Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[Len Rum]

You've done it again!

Your post essentially says:

I think you belong to this group
So here's the things I don't like about this group.

Which is all perfectly fine but in no way addresses me, my thought or my views. That's literally the definition of a strawman - you've built an argument against a familiar foe of yours in "liberals" then gone off on a point talking about what you don't like about them. Then had one sentence basically saying "you strike me as a liberal" like that all ties it up nicely in a bow.

One of the myriad of things that you, Len and MagicPole are doing here which is irritating is constantly building these strawmen. You're talking about badly and ill-defined groups as if there's a cohesive or consistent set of beliefs about them and it's nonsense. Worse than that, it's intellectual barbarism no different from the Daily Mail and their tirades on "immigrants" or "refugees" who seek to dehumanise opposition. My problem with you people, and it's not just you people to be fair but I target you guys because at least two of you should know better in this regard, is that entire swathes of your argument seek to simplify people into stereotype so you can argue against the stereotype rather than directly take on people's point. Like Len talking about "getting drunk, waiting for the Brexiteers to show up", it's fucking cringeworthy and makes me think that he's probably about 15.

To summate this, it's impossible to debate Brexit with you or the few listed. It's impossible to debate this because you don't even acknowledge the validity of the other side's arguments and often you don't even recognise them as arguments at all. The Leave campaign has some good arguments for it; good, logical, predictive arguments based on best practices of Governmental ethics and economics. But you attempt to belittle the entire Leave campaign's argument because accepting it on equal footing and then arguing that your way is better is something you three seem incapable of doing. In my experience, people who can't debate on equal grounds usually can't do so because they understand that they'll lose.

Seems as you asked (or rather, you didn't), I'm not adverse to being called a classic liberal though the shoes don't fit. You've confused my middle ground position with my actual position, I'm a federal socialist who will settle for classic liberalism in today's world as a step forward. In fact I'm barely qualified as a liberal if the identity politics and racism as a power structure movements are what new wave liberalism looks like. First and foremost I'm a pragmatist who believes that while we should attempt to move our philosophical aims forward, we should never do so at the cost of democracy nor am I scared to acknowledge the hard right or the hard left and invite them to the speaking table. Politics is SUPPOSED to be a broad church, that's the entire point. If racists exist in society then racists should have a say proportional to that support. Again, I'm confident enough in the sensibilities of left wing messages to convince the people on even ground against the Jihadists and the racists and the Marxists and everybody else and if I fail to do so, I blame myself and wonder how I lost the ability to strike a chord rather than insulting tens of millions of people and calling them too stupid to understand my ethically superior point of view.

I don't view the world or history through the lens of various systems of power or oppression because I don't think the evidence backs this up or more accurately, an alternative view is better supported. The entirety of human history can be written as increasing systems of co-operation to achieve goals with power structures introduced and maintained then wiped out as the people decide to. But the effects of who was the King of England in 1300 had little to no effect on the average person in 1300, the concentration of great power structures has come since the industrial and technological revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries. This is mainly a problem with how history is taught - so called "Great Man" history misses most of the human experience and the events are very often inconsequential to life. What they miss with these Kings and Queens and Sheriffs and Barons is that they existed right up until the people decided that they didn't want them to exist any more and then they didn't. Power structures are administratively useful which benefits everybody and as soon as the majority of the people decided that they were no longer as useful as they were they went away.

This isn't on a definitive timescale obviously and it doesn't cover all circumstances - colonialism for example doesn't fit into this because there was a technological advantage between the powerful and the powerless which tipped the balance. Technology can be used for fascism as easily as it can be used to destroy it which is why technological equality across the world is a hugely important goal, which a one world administrative system would actual solve but I'm moving into far territory again.

I was reading a book a few years back regarding how people's thoughts are shaped psychologically. There was an idea that I've gravitated towards (if you forgive the pun), that human thought and self-image is a bit like a Solar System. You have all of these different planets of ethics; some big and massive and full of hot air like Jupiter, some small and barren and cold like a comet, some full of life and wonderment like the Earth. But all of these orbit the unfailing central mechanism that is your Sun. The sole constant in your Solar System that never moves, never wavers and around every other opinion is shaped and orbits. My "Sun" is that people are rational and kind beings unless otherwise directed by internal or external forces. I don't look at babies and think that they're evil, I see a blank slate who is naturally co-operative and instinctively kind. I also think that most adults are rational, compassionate and want what is best for them, their families, their communities, their countries and their species in that order.

One of the things that I find distasteful here is that many of your views counteract that. You talk about "Brexiteers" like they're aliens or inferior to you. You (maybe not you directly now that I think about it but certainly one of those that I mentioned) talk about the democratic process like it's an inconvenience and people cannot be trusted to vote for the things that you want them to vote for so we should try to negate that somehow. That's fascistic as fuck and nobody ever seems to notice, especially as you're the main person that should be calling that out as a social democrat. When was the last time you pulled out people on "your side" about this stuff? You don't as a rule, and this is why I called you a zealot. I'm currently pissing people off in the Trump thread by calling out their bullshit, the nonsense in the media and trying to remain calm and rational rather than running off into drama and zealotry; people who are "on my side". I imagine we have very similar voting records and beliefs but I call out you even though you're "on my side" politically. Because my side is accuracy and rationality and that doesn't matter if you're Tommy Robinson or Al-Baghadi or Jeremy Corbyn or Theresa May. As long as you're trying to do that you're on "my side".

Because picking opinions ahead of time based on locality to your current opinions is really a very bad way of forming them.

Christ I wish I could believe in your world where everybody is nice to one another and the sun always shines.
You state that "Power structures" are administratively useful until people decide they don't want them any more and then change them as though that happens in a nice and civilized way.
Often those "Power structures" are repressive and can last hundreds of years during which power is concentrated in the hands of the few and the rest of the people are oppressed and often eliminated. The removal of those "Power structures" often comes about through armed struggle and loss of life.
Obviously Brexit is not as extreme a situation as this but it has elements of a struggle between powerful minority groups running through it who are not at all concerned with the well being of the majority, just their own power base and wealth.
I'll stick with the fumble's interpretation of history being a power struggle between the powerful few.
That is what is happening in our little world of Brexit at the minute.

 

[The perfect fumble]

This is the way I see it panning out.
Reduction in immigration,no deal and a comprehensive trade deal in two years are now off the table.
I think the City and Industry have told May that 'no deal' is not an option, some like Nissan would leave the UK.
On immigration we will still need skilled and unskilled labour ( until the Government's industrial strategy provides a pool of local labour i.e. never) to keep the economy going, projects like HS2 and extra house building, maintaining public services (NHS and social care) cannot be met without free access to migrant workers.
Two years is not enough time to negotiate a 'comprehensive' trade deal.
So we will remain in the EU for another five years in order to finalize a deal.The last three years may be as an associate member subject to most of the full rights and obligations.
At the end of the five year period will will have negotiated a comprehensive (ish) trade deal for which we will have to pay and also accept some favourable access conditions for EU migrants. We will also have to agree the jurisdiction of the ECJ over trading, competition and economic matters.We will be able to negotiate our own trade deals with non EU countries.
Both sides will claim it as a good deal for them. The U.K. will be seen not to have as good a deal as before with EU, the U.K. will be able to claim a good EU deal with access to new markets and greater independence from the ECJ.
The losers will be the right wing of the Tory party, the alt right wing press and those voters who believed that reduction in immigration would as promised occur post Brexit.
This will bring about a crisis which will probably cost May her Premiership. The Tory party will split and anti EU agreement Tory party will emerge. UKIP will return as a force due to the Tory party reneging on it's migration commitments.
However due to our skewed electoral system and the ineffectiveness of the opposition the Tories will still win the next election.
The country will be more divided than ever but we will still carry on , probably slightly poorer but having avoided the cliff edge and dreaming of better times in the new global Britain.

It may well pan out that way. It is often forgotten that when Macmillan's famously said "events, dear boy, events" in response to a journalist asking what was most likely to blow his governments off course, he wasn't just being amusing, the response was a dig at the weakness of the Labour Party, but Macmillan was bang on the money, it was events that brought his government down, Harold Wilson was simply the beneficiary. Well there's a ton of events coming down the pike for May and you've made a pretty good stab at identifying them, but to quote the unlamented and mostly forgotten Donald Rumsfeld...

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."

I can't think of a single post-war PM with more unknown unknowns than Theresa May.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Christ I wish I could believe in your world where everybody is nice to one another and the sun always shines.
You state that "Power structures" are administratively useful until people decide they don't want them any more and then change them as though that happens in a nice and civilized way.
Often those "Power structures" are repressive and can last hundreds of years during which power is concentrated in the hands of the few and the rest of the people are oppressed and often eliminated. The removal of those "Power structures" often comes about through armed struggle and loss of life.
Obviously Brexit is not as extreme a situation as this but it has elements of a struggle between powerful minority groups running through it who are not at all concerned with the well being of the majority, just their own power base and wealth.
I'll stick with the fumble's interpretation of history being a power struggle between the powerful few.
That is what is happening in our little world of Brexit at the minute.

I have difficulty debating with someone who does not accept that vested interest and common cause exist, who believes human history is a chronicle of people deciding, because they are driven by a desire for "increasing systems of co-operation", to abandon serfdom, or slavery, or grant women the vote because, well, everyone just came to that conclusion, it was clearly no longer a good idea, because it was not conducive to the overriding propellant of progress, our quest for "increasing systems of co-operation"

So we have....

Kings and Queens and Sheriffs and Barons is that they existed right up until the people decided that they didn't want them to exist any more and then they didn't. Power structures are administratively useful which benefits everybody and as soon as the majority of the people decided that they were no longer as useful as they were they went away.

How the vast majority of people back in the day wiped away the Kings and Queens and Sheriffs and Barons in order to bring about "increasing systems of co-operation" without the vote, without arms, with no form of representation, coupled with grinding poverty, no education and no collective power whatsoever is tantalizingly unexplained, maybe it's just organic, maybe that's just what we do as a species.

What really puzzles me, prior to the point in history when our desire for "increasing systems of co-operation" wiped away the Kings and Queens and Sheriffs and Barons we must have thought they were the dogs bollocks, because that power structure lasted a very long time and as Damocles informs us...

Power structures are administratively useful which benefits everybody and as soon as the majority of the people decided that they were no longer as useful as they were they went away

Blimey, before all those Kings and Barons "went away" (that was nice of them) those peasants must have loved jus primae noctis, swearing an oath to their local Lord on the bible and rejoiced at being at the bottom of the feudal system.

Oh, and don't ask me to explain this....

If racists exist in society then racists should have a say proportional to that support.

Or this....

This isn't on a definitive timescale obviously and it doesn't cover all circumstances - colonialism for example doesn't fit into this because there was a technological advantage between the powerful and the powerless which tipped the balance. Technology can be used for fascism as easily as it can be used to destroy it which is why technological equality across the world is a hugely important goal, which a one world administrative system would actual solve

I suppose one has to expect the rise of the atomized individual will throw up incoherent nonsense like this, adrift in a world of their own making they consider themselves empowered free thinkers, individualists casting off the chains of old orthodoxies that imprison the like of you and me, when in reality they are exactly where real power wants them, isolated, weak and malleable.

 

[mcfc1632]

wtf are you on about??

You might see it as lies and spin - it might even be lies and spin if you harp on about what was said pre-23/06 - but that does not change that what I have posted is likely to be what happens

I am not trying to justify or defend anything. I am just living in the here and now and discussing the future

In fact I am just doing what this thread is billed as being about - discussing what is possibly/likely to be happening in the 2017-2019 timeframe during and following:

Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

There is after all a clue in the title of the thread.

Now had this been the previous thread discussing the result of the referendum - you would be in the correct place and timeframe if you wanted to discuss whether the result was skewed by people's misconceptions about what was really likely to happen on immigration post Brexit, messages on buses etc.

IIRC, that thread was closed down to enable the forum to discuss:

Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

There is a clue................

Why not ask the Mods to reopen the old thread for you, or start a new one yourself on whether the Remainers should feel aggrieved about the outcome of the 23/06 vote.

But, surely the importance of what will happen as a result of the:

Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

deserves a thread of its own?

Now guys. Len and Fumble, - perhaps MP - rather than repeat your normal lines - why not instead address the points raised in this post.

The clue, as I am sure you will appreciate, is that the thread title of this thread sets out the scope of what this thread is supposed to be about.

Give it a try, but I challenge you it will require you to look at events in the here and now and coming years and, heaven forbid, leave behind your pre-23/06 obsessions.

Or try and address the other posts that I have mentioned in recent pages with regard the challenges our (emphasis on OUR) negotiating team face to get the best deal for the UK.

Again, I caution it will require you to check in your 'prejudices' at the door.

I am sure that you will not believe this, but had I been a remain voter I would still have posted in the same vein, because:

a) I have experience in negotiations and would just want to help inform the board and share / discuss counter-views (mine are not necessarily correct at all) and

b) I would like to believe, that I would have found the capability to be 'objective' and discuss the major challenges facing OUR nation (again emphasis...........) - for the good of our nation

Perhaps you might wish to consider finding that capability

 

[The perfect fumble]

Now guys. Len and Fumble, - perhaps MP - rather than repeat your normal lines - why not instead address the points raised in this post.

The clue, as I am sure you will appreciate, is that the thread title of this thread sets out the scope of what this thread is supposed to be about.

Give it a try, but I challenge you it will require you to look at events in the here and now and coming years and, heaven forbid, leave behind your pre-23/06 obsessions.

Or try and address the other posts that I have mentioned in recent pages with regard the challenges our (emphasis on OUR) negotiating team face to get the best deal for the UK.

Again, I caution it will require you to check in you 'prejudices' at the door.

I am sure that you will not believe this, but had I been a remain voter I would still have posted in the same vein, because:

a) I have experience in negotiations and would just want to help inform the board and share / discuss counter-view (mine and not necessarily correct at all) and

b) If I was a Remain voter, I like to believe that, I would have found the capability to be 'objective' and discuss the major challenge facing out nation - for the good of our nations

Perhaps you need to find that capability

Pot meet kettle....

Fumble, I decline to break your post down and respond to it section by section. The reason being that what would be in it for me?

 

[mcfc1632]

Fumble, surely you realise that your post that I was referring to was some 'crazy breakdown' that we best all just but behind us and not think that it reflected your general 'quality'

You surely would want that to be accepted as some aberration - we all have them.

So let's just get past it.

P.s. - Why not try and address the points raised.

 

[Len Rum]

Now guys. Len and Fumble, - perhaps MP - rather than repeat your normal lines - why not instead address the points raised in this post.

The clue, as I am sure you will appreciate, is that the thread title of this thread sets out the scope of what this thread is supposed to be about.

Give it a try, but I challenge you it will require you to look at events in the here and now and coming years and, heaven forbid, leave behind your pre-23/06 obsessions.

Or try and address the other posts that I have mentioned in recent pages with regard the challenges our (emphasis on OUR) negotiating team face to get the best deal for the UK.

Again, I caution it will require you to check in your 'prejudices' at the door.

I am sure that you will not believe this, but had I been a remain voter I would still have posted in the same vein, because:

a) I have experience in negotiations and would just want to help inform the board and share / discuss counter-views (mine and not necessarily correct at all) and

b) I would like to believe, that I would have found the capability to be 'objective' and discuss the major challenges facing out nation - for the good of our nation

Perhaps you might wish to consider finding that capability

I believe I have answered this post in my earlier post today at 1.37pm.
Yours
Len.

 

[mcfc1632]

No you did not - you, IMO, only expounded your own prejudices - in the belief that is a 'form' of debating.

Probably therein lies the problem

 

[The perfect fumble]

This is the way I see it panning out.
Reduction in immigration,no deal and a comprehensive trade deal in two years are now off the table.
I think the City and Industry have told May that 'no deal' is not an option, some like Nissan would leave the UK.
On immigration we will still need skilled and unskilled labour ( until the Government's industrial strategy provides a pool of local labour i.e. never) to keep the economy going, projects like HS2 and extra house building, maintaining public services (NHS and social care) cannot be met without free access to migrant workers.
Two years is not enough time to negotiate a 'comprehensive' trade deal.
So we will remain in the EU for another five years in order to finalize a deal.The last three years may be as an associate member subject to most of the full rights and obligations.
At the end of the five year period will will have negotiated a comprehensive (ish) trade deal for which we will have to pay and also accept some favourable access conditions for EU migrants. We will also have to agree the jurisdiction of the ECJ over trading, competition and economic matters.We will be able to negotiate our own trade deals with non EU countries.
Both sides will claim it as a good deal for them. The U.K. will be seen not to have as good a deal as before with EU, the U.K. will be able to claim a good EU deal with access to new markets and greater independence from the ECJ.
The losers will be the right wing of the Tory party, the alt right wing press and those voters who believed that reduction in immigration would as promised occur post Brexit.
This will bring about a crisis which will probably cost May her Premiership. The Tory party will split and anti EU agreement Tory party will emerge. UKIP will return as a force due to the Tory party reneging on it's migration commitments.
However due to our skewed electoral system and the ineffectiveness of the opposition the Tories will still win the next election.
The country will be more divided than ever but we will still carry on , probably slightly poorer but having avoided the cliff edge and dreaming of better times in the new global Britain.

I agree with most of this, except the Tory Party splitting, it's not in their DNA. Those bastards will stab each other in the back all day long, but the Tory Party is a formidable election winning machine, not easily abandoned. A third party wilderness for Duncan Smith, Cash, Redwood? With a resurgent UKIP? And with Corbyn gone and he will be gone, replaced with a New Labour clone if the Blairites ever manage to oust him, or a more telegenic left winger like Clive Lewis, that election is too difficult to call (except that Labour won't win it).

Right now May is strong and the opposition weak but that will not last, May has to go to the polls in 2020, that will be a full year in to the transitional phase by your calculations, there's lots of unknown unknowns in that scenario.

 

[The perfect fumble]

No you did not - you, IMO, only expounded your own prejudices - in the belief that is a 'form' of debating.

Probably therein lies the problem

This is the post he's referring to...

This is the way I see it panning out.
Reduction in immigration,no deal and a comprehensive trade deal in two years are now off the table.
I think the City and Industry have told May that 'no deal' is not an option, some like Nissan would leave the UK.
On immigration we will still need skilled and unskilled labour ( until the Government's industrial strategy provides a pool of local labour i.e. never) to keep the economy going, projects like HS2 and extra house building, maintaining public services (NHS and social care) cannot be met without free access to migrant workers.
Two years is not enough time to negotiate a 'comprehensive' trade deal.
So we will remain in the EU for another five years in order to finalize a deal.The last three years may be as an associate member subject to most of the full rights and obligations.
At the end of the five year period will will have negotiated a comprehensive (ish) trade deal for which we will have to pay and also accept some favourable access conditions for EU migrants. We will also have to agree the jurisdiction of the ECJ over trading, competition and economic matters.We will be able to negotiate our own trade deals with non EU countries.
Both sides will claim it as a good deal for them. The U.K. will be seen not to have as good a deal as before with EU, the U.K. will be able to claim a good EU deal with access to new markets and greater independence from the ECJ.
The losers will be the right wing of the Tory party, the alt right wing press and those voters who believed that reduction in immigration would as promised occur post Brexit.
This will bring about a crisis which will probably cost May her Premiership. The Tory party will split and anti EU agreement Tory party will emerge. UKIP will return as a force due to the Tory party reneging on it's migration commitments.
However due to our skewed electoral system and the ineffectiveness of the opposition the Tories will still win the next election.
The country will be more divided than ever but we will still carry on , probably slightly poorer but having avoided the cliff edge and dreaming of better times in the new global Britain.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Lots of long and wordy angry posts on here. I don't know why you don't just call each other cunts and offer each other out?
I'll start. @Len Rum & @The perfect fumble - you're both cunts. Fancy a fight?

 

[Vic]

Now this article resonates with me:

https://capx.co/the-english-arent-jingoists-on-brexit-theyre-realists/

It should help Len and the crew because it includes:

"There is certainly a strain of Brexiteering opinion that indeed tends towards the boggle-eyed. That seems to think that all we have to do to get the EU deal of our dreams is to dress David Davis up in a Union flag waistcoat and send him over to bang on the table while a couple of gunboats loiter off the Belgian shore. That any concession to Brussels, in any form, is tantamount to an admission of national defeat.

And there is an odd parallel here with a certain strain of Remainer opinion. The British public, they argue, were duped into Brexit by unscrupulous Right-wingers who promised that leaving the EU would be pain-free and cost-free – promised, indeed, that there would be a weekly pot of £350 million at the end of the rainbow.

Now, they chuckle, we are into the actual negotiations. And won’t the voters be surprised – and outraged – when Theresa May’s impudent demands are rejected by Brussels and Britain has to accept a second-tier deal and second-tier status? At last they’ll see how foolish they were to vote for Leave, and how much they needed our guidance."

It will also inform what the subject of this thread is supposed to be about providing some interesting stats on the reality of the expectations of leave voters about leaving the EU.

Disappointingly for Fumble though, given his continuous use of versions of 'sunny uplands' in a derogatory manner towards leave voters, it concludes, based on the evidence from the stats, of said leave voters:

"These aren’t people who are expecting Brexit to be all sunshine and rainbows. And they’re not people who are going to change their minds about it at the first sign that things aren’t going well, because they’re already expecting the process to be difficult and potentially costly."

People like me and most of the leave voters I know.

Anyway, even though I have had to donate my SCs to friends - the Bakers Arms is calling for my usual pre-match warm-up routine - perhaps I could do some polling?

From the articles from capx on polling results:

"This wish on the part of many voters in Britain to retain free trade while rejecting freedom of movement is often portrayed as evidence that they wish to have their EU cake and eat it. This, however, is not the only way of characterising the position. Instead, it can be seen as a rejection of the recipe the EU uses to make its cake."

And the bottom line:

"Of course, the UK may still be left with a tough choice between trade and immigration control. And in that event just over a half of all voters (54 per cent) think the UK should concede freedom of movement in order to secure free trade. Only 44 per cent take the opposite view. But that should not be taken as evidence that voters think that Mrs May is aiming for the wrong kind of deal."

I think the last sentences in each paragraph would come under that idea of a strategic communications campaign. Spin.

 

[Vic]

......

IMO, we have 'against all the odds' found an opportunity to break free from this hegemony - I just hope that we do not fall victim to the 'Stockholm syndrome' that appears to be the refuge /comfort blanket for so many Remainers.

Re that last paragraph, I've never felt a hostage to the EU (neither has half the population) so the analogy is useless. On the other hand, by continually expecting us to give up on 2015/16 arguments you seem to be expecting remainers to collaborate with the Brexit hostage-takers as they make unrealistic demands with the threat that if negotiations get nowhere the hostages are expendable.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The vindictiveness will get sorted out and there will be (almost?) free trade and there will be a passport border, like always. As for "freedom of movement," that can be sorted on one day with a simple passport - no visa system.

All this talk of the EU being a big badass organization is a joke. There are a bunch of leftie liberals who will fold like a cheap tent as soon as social issues are raised. Can't believe it is all going to be a massive change over time. There may be some initial "shock," because everyone has to save some face, but beyond that MONEY, MONEY, MONEY is the only issue. Britain is the 5th largest economy in the world. If you think EU doesn't want some of that action, you're crazy!

 

[mcfc1632]

From the articles from capx on polling results:

"This wish on the part of many voters in Britain to retain free trade while rejecting freedom of movement is often portrayed as evidence that they wish to have their EU cake and eat it. This, however, is not the only way of characterising the position. Instead, it can be seen as a rejection of the recipe the EU uses to make its cake."

And the bottom line:

"Of course, the UK may still be left with a tough choice between trade and immigration control. And in that event just over a half of all voters (54 per cent) think the UK should concede freedom of movement in order to secure free trade. Only 44 per cent take the opposite view. But that should not be taken as evidence that voters think that Mrs May is aiming for the wrong kind of deal."

I think the last sentences in each paragraph would come under that idea of a strategic communications campaign. Spin.

When planning a strategic communications campaign it is essential at the outset to be clear (to yourself) what it is that you are seeking to achieve (set the objectives) and plan it out accordingly.

So, as an hypothetical example, should the UK government, as it progresses through the Brexit negotiation, recognise the need to ready the population to accept an outcome that may have previously been seen as 'not completely in line with their wishes', but it is necessary to get their acceptance on it to secure another outcome that the government has accepted is of prime importance, e.g. progress on a TA, it should/will plan the methods of communications accordingly.

Lets use the example I suggested in my previous email - that the level of immigration will not get down to the Cameron target of 'tens of thousands' and in fact this might become to be seen as undesirable, as it is indeed important to the economy the government would/should ensure that it:

a) absolutely resists any calls for 'setting out the detail' too early - such as the clamour for knowing all the detail of plans and outcomes as requested by prominent Remain voices - indeed - keep such detail as limited as possible to avoid any 'hostages to fortune' and

b) plans to actively get out, either through campaigning or leaks etc. the messages that they decide that will gradually develop public opinion in the manner they want, e.g. in this hypothetical example:

"That it has always been about having control over immigration, not just about numbers like Cameron stupidly set out. In fact immigration is essential for our economy and through the controls we have introduced we can make sure that it meets our economic needs, does not limit the availability of jobs for UK workers and drives the levels of tax revenues (and not take from the state through the benefits systems) to allow for the needed increases to our infrastructure - so a win, win, win"

You might suggest that is SPIN - in my email I also said that it may well be SPIN - or professional management of communications.

Len and Fumble called it 'duplicity' as what they seem to do is 'go for the man' - but all I was doing was describing the 'actuality' of what happens when a major programme is being managed by professional people. Politicians such as Boris and Fox, even Davis, will be fronting the programme but acting on the guidance of professionals, I have had to manage much more challenging communications strategies than this hypothetical example would set.

It does not make 'the individual' that devises this communications strategy to be some 'duplicitous monster' - they are doing their job.

It seems that some on here cannot debate/operate based on the facts/possibilities of what will/can happen and just always fall back on their emotional drivers. I seem to fall foul of this as, having some relevant experience, I instead try to set out what happens in major programmes under certain circumstances. I have done so following the 23/06 result when there was so much inaccuracy posted about, e.g.

• the responsibility, following 23/06, for doing the planning
• how a major programme is mobilised and resourced
• how you prepare for negotiations
• what the likely wrecking tactics of the opponents might be and
• how you could manage things through a communications strategy to sway things

Of course I can now take comfort from events proving me to be pretty accurate on each of these issues, but I like to think that I would be posting in the exact same way if I had been a Remain voter. That is because I am posting about a subject (managing a major transformational programme) that I know something about and because, even though I would have 'lost' in the referendum vote, I would still be wanting the UK to achieve the best possible outcome(s)

Going back to the 'hypothetical example' - this would be an easy sell, because; it is actually (IMO) what a lot of the Leave voters actually wanted (controls rather than a target number) and of course the majority of Remain voters will concur. It will therefore only sit badly with a minority and that can be managed over the next 2 years.

So nothing duplicitous - just objectivity and an understanding of how these things work.

 

[mcfc1632]

Re that last paragraph, I've never felt a hostage to the EU (neither has half the population) so the analogy is useless. On the other hand, by continually expecting us to give up on 2015/16 arguments you seem to be expecting remainers to collaborate with the Brexit hostage-takers as they make unrealistic demands with the threat that if negotiations get nowhere the hostages are expendable.

I did say that on this occasion, I was posting 'in my opinion'

So it was clear that in saying:

"IMO, we have 'against all the odds' found an opportunity to break free from this hegemony - I just hope that we do not fall victim to the 'Stockholm syndrome' that appears to be the refuge /comfort blanket for so many Remainers."

I was not expecting you to feel the same way as me.

 

[Damocles]

Christ I wish I could believe in your world where everybody is nice to one another and the sun always shines.

For such an enlightened intellectual you have a massive problem with reading comprehension. Give it another go Champ. I believe in you.

 

[mcfc1632]

Thinking further about 'managing communications' to achieve a strategic outcome and trying to look at it from the Remain perspective:

This article is written clearly from a Remainer POV of and expresses the frustration of the Remainers about how we have got to where we are rather than where they were so confident we would be.

It includes this para:

"The Leave Campaign did not, in retrospect, talk very much about Europe. Had it created any literature on the subject, there are all kinds of things we would know: where it really stood on the single market; what its intentions were on border control; how much it had been intending to spend on exiting, even just a ballpark figure; what “sovereignty” meant in practise, and how we would know when it had been restored; whether the Great British Repeal bill had really been lifted wholesale from EU law, and why, if that was the case, it was necessary to get away from EU law in the first place."

With hindsight, Cameron and Osborne would have been much better off forcing the Leave campaign to address such detail - instead they unwisely invested in Project Fear.

The Leave campaign - without many resources, time or money, clearly understood the underlying feelings towards the EU and the constraints it places on the UK government. Perhaps, frustrations with the UK government could be turned to be placed at the feet of the EU? Certainly they read the mood better than the Remain campaign, who, with hindsight, treated the populace with a level of contempt.

Perhaps the Remain supporters should focus their ire on the Remain campaign - we should have never have lost that final to Wigan, but I never blamed Wigan.

The article also triggers some thinking on the benefits of keeping quiet and letting things go 'boring' - frustrating for those that want the result reversed but it is to the UK's (Leave and Remain) benefit as we prepare for negotiations.

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...oring-even-farage-has-lost-interest-1-4969501

 

[Len Rum]

Now this article resonates with me:

https://capx.co/the-english-arent-jingoists-on-brexit-theyre-realists/

It should help Len and the crew because it includes:

"There is certainly a strain of Brexiteering opinion that indeed tends towards the boggle-eyed. That seems to think that all we have to do to get the EU deal of our dreams is to dress David Davis up in a Union flag waistcoat and send him over to bang on the table while a couple of gunboats loiter off the Belgian shore. That any concession to Brussels, in any form, is tantamount to an admission of national defeat.

And there is an odd parallel here with a certain strain of Remainer opinion. The British public, they argue, were duped into Brexit by unscrupulous Right-wingers who promised that leaving the EU would be pain-free and cost-free – promised, indeed, that there would be a weekly pot of £350 million at the end of the rainbow.

Now, they chuckle, we are into the actual negotiations. And won’t the voters be surprised – and outraged – when Theresa May’s impudent demands are rejected by Brussels and Britain has to accept a second-tier deal and second-tier status? At last they’ll see how foolish they were to vote for Leave, and how much they needed our guidance."

It will also inform what the subject of this thread is supposed to be about providing some interesting stats on the reality of the expectations of leave voters about leaving the EU.

Disappointingly for Fumble though, given his continuous use of versions of 'sunny uplands' in a derogatory manner towards leave voters, it concludes, based on the evidence from the stats, of said leave voters:

"These aren’t people who are expecting Brexit to be all sunshine and rainbows. And they’re not people who are going to change their minds about it at the first sign that things aren’t going well, because they’re already expecting the process to be difficult and potentially costly."

People like me and most of the leave voters I know.

Anyway, even though I have had to donate my SCs to friends - the Bakers Arms is calling for my usual pre-match warm-up routine - perhaps I could do some polling?

The article you quote may well resonate with you but it is wrong.
Reducing immigration is a red line and will not be accepted by Leave voters who suddenly become 'realistic' about the outcome of negotiations.
Also the £350M a week to NHS. This is not an issue of the negotiations since the UK will save this money regardless,but the allocation of this cash to the NHS was cynically not adopted as Govt. policy by the
reMAYner.
So the article is wrong on both counts.

 

[Len Rum]

During an implementation phase and he uses the the word and its key here "could".


Its hilarious to see those wanting to remain now in outcry at things they actually want and support but it was never about the substance for them was it and everything to do with them not wanting to be wrong or actually losing the argument and vote.


Not one leave voter on here at least is feeling let down or cheated by these announcements, not one.

I've extracted three paragraphs from your post.
"During an 'implementation phase' ( it's not an implementation phase, it's three more years in the EU at least while we carry on negotiating) and yes he did use the word ' could' because they're going to row back in phases, not all at once.
'Those wanting to remain' were not all in favour of uncontrolled immigration , in fact many of them were against it but voted to remain because of economic reasons. But all Remainers will be pissed off that we're out of the EU because of a lie that the electorate were told about reducing immigration to the tens of thousands ( endorsed by May and still official Govt. policy).
" Not one leave voter on here is feeling let down by these announcements' - arguable but I can see where you're coming from. There does seem to be a majority of Leavers on here who are not that concerned that the immigration numbers will not be dramatically reduced but are happy that the big lie won them the ultimate prize of the UK's exit from the EU to satisfy their own reasons for leaving. I would suggest they are not representative of the majority of Leave voters.