Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by blueinsa, 15 Mar 2017.

  1. vonkeynotvenky


    12 Mar 2017

    The major concern was the free movement of people I believe, and there have been overtures and whispers that this type of immigration could continue after Brexit so your implication that free movement may stay after negotiations could very well be on the cards. This however could be a time bomb for the Tories having swept up ukip votes and in the end not delivering.

    May could actually deliver a soft Brexit if she doesn't get the result she wants through the ballot box, and a soft Brexit isn't a Brexit it'll be the concessions Cameron was after before the EU slapped him down and sent him off with nothing. I don't trust the Tories one iota but out of all the parties they have the closest idea of what many leave voters consider a viable extraction from the EU.

    My only worry is that the Tories wont solve the unfettered access to this country for EU migrants in the same way she and the Tories didn't solve the immigration numbers from outside of the EU.
  2. Sunny Coast Blue

    Sunny Coast Blue

    21 Nov 2010
    Its never been free trade, its been loaded to favour countries 3rd world mind, who have plenty to take but fuck all to give in return, so its loaded to dignify them a contribution which was only worth 10p in the pound and not 110p for an shiny cooking tomatoes. Jeez its done, support democracy or stew in its shit like the outers have had to for 40 plus years. Better still support your country, it always deserved better than being raped.
  3. mcfc1632


    2 Jan 2009
    On the election thread I have commented that having the ability to face down the extreme Brexiteers, along with game playing Remainers is among the reasons for calling this election.

    She needs also to be able to face off against the game playing EU - who would have less scope to play games in the negotiations if she has a sizable majority.

    I must get around to answering Len's questions on Red Lines, but amongst mine are not things like - there must be a immediate cessation of payments. I, like many others I am sure, just want us to leave - and leave in a manner that is a clear break with appropriate arrangements and agreements on matters such as trade without being tied to principles that leave us unable to manage our borders and control our own laws.

    I recognise May will need to make, what could be seen by the 'Hard Brexiteers' has being betrayals, some compromises - she will also need to take some tough stances with the EU - it is negotiations.

    Indeed the EU have signalled that negotiations will start in June after the election, but it would not be right to see this has them being 'fully happy' about the election being called. In fact overnight an EU diplomat has come out and 'advised' the UK population that " is not too late to avoid Brexit...." - that will probably work a bit like Obama's intervention.

    Yes, May will be free of the controls of the Hard Brexit cadre and able to come to some compromises but she will also be free form the machinations that have been occurring at Westminster and also able to take some tough stances without fear that the final deal will get voted down.

    The ideal outcome for the EU is that the UK effectively remains in the EU and that they continue to benefit from our money, either as a full member because the machinations led to us Remaining, or as a form of associate with key principles such as FOM applying. They had more chance of that if this election had not been called - now they will have to 'get real' in the negotiations, recognising that the UK is free to make tough decisions, e.g. on the flow of our money, as well as compromises.

    All in all it is best that both 'sides' will now be able to get down to serious negotiations free from political game playing.
    Last edited: 21 Apr 2017
  4. mcfc1632


    2 Jan 2009
    It will be interesting to see Len's response to this and any others that are put forward - it will show just how genuine he was in his statement that he was 'seeking to move the debate on' or if in fact he was just intending to play a cheap game.

    I have been suspicious that the intention behind his request is to repeat what I have seen previously since June - Remainers being unable to put forward their own arguments in a cohesive manner and instead simply sniping/picking holes and generally throwing stones at those of others.

    That said, I tend to regard Len as being of more substance than others of the 'obsessed Remainer' type, so I will take part in his 'exercise'.

    But as a word of caution to any keen Leaver - if you set out your Red Lines and describe what Brexit outcomes you would wish to see achieved, then you immediately become vulnerable to the 'sniping' - if that is the purpose of Len's request - which, as I say, I hope it is not.

    This is because of the simple fact of how the negotiations will actually work. It will likely mean that nobody on here will get the full deal that they will have set out in their posts in April 2017.

    Both 'sides' will have strengths and weaknesses and therefore both sides will secure some of what they want, fail totally in some areas and in others reach a compromise. Where those 'Wins/Losses/Draws' actually fall will depend on the strength of support each negotiating team is given to 'prosecute' each outcome. This is why it is important that the UK team are free of the demands of the hard Brexiteers and also of the slippery machinations that have been taking place at Westminster. This is also why it would be good for the UK to be able see/sow some level of discord amongst the 27 - which it is indeed entirely possible to do.

    There is no 'deal' available on the shelf that can be described by any of us - it will evolve through the negotiations, based on the strength of each side's positions and the freedom that they have to play 'trump cards' and therefore any specific outcome that we can describe is vulnerable to compromise.

    The 'game' that I was suspecting Ken might be playing (I hope that he is not) is similar to what the EU, through their sycophant Remainers at Westminster, have been trying to do since June in their continual requests for detail and the demands for a meaningful vote' on the final deal. As an example if they could have gotten May to state that she:

    ".....will stop all payments when we leave....." and also

    "... whilst we will be leaving the Single Market we will secure a level of access to it through a trade agreement...."

    Immediately all the EU negotiating team has to do is refuse to discuss any of that that until we have paid £60bn or whatever they decide to demand (thereby nullifying our Ace of Trumps). They could also say that any level of access to the single market, no matter how limited, is dependent on the annual contribution (as other nations make) of £10bn - or whatever demand they choose to make.

    May is then snookered because she would have been stupid enough to make statements that left her a hostage to fortune - and of course had the intentionally wrecking (sorry I mean meaningful vote) amendment snuck through then the Remain dominated Westminster could simply vote the deal down based on it not achieving what the PM had set out as a Red Line etc. Of course this explains also why May must not take part in debates where she will be pressed to make such statements.

    I think that I might first take time out to do some examples of that 'sniping' of Leave positions myself so that it would at least expose what Remainers are up to if they actually do start to play that cheap game because they have no substance of their own. It will also help expectations of leavers on here - because at the end of the day the 'deal' will be a 'negotiated settlement'.

    Whilst I will set out my red lines in another posts - for me it will be in the form of some quite simply stated outcomes and open to the acceptance of a number of compromises.
    Last edited: 21 Apr 2017
  5. Len Rum

    Len Rum

    27 Nov 2012
    The name's Rum, Len Rum.
    I would refer you to my answer to blueinsa's post on page 161.
    I have never been one who advocates revealing final negotiating positions subject to the caveat that you should not take up ridiculous positions that make you and the country look silly ( ' no deal is better than a bad deal' ) and which you have to reverse almost immediately ( no need for transition phases).
    I have no plans to visit Hemel Hempstead.
  6. Ric


    22 May 2004
    Great being able to negotiate our own trade deals.

  7. Damocles


    14 Jan 2009
    Do we only employ one guy?

    I mean, can't we get a temp in so that we can do more than one thing at a time and negotiate at around the same timing as we'll officially different trading zones?

    Do they have to close a trading deal with Costa Rica before they can close one with China?
  8. smudgedj


    28 Jun 2009
    São Paulo
    Bloody Paul Ryan coming over here telling fibs only two days ago

    Anyway we can't sign anything because we have no pens or ink in the pens or something.
  9. Ric


    22 May 2004
  10. The perfect fumble

    The perfect fumble

    3 Jun 2012
    Dictatorship of the executive over the legislature is what you mean. A blank cheque for May to do as she pleases in our name, to take us to a destination god knows where, in secret, with no scrutiny by Parliament and no effective sanction.

Share This Page