Yes - we will see and I will avoid going into great detail on this thread, but in summary please think through this explanation:
If you are the EU and your preferences on Brexit are some or all of:
1. that you do not want the UK to leave at all, or if they are leaving
2. that you want it to take as long as possible and in the intervening time also that they pay their full dues and also pay a large exit bill at the end
3. that you are able to dictate the size of the large (largest) exit bill - entirely on your terms and therefore ensure that you (the EU) have no financial/economic exposure
4. that you are also able to place 'conditions' on the departing UK future, e.g. UK's adherence to the CCCTB, Oversight of ECJ etc.
5. that you most certainly must 'buy sufficient time', to plan for the enactment of mitigation actions for the consequences of the UK leaving - e.g. the EU's dependency on the City of London
6. etc.......
Given all those points are important - but that especially No. 5 is very pertinent at the moment and also remembering No 1 - that the EU do not want the UK to leave - then which approach is likely to play into the hands of the EU and hamstring the UK's negotiating team? Also, which one is likely to cause the EU to have to face up to levels of compromise - like an acceptable TA - that they would otherwise wish to have only put in place 100% on their terms
A) The one where the UK say that no matter what - we will not leave the EU without agreement on a deal, or
B) The one where the UK say that if the demands are clearly unfair and the negotiations are not being conducted in fair and mutually open manner that the UK would have to consider walking away?
Which of those two approaches is more likely to focus the EU's minds? Not aimed at you, but as a clue to others who have been dogmatically in denial, one of these approaches bends over and invites the EU to do whatever they want for as long as they want and the other would cause a great deal of concern and consternation to the EU and each of its individual 27 nations
Further discussion though is better undertaken on the A50 thread
Its clear that Corbyn and Farron have never negotiated a thing in their life. To achiev positive outcomes in a negotiation the worst thing you can do is give away any or all of your negotiation cards.
Analogies tend to work best. Lets just say that you are looking to leave your current job, have found a new one that you really like the look of, gone through the interview process and reached the point where you are clearly the preferred candidate for the role.
Naturally, the objective for the new job is to secure yourself the best package possible - salary, benefits, pension etc before you actually sign the contract.
When the new employer asks you if you would take the job if offered, what are you looking for salary wise, and are there any other businesses in the mix.
Would you answer....
A) Yes I would take the job as long as the salary is £20k and no there are no other alternatives - you're the only potential new employer
On this basis, what do you think your offer would be ?
Or would you say, Yes really interested in the job, like what I've heard, the salary needs to be better than what I'm on and I am talking to a couple of other businesses but your my preferred choice if this package stacks up ie you're prepared to walk away?
What would the offer be given that response ?
Farron is saying he would take what is negotiated back to the British people to vote on. What this clown is saying to the EU is Give us a sh*t offer, one that the UK people wont accept and guess what, we get the outcome the EU want - The UK staying in the EU.
Under Corbyn we have given away our negotiating position from the off and the EU royally shaft us to get it as we have NO ALTERNATIVE.
It is so naive it is untrue, and a clear demonstration that Corbyn and Farron are not fit for office and would sell this country down the river.
