said he thought it was impossible to for Scotland to join the EEA while the rest of the UK remains outside because it is not an independent state.

Even if such an arrangement could be negotiated, he told the Telegraph that it would create even more problems than a hard Brexit by introducing an economic border with England.

In addition, he said that all Scottish goods traded with the EU would be subject to “rules of origin” whereby all their component parts would be checked for their country of origin and the correct EU tariff applied.

Prof Keating said this would create a major administrative headache for Scottish exporters and argued that neither the EU nor the UK would agree to any such deal."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/snp-plan-for-scotland-to-join-eea-after-brexit-creates-tr...
tom_in_edinburgh - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> The EU is the politicians ideological project.

The EU is an economically rational project:
a. Avoiding war is the single most important factor in achieving prosperity.
b. As technology makes products more complex the size of investments in R&D and production facilities needed to stay competitive increases and a larger 'home' market is needed.
c. Large economic blocks have more leverage in trade negotiations.
d. Globally significant currencies like the US dollar advantage the country/block that controls them.
e. Freedom of movement allows labour and capital to go where there is most opportunity.

3
MG - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> The EU is the politicians ideological project.

In the sense of peace prosperity and cooperation being an ideology, you’re correct.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Shani:

> I think the SNP should be dusting off their proposal for Scotland to stay in the single market ("Scotland's Place In Europe"). You know - the plan for Scotland to stay in EEA and for which she was attacked by the media - yet looks a lot like what is assured for NI. The Telegraph wheeled out Professor Michael Keating - a constitutional expert no less;

He's right that Scotland staying in the EEA would be administratively complex and difficult and create huge problems. I don't think he is right about the consequences. I think the consequences would be London, Wales and possibly other regions of England demanding the same concession. The end result would be the whole of the UK staying in the single market. He is forgetting that hard Brexit is a pretty tenuous project which does not have majority support: if one region of the UK manages to stay in the single market it is the 'hard Brexit' project that will break first under the resulting disruption. That's also why the EU would be quite likely to allow it.

The other thing which is being completely ignored is how close Scotland is to Northern Ireland: far closer than England is to France. It's completely feasible to build a bridge or tunnel between them and in most parts of the world one would already have been built. A variant of Brexit where Scotland and/or Northern Ireland was allowed to stay in the EEA might create a compelling case for a fixed link to Ireland.

MG - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Campbeltown is near NI....and 100+ miles by road from Glasgow!
RomTheBear on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:
> The economy is being suppressed by uncertainty as much as by structural weaknesses. We see this mirrored by our order intake fluctuating almost in perfect harmony with the levels of uncertainty emanating from Westminster and Brussels. Yesterday was plain bonkers after the deal was struck as no doubt it was in factories and offices up and down the land. Remove the uncertainty and growth will pick up.

Of course, that’s exactly what I am saying and what the treasury, OECD, etc etc have said btw. At the moment drag on gdp has been from lower immigration, heightened uncertainty, price pressures are starting to bite but U.K. consumers have kept going - mostly by drawing on their saving and taking on more debt as their wages have fallen.

But do not forget that we are still fully in the single market and customs union at the moment, which may well stop in 2 to 4 years. That leaves 2 to 4 years for the U.K. government to do a massive fudge and effectively keep us in it somehow.

I somewhat doubt this is achievable. Central scenario remains being out the single market and customs union, which is almost guaranteed to perpetuate the period of relative decline we have entered for a generation....
Post edited at 17:38
1
BnB - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Of course, that’s exactly what I am saying and what the treasury, OECD, etc etc have said btw. At the moment drag on gdp has been from lower immigration, heightened uncertainty, price pressures are starting to bite but U.K. consumers have kept going - mostly by drawing on their saving and taking on more debt.

> But do not forget we are still fully in the single market and customs union at the moment, which may well stop in 2 to 4 years. That leaves 2 to 4 years for the U.K. government to do a massive fudge and effectively keep us in it somehow.

> I somewhat doubt this is achievable. Central scenario remains being out the single market and customs union, which is almost guaranteed to perpetuate the period of relative decline we have entered for a generation....



You're missing my point. Certainty can be delivered by a hard cliff edge exit every bit as much as by the softest of exits. The single most successful month in my company's 20+ year history was July 2016. Totally counter-intuitive but it was because the uncertainty surrounding the vote had been removed. No matter that it introduced a bigger question mark. Of course that came to be replaced by new uncertainties and, despite yesterday's relief, the pattern is sure to repeat several times over the next couple of years.

The problem with forecasts (dare I say "experts") is that they don't predict behaviour very well. Entrepreneurship is hard to model because it's fundamentally risky and abnormally resilient. It doesn't fit human norms and is impossible for an economist or statistician to reduce to a chart. You only have to go back 12 months to know that the forecast for the UK will be different again in 12 months time.

Yet provide certainty and businesses will grow. Relative to some comparators (esp USA) the UK has been on a long decline for nearly 150 years. But grow we have for all that period and we will continue to do so.

Where I agree with you is that a soft Brexit would be preferable and in fact would likely precipitate the highest levels of pent-up entrepreneurship. But the harder to specify alternatives are less frightening once you recognise that the unknown will one day be known.
Post edited at 18:07
2
David Riley - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The EU is an economically rational project:

Leaving the EU is also economically rational.

> a. Avoiding war is the single most important factor in achieving prosperity.

I do not share the assumption that the EU makes war less likely. Especially if it moves towards its stated aim of an EU military.

> b. As technology makes products more complex the size of investments in R&D and production facilities needed to stay competitive increases and a larger 'home' market is needed.

Soundbite nonsense.

> c. Large economic blocks have more leverage in trade negotiations.

But trade negotiations are much more difficult because of the considerable differences between member states that must all agree.

> d. Globally significant currencies like the US dollar advantage the country/block that controls them.

We are not in the Euro, the Pound is a major currency.

> e. Freedom of movement allows labour and capital to go where there is most opportunity.

Nonsense again. From the point of view of our country, if we want labour or capital to move, it's under our control. There's no advantage having the EU force it upon us.

13
Dr.S at work - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The SNP's plan was the softest possible form of independence with no border, complete freedom of movement, the same currency and widespread co-operation so most things stayed the same.


Indeed - but they clearly risked the relationship between Scotland and the EU, and the SNP’s plans would have had to survive the negotiations process with rUK - in which, as has been convincingly argued on Brexit threads ad nauseum, the smaller party would likely get the worse outcome.

You really must get over the London hang up, it’s just a big city.

1
Andy Hardy on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Leaving the EU is also economically rational.

How?
RomTheBear on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:
> You're missing my point. Certainty can be delivered by a hard cliff edge exit every bit as much as by the softest of exits. The single most successful month in my company's 20+ year history was July 2016. Totally counter-intuitive but it was because the uncertainty surrounding the vote had been removed. No matter that it introduced a bigger question mark. Of course that came to be replaced by new uncertainties and, despite yesterday's relief, the pattern is sure to repeat several times over the next couple of years.


And you’re missing my point. Of course certainty is good no matter what but it doesn’t change the simple facts that leaving customs union and single market will restrict the opportunities available significantly.
That is unless you believe the myth that somehow we replace all that with fantastic deals around the world in no time. This is simply not going to happen. That I am absolutely certain.


> The problem with forecasts (dare I say "experts") is that they don't predict behaviour very well. Entrepreneurship is hard to model because it's fundamentally risky and abnormally resilient. It doesn't fit human norms and is impossible for an economist or statistician to reduce to a chart. You only have to go back 12 months to know that the forecast for the UK will be different again in 12 months time.

But nobody is trying to predict behaviour here, it’s simply about measuring the impact from various trading conditions. We just know how to do this.

> Yet provide certainty and businesses will grow. Relative to some comparators (esp USA) the UK has been on a long decline for nearly 150 years. But grow we have for all that period and we will continue to do so.

Of course, that’s not the problem, nobody says businesses will not grow.
The problem is relative decline, or less growth than otherwise possible, which incidentally, is exactly what happened post war, up to the point when engaged in the single market when we realised we were significantly poorer than the neighbours.

> Where I agree with you is that a soft Brexit would be preferable and in fact would likely precipitate the highest levels of pent-up entrepreneurship. But the harder to specify alternatives are less frightening once you recognise that the unknown will one day be known.

But the alternatives are not unknown, they are well known, and as far as I can tell they are all pretty poor.
More importantly, (and I’m sure you’ll deride the “experts”) the consequences of these alternatives can be measured pretty accurately because trade models are extremely robust.

Basically I think you need to do a bit more reading and maybe listen a bit more to the “experts” . It’s too easy to brush away the assessments that have been made as useless predictions, they are not predictions.

If I may make analogy, you can’t predict easily how big your business will be in 10 years, but you could measure pretty accurately the impact of, for example, staying with a paper based timesheet and billing system over a digital one. It’s based on facts not heuristics.

That’s the same with the impact assessments, we just know the extra costs to businesses of having to deal with extra barriers. Simply because this can be measured.
Post edited at 19:43
Jim C - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:
> About £2.5m based on current bond prices.

Not sure of the EU rules, but how much it costs depends on whether he /they can take a pension for life , or if they can take it all out of scheme in a lump.

If we are paying for pensions for life, maybe the generous EU pensions will encourage the likes of Farage to over indulge and save the fund a few bob by kicking the bucket early.
The devil will be in the detail of how we pay for these pensions, and how much we end up paying.
( edit that said a legally we don't need to pay anything as A50 did not apparently cover a bill eventuality, and so I do hope that if there is no trade deal, then there is no bill, and we walk away, paying perhaps only what we think morally we owe, not what the EU have extorted)
Post edited at 20:13
1
David Riley - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

You post, but I don't get the impression your mind is open to an answer. That is not rational.
There are obviously economic advantages both in and out of the EU. Both in and out are therefore rational choices.
4
Andy Hardy on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

If we had never been in the single market then not joining may have been rational. Since we have, and will lose some or all of the benefits of it upon leaving, *leaving* is not rational in an economic sense.

I am interested in hearing your economic argument in favour of leaving though I don't expect to be swayed by it.

David Riley - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

How can it be rational to not join, but not rational to leave ? The result is the same.

I didn't claim to have an economic argument in favour of leaving. Money is not everything.
The economic argument for remaining is more relevant. Since we have to pay to be a member.
It is impossible to make, because there is nothing to compare with.
5
Andy Hardy on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> How can it be rational to not join, but not rational to leave ? The result is the same.

Use your loaf. If we hadn't joined the common market in 73 our economy would have grown differently, now we are in, *leaving* is not rational

> I didn't claim to have an economic argument in favour of leaving. Money is not everything.

But you did say it was economically rational.

> The economic argument for remaining is more relevant. Since we have to pay to be a member.

We do, but on balance the benefits outweigh the cost (IMO)

Bob Kemp - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> How can it be rational to not join, but not rational to leave ? The result is the same.

> I didn't claim to have an economic argument in favour of leaving. Money is not everything
Economics is not just about money. It’s about scarcity and how societies allocate scarce resources. Money is only part of that, and not even an essential part in some cases.
summo on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> politicians wasting everybody's time on a purely ideological project which is economically completely unnecessary and counter productive.

Brexit, or indef 1/ 2?
1
David Riley - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Use your loaf. If we hadn't joined the common market in 73 our economy would have grown differently, now we are in, *leaving* is not rational

What are you on about ?
4
Andy Hardy on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

I'm on about assessing where we are now, and the effect of change. Where we are now is IN the single market. If we had never joined then the situation would be different.

I notice that you still haven't come up with a good economic reason for *leaving*
Lion Bakes on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

I think it will be a semi erect border

David Riley - on 09 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I'm on about assessing where we are now, and the effect of change. Where we are now is IN the single market. If we had never joined then the situation would be different.

There is no logic to your statements. The effect of change ? Yes, we are now in the single market. Yes, if we had never joined the situation would be different. You fail to relate them to your claim that not joining the EU is rational, but leaving is not.

> I notice that you still haven't come up with a good economic reason for *leaving*

Why do you think I should ? Why don't you come up with one ?
8
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> How can it be rational to not join, but not rational to leave ? The result is the same.

The result of not marrying someone and marrying someone then divorcing them after 40 years is completely different.
Andy Hardy on 10 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

>
> Why do you think I should ? Why don't you come up with one ?

I think you should because you said that to leave was economically rational, and I asked how. I don't think it's rational so I won't be trying to come up with one.
krikoman - on 10 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> "Let's revoke Article 50, do 58 impact studies, put those in the public domain, and then re-run the referendum" would get my vote.

But you haven't got an option to vote have you?

You've just had your option to vote, as did many others, they were too busy listening to the media telling them the Labour party stood a snowballs chance in hell.

If only people hadn't been bombarded with BS and the PLP had got behind JC and what the majority of Labour members wanted, you'd have been moaning the Labour party were making a hash of the Brexit, oh wait a bit!!
krikoman - on 10 Dec 2017
In reply to Lusk:

> It appears to progressing nicely (!)

> Why has this thread turned into pulling Labour apart?

Because a lot of people can't bear to blame the Tory party, I suspect.
krikoman - on 10 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

If your still looking for a scapegoat, I suggest you only have to look at IDS comment and how so completely f*cking stupid he could make it.

Considering he's all for Brexit, why the f*ck would you try and mock the opposition after the FIRST of many, and supposedly the easiest part at that.

By saying, "They blinked first", I'd say taking the piss (or gloating how well we did ) after the first negotiation, even if it was true, is only going to make future negotiations even harder.

It's not the first time I've been left wondering what planet these people actually live on, so little common sense it's hard to see how the manage to wipe their own arses.

As a remainer, if we've got to go through this, I want to get through it with the best deal for us we can. Gove and IDS seem to be trying to put a spanner in the works of the thing they want.
BnB - on 10 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:
The art of political negotiation is to achieve your objective in such a way as to allow the other side to claim the advantage to its home audience. By crowing about "victory" IDS, far from winding the EU up, is delivering on that expectation.

In reality, he and the other Brexiters are loudly acclaiming the success of this round precisely because it points to soft Brexit and highlights the fiendish complexities of the negotiations. The noise is chiefly intended to mask their disappointment and dawning acceptance of reality. See Andrew Rawnsley in the Guardian today for a more detailed analysis.
Post edited at 14:26
krikoman - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

> The art of political negotiation is to achieve your objective in such a way as to allow the other side to claim the advantage to its home audience. By crowing about "victory" IDS, far from winding the EU up, is delivering on that expectation.

Which is fine if the negotiations are over, but this is round one of many.

Imagine you're buying 20 cars, and you just bought the first and celebrated by saying, "nar nar na na na, we' just stitched them up big time, we only paid a third of what we were expecting, suckers".

I'm pretty certain you'll be looking forward to a real bargain and easy negotiations, on the other 19
Ian W - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:
> Which is fine if the negotiations are over, but this is round one of many.

> Imagine you're buying 20 cars, and you just bought the first and celebrated by saying, "nar nar na na na, we' just stitched them up big time, we only paid a third of what we were expecting, suckers".

> I'm pretty certain you'll be looking forward to a real bargain and easy negotiations, on the other 19

But we havent bought any cars yet. We have just come to an agreement acceptable to both sides on the likely amount of deposit to be paid, allowing negotiations to proceed on how we might do a deal.
As BnB said, IDS can crow about it here without it really amounting to much, Barnier and co may well (or may not) be crowing about how well they are doing in the negotiations to their audience. All forgotten come the next round.
Still doesnt stop IDS appearing to be a complete knob though.
Post edited at 10:33
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: Andy Hardy:

You heard it here. Divorce is not rational.
Rob Exile Ward on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Ian W:

'Barnier and co may well (or may not) be crowing about how well they are doing in the negotiations to their audience.'

Do you think for a single second the likes of Nigel Farage and the Daily Hate aren't watching like hawks for evidence that this is so - and if it was, it would be plastered across the Daily Hate's front page?
RomTheBear on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

> The art of political negotiation is to achieve your objective in such a way as to allow the other side to claim the advantage to its home audience. By crowing about "victory" IDS, far from winding the EU up, is delivering on that expectation.

> In reality, he and the other Brexiters are loudly acclaiming the success of this round precisely because it points to soft Brexit and highlights the fiendish complexities of the negotiations. The noise is chiefly intended to mask their disappointment and dawning acceptance of reality.

Completely agree, unfortunately this highlights the rather dismal state British politics today.
A bit like the soviet bloc in the 80s, everybody has to pretend the great project is going well, but everybody deep down knows it is crumbling.
3
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> A bit like the soviet bloc in the 80s, everybody has to pretend the great project is going well, but everybody deep down knows it is crumbling.

Hmmm.
Andy Hardy on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

Here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=675354&v=1#x8690626 you said leaving the EU was "also economically rational" - are you now saying it isn't?
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Do you understand rational ?
It means having a reason for your choice. It does not have to agree with what you think, or produce the best result.
1
jkarran - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to BnB:

> The economy is being suppressed by uncertainty as much as by structural weaknesses. We see this mirrored by our order intake fluctuating almost in perfect harmony with the levels of uncertainty emanating from Westminster and Brussels. Yesterday was plain bonkers after the deal was struck as no doubt it was in factories and offices up and down the land. Remove the uncertainty and growth will pick up.

Sure unless we remove uncertainty by confirming significant new restrictions. It wouldn't be uncertainty if we are certain the resolution will be positive, that'd be waiting but we're not waiting, we're uncertain.
jk
Gordon Stainforth - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Do you understand rational ?

> It means having a reason for your choice. It does not have to agree with what you think, or produce the best result.

Why, then, did you say "Divorce is not rational"?
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I didn't. Tom did.
Jim Hamilton - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Barnier and co may well (or may not) be crowing about how well they are doing in the negotiations to their audience.'

> Do you think for a single second the likes of Nigel Farage and the Daily Hate aren't watching like hawks for evidence that this is so - and if it was, it would be plastered across the Daily Hate's front page?

The DM seems to headline some celebrity story when Brexit news gets a bit too awkward. A DT commentator has awarded Barnier "2017 Putdown of the Year" - When asked what concessions the EU has made, Barnier replied "At this stage, the EU was not insisting that the UK pay removal costs when the EMA relocates from London to Amsterdam"!
Andy Hardy on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

So what is economically rational about leaving the EU? I'm begining to think that you don't have any economic reasons for leaving the EU, good, bad or indifferent, but can't admit it.
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I already gave you one reason (we have to pay to be a member).
There are lots of really good economic reasons. But they would just take us off at tangents.
3
krikoman - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Sure unless we remove uncertainty by confirming significant new restrictions. It wouldn't be uncertainty if we are certain the resolution will be positive, that'd be waiting but we're not waiting, we're uncertain.

> jk

There a certain uncertainties and uncertain certainties.........
Ian W - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> 'Barnier and co may well (or may not) be crowing about how well they are doing in the negotiations to their audience.'

> Do you think for a single second the likes of Nigel Farage and the Daily Hate aren't watching like hawks for evidence that this is so - and if it was, it would be plastered across the Daily Hate's front page?

I'm sure they are, and I'm sure i would be. Although it would probably be on the Daily Fail's front page even if Barnier didnt utter a single word about it. Which i also suspect he didnt, as the interest in Europe about the outcome of negotiations is not as great as it is on these shores.....
Post edited at 12:49
Andy Hardy on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

Looks like my hunch was right.
1
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I am objecting to your incorrect use of the word rational. When you mean "not the best choice in my opinion".
You have accepted it is only your opinion.
" we have to pay to be a member."
We do, but on balance the benefits outweigh the cost (IMO)

Your opinion does not make the alternate view irrational.
Indeed, my view is the alternate view. I only need to give one reason to show it has a rational basis.
That is "We pay more than we get back", Which is true, and the simplest economic argument possible.
I have many other reasons.

Now will you please admit it is a rational view, even if you think it is wrong ?
No, of course you won't. Neither will you point out where my logic is incorrect.
Instead you will try to change the subject and resort to abuse.
Following any reasoned progression on here is like juggling with mercury.
Why carry on like this ?
1
Andy Hardy on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-m...

My opinion is also shared with the CBI.

Voting to make yourself poorer is not rational in my book.
1
MG - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

Rational doesn't just mean "has a reason" but more "stands to reason".

Jumping of a cliff because I believe I have wings and can fly isn't rational, even though I have a reason for doing so.
1
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> My opinion is also shared with the CBI.
> Voting to make yourself poorer is not the best choice in my book.

David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> Rational doesn't just mean "has a reason" but more "stands to reason".

Rational means making a choice based on your assumptions (even if they are wrong).


> Jumping of a cliff because I believe I have wings and can fly isn't rational, even though I have a reason for doing so.

An odd thing to put on here. Any base jumpers in the room ?
Andy Hardy on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

If you just want to make yourself poorer, give me all your money, it's the fact that you want to take the rest of us with you that provokes the anger and resentment. Face it brexit is essentially a nihilistic "f@ck you" and nihilism is never going to be rational. Unfortunately it is not without consequence.
2
jkarran - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Indeed, my view is the alternate view. I only need to give one reason to show it has a rational basis.
> That is "We pay more than we get back", Which is true, and the simplest economic argument possible.

It's easy to make convincing simple arguments if you neglect the much of the problem's complexity.

> No, of course you won't. Neither will you point out where my logic is incorrect.

Your logic is incorrect, you neglect to consider the financial benefit derived from free market access when estimating the nett cost of membership.

> Instead you will try to change the subject and resort to abuse.

No abuse from me but if that's your reasoning it is deeply flawed.
jk
Post edited at 15:45
1
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> It's easy to make convincing simple arguments if you neglect the much of the problem's complexity.

You are confusing what the problem is. You seem to think the problem is, are we better off economically in or out of the EU ?
But that is not the problem we are disagreeing on.
It is a simple problem. Are people irrational(insane), as opposed to just wrong, to decide that there are some economic advantages to leaving the EU ?
There clearly are since we pay more in than we get out.
Andy claims it is irrational. I don't think he understands irrational, and have set out why it is not so.


3
Andy Hardy on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

~ Are people irrational(insane), as opposed to just wrong, to decide that there are some economic advantages to leaving the EU ?
There clearly are since we pay more in than we get out.

1. I never said anyone was insane for voting leave. What I questioned is how it could be economically rational
2. Your argument seems to be based on the second part of the quote, that we pay more than we get out. At a government level this is true we are net contributors - from the CBI linked above "The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget is around €7.3bn, or 0.4% of GDP. As a comparison that’s around a quarter of what the UK spends on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and less than an eighth of the UK’s defence spend. The £116 per person net contribution is less than that from Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands."
however what you fail to account for is the benefit to business of being in the single market, again from the CBI "Access to a $16.6 trillion a year Single Market of 500m people is the key benefit

UK firms’ access to the Single Market goes beyond a standard free-trade agreement - the EU has eliminated tariff barriers and customs procedures within its borders, and has taken strides towards removing non-tariff barriers - such as different product regulations - by enforcing EU-wide competition law and coordinating product regulations.
76% of CBI members say that the ability to freely buy and sell products in the EU has had a positive impact on their business, including 74% of SMEs.
It has been estimated that UK trade with some countries in Europe could have increased by as much as 50% as a result of EU membership.
The Single Market also underpins access to European supply chains. In 2009 $207bn of the UK’s total of $293bn of exports to the rest of the EU27 was used as inputs to industries, rather than being consumed directly; and the UK imported $161bn of intermediates from the EU27 in 2009. Imported intermediates are important even to domestically-focused sectors: the health & social care sector used $19bn of imported intermediates (principally of pharmaceuticals and other chemicals).

The EU has helped open global markets to UK firms on strong terms

The EU is a springboard for trade with the rest of the world through its global clout: it accounted for 23% of the global economy in 2012 in dollar terms. Through 30 trade deals negotiated by the EU, including the Single Market itself, British firms have full access to a $24 trillion market. The recent deal with Canada and on-going discussions with Japan and the US could double this to $47 trillion - the UK would struggle to achieve the same quality of trade deals independently.
58% of CBI members think that extra-EU trade agreements have had a positive impact on their business, including 55% of SMEs, compared to 3% who thought the impact was negative.

Membership has increased flows of investment into the UK

Investment flows across borders inside the EU have roughly doubled following the introduction of the Single Market. As the EU’s leading investment destination, the UK was a key beneficiary: the EU accounted for 47% of the UK’s stock of inward FDI at the end of 2011, with investments worth over $1.2 trillion.
Access to the EU Single Market has also helped attract investment into the UK from outside the EU.
52% of CBI members say that the ability to invest in other EU states without restriction has had a positive impact on business."

If you are going to argue that membership of the EU costs our economy more than it gets as a benefit, please show some evidence.
1
jkarran - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> You are confusing what the problem is. You seem to think the problem is, are we better off economically in or out of the EU ?

I'm not sure I am, I think we just have different definitions of 'what we get back'. I disagree with your statement:

> "We pay more than we get back", Which is true, and the simplest economic argument possible

It's simplistic and misleading to the point where I couldn't personally describe it as true.

> But that is not the problem we are disagreeing on.

> It is a simple problem. Are people irrational(insane), as opposed to just wrong, to decide that there are some economic advantages to leaving the EU ?
> There clearly are since we pay more in than we get out.

Again, taken in the round I dispute this.

> Andy claims it is irrational. I don't think he understands irrational, and have set out why it is not so.

I personally think it's irrational to cherrypick the costs and benefits you feed into a model if the aim of the model is to inform rather than mislead, include them all then argue we're still better off in or out even if we're likely to be £xxxx/year richer or poorer. An economic argument which is limited in scope where the real world consequences aren't similarly limited make little sense. I'll leave it to others to consider the sanity or intellectual value in such exercise.
jk
1
krikoman - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> That is "We pay more than we get back", Which is true, and the simplest economic argument possible.

In simple monetary terms that might well be true, but think about let's say documentation for Import / Export, and Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) that saves so many companies time and paperwork ( therefore, money).

There's got to be thousands of examples like this, we're were going to have to get approval or certification to sell our good within the EU. This all has a cost.
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> 1. I never said anyone was insane for voting leave. What I questioned is how it could be economically rational

As you keep ignoring, "economically rational" is not the same as "economically the best choice".
As jk said the problem is complex. People are not insane to hold the other view, even if wrong.
2
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

You are being a bit radical. Looking at things the normal way round.

The UK pays "x" to be in the EU, obviously a negative, but we can justify this because we get "y" out of it.

Thanks for that. You might well be correct. Who really knows ?
2
andyfallsoff - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

Irrational does not mean insane!
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

You are confusing what the problem is
> I'm not sure I am,

Oh yes you are.

I am unable to respond to you, since your post does not address mine in any understandable way.

Ciro - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> As you keep ignoring, "economically rational" is not the same as "economically the best choice".

> As jk said the problem is complex. People are not insane to hold the other view, even if wrong.

David is absolutely correct on this point. If you believe your reasoning to be correct, it's rational whether you're right or not, and it poisons the debate to fail to acknowledge that. Challenging incorrect assumptions (such as the claim that we put more in than we get out) is important but accusing the other of irrational thinking while you're at it doesn't advance the debate.
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

We can stick with irrational if you prefer. I was just trying to get the concept across to Andy.
Andy Hardy on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

Actions taken that have the effect of knowingly shrinking the economy cannot be construed as rational. In what way does it make sense to make everybody poorer? How can that be termed rational? This isn't about choosing the best of several positive options it's about avoiding the obviously worst one.

Having a reason to vote (for remain or for leave) does not mean your voting choice was rational
Dr.S at work - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Actions taken that have the effect of knowingly shrinking the economy cannot be construed as rational. In what way does it make sense to make everybody poorer? How can that be termed rational? This isn't about choosing the best of several positive options it's about avoiding the obviously worst one.


well, I can think of people who argue that economic growth is bad, and that indeed shrinking the size of the economy would be a good thing as there would be less consumption. Not my view, but a rational one.
jkarran - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> Challenging incorrect assumptions (such as the claim that we put more in than we get out) is important but accusing the other of irrational thinking while you're at it doesn't advance the debate.

I'm not saying it's irrational to make the best decision possible on a flawed understanding if one is not aware of the flaw but that it is irrational to construct deliberately flawed models to justify a decision one has already made. As I understand it that is what David is doing by assigning zero value to market access, not apparently because he believes it has zero value but because it spoils his otherwise nice simple argument. I could of course be misunderstanding in which case apologies to all concerned.
Jk
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Apology accepted. I hope we meet up at some point and see if we get on better face to face.
krikoman - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> You are confusing what the problem is

> Oh yes you are.

It's not a pantomime!




<loads gun and steps back>
MG - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Ciro:

> David is absolutely correct on this point. If you believe your reasoning to be correct, it's rational

Really? Drunks believe they are correct. As do madmen. Are they rational?
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I did think it was getting that way.
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Is completely rational, or sane, if you like, even possible ? Are you always ?
If you can give a reason from which your choice would follow. Then that is rational.
MG - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:
Well if you expand the meaning of rational to mean absolutely any decision, which is what you imply, it's not a very useful word.

Of course it doesn't mean that - from the OED"1Based on or in accordance with reason or logic"

Not there is.no "a" before "reason".
Post edited at 18:34
Mr Lopez - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Jumping of a cliff because I believe I have wings and can fly isn't rational, even though I have a reason for doing so.

> An odd thing to put on here. Any base jumpers in the room ?

Over here.

You'll never find a jumper saying lobbing yourself off a cliff is a rational thing to do. We all know it's absolutely irrational, stupid even, but so far as our actions don't significantly impact others we are free to be stupid in the mountains. Just like with climbing really, and quite unlike brexit, which besides being stupid and irrational, it also significantly impacts negatively the lives of millions, all for the benefit of feeling the tingling of a potential ideological hard on which will never materialise from people who never managed to come to terms with their phallic inadequacies.
2
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

If you can give a reason from which your choice would follow. Then that is in accordance with reason.
MG - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> If you can give a reason from which your choice would follow. Then that is in accordance with reason.

No it's not, it's in accordance with *a* reason. Reason is different, it means "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically." I even highlighted this for you above.
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Mr Lopez:

I only noted, out of interest, it was an odd choice of phrase. Which has nothing to do with your abusive rant.
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

Oh, yes it is.
MG - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Oh, yes it is.

Shrug. Carry on being illiterate if you prefer.
john arran - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

You need credible grounds for thinking that your decisions are founded on reason. If you're going back to scientific first principles, obviously you're on pretty solid ground. Even if you're basing your arguments on religious texts, you may be able to make a case for some limited kind of reason. But if you're taking action based on your belief that a flying spaghetti monster told you in your sleep that the world was out to get you, you might personally think you were were acting with reason, but you'd be very wrong.
1
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to john arran:

Not at all. If you ask someone why they shut the window, and they say it is to keep out the flying monster that is after them, then it is a rational thing to do, if that is what they believe, and it is a rational reason they have given.
But yes, they are probably barking mad if they do believe that.
8
andyfallsoff - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

Not if you have to ignore other reasons not to.

On your logic - it is rational to give your car away, because someone would like to have it (there's a reason). But if you need a car yourself and won't be able to get to work without one, and you haven't considered how that will affect you, that decision would not be rational.

You can only be rational by weighing up the different advantages of doing something, not by willfully ignoring some. This is why your economic saving argument from the membership doesn't work - for it to work, you surely have to be able to argue that the net economic benefit outweighs any loss. You don't do that - you just say "it isn't all about economics". Which is true, but given you cited an economic benefit it would be irrational to then ignore economic downsides...
1
Sir Chasm - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> If you can give a reason from which your choice would follow. Then that is in accordance with reason.

The voices in my head told me to kill my mother. The reason for killing my mother was the voices in my head. Ergo killing my mother was rational?

Brexiteers definitely aren't stupid.
2
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Rubbish. "it is rational to give your car away, because someone would like to have it" is fine if you don't need it.
It is still fine if you do need it, but want to give it away despite that.

As for the EU.
"you surely have to be able to argue that the net economic benefit outweighs any loss"
No, you might just have a reason to object to any of your money going to the EU.
4
john arran - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> No, you might just have a reason to object to any of your money going to the EU.

And your reason is ... ?
1
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

No, that is not right.
It has to be a rational reason for your choice. Voices in your head telling you to do something is not a rational reason for doing it.
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to john arran:

> And your reason is ... ?

outside the scope of this discussion. (Which is, in any case, supposed to be about a hard border. But you digress.)
Sir Chasm - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> No, that is not right.

> It has to be a rational reason for your choice. Voices in your head telling you to do something is not a rational reason for doing it.

You said "If you ask someone why they shut the window, and they say it is to keep out the flying monster that is after them, then it is a rational thing to do, if that is what they believe, and it is a rational reason they have given". You can't even keep track of your own silly argument.
1
john arran - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> outside the scope of this discussion. (Which is, in any case, supposed to be about a hard border. But you digress.)

How charmingly convenient, not to have to bring reason into a discussion about Brexit.
1
David Riley - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

What do you think is wrong with that ?
Sir Chasm - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> What do you think is wrong with that ?

Absolutely nothing. As long as you're saying "The voices in my head told me to kill my mother. The reason for killing my mother was the voices in my head. Ergo killing my mother was rational" is correct.
andyfallsoff - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:
Er, you selectively quoted me - I made the point "and you haven't considered how that would affect you".

You can't be rational by ignoring things that would have influenced your decision.
Post edited at 20:35
Ciro - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to MG:

> Really? Drunks believe they are correct. As do madmen. Are they rational?

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-cold-logic-of-drunk-people/381908/
MG - on 11 Dec 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> It has to be a rational reason for your choice.

So only rational reasons are rational. Much clearer now.
Sir Chasm - on 20:48 Mon
In reply to Ciro:


Interesting, but a flawed experiment. Where was the third option of "solo this route drunk", "have another round of shots", "try to cop off with the blonde" or "dare your mate to streak round the bar"? Suggesting that drunks make "better" decisions is an "interesting" idea.
David Riley - on 20:48 Mon
In reply to Sir Chasm:

You are not being rational.

"If you ask someone why they shut the window, and they say it is to keep out the flying monster that is after them, then it is a rational thing to do, if that is what they believe, and it is a rational reason they have given"
Is fine. You don't know there is not really a monster.

"The voices in my head told me to kill my mother. The reason for killing my mother was the voices in my head. Ergo killing my mother was rational"
Is not acceptable. Even if they do really hear voices, that is not a reason to kill someone.
4
Sir Chasm - on 20:55 Mon
In reply to David Riley:

> You are not being rational.

> "If you ask someone why they shut the window, and they say it is to keep out the flying monster that is after them, then it is a rational thing to do, if that is what they believe, and it is a rational reason they have given"

> Is fine. You don't know there is not really a monster.

> "The voices in my head told me to kill my mother. The reason for killing my mother was the voices in my head. Ergo killing my mother was rational"

> Is not acceptable. Even if they do really hear voices, that is not a reason to kill someone.

But the voices told me that it was either kill my mother or she was going to kill me, so killing her was, by your standards, rational. Whereas flying monsters don't exist so how can it be rational to close the window and try and keep them out?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20:59 Mon
In reply to David Riley:
> You are not being rational.

> "If you ask someone why they shut the window, and they say it is to keep out the flying monster that is after them, then it is a rational thing to do, if that is what they believe, and it is a rational reason they have given"

> Is fine. You don't know there is not really a monster.

Hells bells. Where *do*you live.....?! Middle earth...?
Post edited at 21:04
Ciro - on 21:40 Mon
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Interesting, but a flawed experiment. Where was the third option of "solo this route drunk", "have another round of shots", "try to cop off with the blonde" or "dare your mate to streak round the bar"? Suggesting that drunks make "better" decisions is an "interesting" idea.

Well quite, there's a big difference between having the capability for rational thought and having the intent to employ it :D
David Riley - on 23:54 Mon
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> But the voices told me that it was either kill my mother or she was going to kill me, so killing her was, by your standards, rational. Whereas flying monsters don't exist so how can it be rational to close the window and try and keep them out?

You could have had a point if you had said you believed the only way to avoid being killed by your mother was to kill her first. That would be rational. Many people have claimed self defence in court. But if it was because of voices in your head that would not be rational, and you would be detained in hospital.
Likewise closing the window to try to keep out flying monsters would be rational if you think it might work, and if they exist, or even if you only think they exist.
If however, you had no good reason to believe they did exist, then again, that is not rational, and you probably should be carted off.
David Riley - on 00:13 Tue
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Hells bells. Where *do*you live.....?! Middle earth...?

Actually not far enough from Ilkeston. So more like Mordor really.
Although it's rather green Shires here, behind a farm. I went shopping at 9pm and a huge white barn owl went over my head (flying monsters too).
wercat on 08:32 Tue
In reply to Sir Chasm:
so spinning a coin on the future of the country because you haven't a clue about the issues or dangers is not stupid? Not being stupid in that case would have been a vote for the status quo or abstaining rather than randomly cancelling someone else's vote.

Remember the campaings telling people they only had so long to make up their mind or lose their say? Result, lots of people voting despite not really knowing much about it because of classic pressure selling tactics. Generates a very noisy signal on the day combined with no noise filter in the threshold for change. Result - stupid.


And we know that pressure selling techniques catch out many many people every day.
Post edited at 08:33
2
jkarran - on 09:24 Tue
In reply to David Riley:

> "If you ask someone why they shut the window, and they say it is to keep out the flying monster that is after them, then it is a rational thing to do, if that is what they believe, and it is a rational reason they have given"
> Is fine. You don't know there is not really a monster.

Yes we do. 3 centuries of scientific 'enlightenment', exploration, cataloging and a decade of totally ubiquitous cameras in every corner of the globe have pretty solidly put 'flying monsters' back into the realm of myth and storytelling along with Sasquatch and vampires.

> "The voices in my head told me to kill my mother. The reason for killing my mother was the voices in my head. Ergo killing my mother was rational"

Curiously this one is more real than the flying monsters. The internal voices sick people hear are as real to them as externally sourced information, it's processed in the same way by the same bits of the brain and essentially indistinguishable from reality, it is the reality of the person experiencing it. It's still a poor basis for decision making.
jk

1
Sir Chasm - on 09:46 Tue
In reply to David Riley:

> You could have had a point if you had said you believed the only way to avoid being killed by your mother was to kill her first. That would be rational. Many people have claimed self defence in court. But if it was because of voices in your head that would not be rational, and you would be detained in hospital.

> Likewise closing the window to try to keep out flying monsters would be rational if you think it might work, and if they exist, or even if you only think they exist.

> If however, you had no good reason to believe they did exist, then again, that is not rational, and you probably should be carted off.

I see, you think it irrational when the voices in my head tell me to do things, but when the voices in your head tell you to close the window and keep the flying monster out that's rational.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AB7IDw3PNI
David Riley - on 10:54 Tue
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I don't believe you. I think you get it really.
Post edited at 10:59
2
wercat on 11:04 Tue
In reply to MG:
Any guesses as to the Rand Corporation's motive in warning about Brexit? Is it a genuine impact analysis as they now realise that the UK isn't getting one from David Davis and he wouldn't read it even if there were one?

Or more a broadside at Trump who can't wait for Brexit, just like Vladimir?



Perhaps in a few years we'll get a BBC series "The Brexiters - A warning from History".
Post edited at 11:05
jkarran - on 11:05 Tue
In reply to David Riley:
> I don't believe you. I think get it really.

I don't get it either David so that's two of us. You appear to be cherrypicking what you consider rational and not to suit the argument you're engaged in on a moment by moment basis, it doesn't even seem to be especially consistent over the course of the thread.

I suspect the fundamental problem we have is you take rational to mean having a reason you personally consider reasonable whereas other English speakers consider rational to mean: reasoned, informed, logical (which is different to 'a reason' which needn't be any of those).

There is a good reason we agree the meaning of words then try to stick to the agreed meaning, it saves a lot of this debate.
jk
Post edited at 11:18
Sir Chasm - on 11:05 Tue
In reply to David Riley:

> I don't believe you. I think you get it really.

I get that you struggle to understand that someone rationalising their decision does not mean that the decision was rational.
Your fear of flying monsters might be why you closed the window, but it wasn't a rational decision.

jkarran - on 11:09 Tue
In reply to wercat:

> Any guesses as to the Rand Corporation's motive in warning about Brexit? Is it a genuine impact analysis as they now realise that the UK isn't getting one from David Davis and he wouldn't read it even if there were one?

Am I naive in suspecting it's predominantly a warning to American investors not to get caught up in Britain's malaise. Also more cynically the weaker and more depressed we are come time to negotiate a trade deal with the US the better they do out of it long term.
jk
wercat on 11:18 Tue
In reply to jkarran:

I suppose they might be interested also in the £ being at a certain level
Gordon Stainforth - on 12:22 Tue
In reply to Sir Chasm:

The main problem with this whole discussion (which I haven't followed closely) is that it seems to have become bogged down in an intellectual discussion about the meaning of 'irrationality' - perhaps as a deliberate (?) diversion from the seriousness of what now faces the country both economically and politically. I'd rather just stick to the word 'stupidity'.
1
elsewhere on 12:35 Tue
In reply to jkarran:
Don't overate rationality. Offering hope/hate/fear (however irrational) might be more significant in determining the result of a vote.

"reasoned, informed, logical" - that's very optimistic view of we the electorate and probably only applies to a minority.

Gut instinct, sometimes ignorant, usually subject to confirmation bias - that might be more representative.

Personally gut instinct* is important because I am definitely ignorant of the future.

*aka political beliefs or prejudice derived from what you value
Post edited at 12:43
elsewhere on 12:44 Tue
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> I'd rather just stick to the word 'stupidity'.

Highly irrational ;-) because you don't change minds or win votes with that.
Post edited at 12:45
Gordon Stainforth - on 13:04 Tue
In reply to elsewhere:

OK, we're 'trumped' ;)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.