Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[Vic]

Wow - I cannot decide if you are just unwilling to accept facts and just twist in the wind or you really cannot see that your point that the UK leaving the single market is fully 'down to the UK' is nonsense.

I will try one more time and take you through it a bit more slowly.

Step 1. We had a referendum - can you recall - it was on 23/06/16. Now can you agree with that?

Step 2. The result was an instruction to the UK government that the majority of the electorate wished to leave the EU. Now can you agree with that?

Step 3. It was widely acknowledged that the main drivers were the electorate wanting control of our borders, money and laws. Now can you agree with that?

Step 4. The EU are clear that membership of the Single Market is dependent on acceptance of the '4 freedoms'. Now can you agree with that?

Step 5. The EU state that membership of the Customs Union means that we cannot negotiate our own trade deals. Now can you agree with that?

Step 6. Acceptance by the UK of the 4 freedoms would not in any way achieve the intended outcomes of the UK having control of our borders, money and laws. Now can you agree with that?

Step 7. So when setting out the UK's position in progressing the process for leaving the EU the UK had to acknowledge the EU's insistence on their position being not subject to any change or exceptions. Ergo, we are forced to leave the Single Market and customs Union entirely because of the EU's positions and to this point intransigence. Now can you agree with that?

Step 8. May's speeches and the A50 notice advise our recognition of the EU's positions - but it is all about the EU's positions and not the UK's extremism. Now can you agree with that?

Let me know how far you got before losing it - or preferably let me know that you now understand.

p.s. sorry about the fuckwittery comment - it was late and I had more than a few beers - but fucking hell some of the stuff posted on here!!

I'll play. Step 2. No it was a majority of those voting, and excluded all those under 18 whose future is most damaged by the result.

Step 3. What? Nothing to do with immigration? Control of borders? We had control of our borders, which is why we can have a morally bankrupt policy on keeping out asylum seekers. You think the slump in the pound since Brexit means we have control of our money? You think the massive cost of reviewing all the EU regulations and deciding whether we want to keep (e.g.) anti-pollution laws is worth it?

Step 4. See above.

Step 5. Probably - but I'm not sure people voted for the cost to businesses of administrative delays, compliance with customs checks, and the rules of origin if the UK left the customs union. I bet your business leaders in the civil service are telling the government it will be messy. And what happens with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? They're not in the EU but in the customs union and don't have freedom of movement.

Step 6. Yes, but that wasn't on the ballot paper - that was just electioneering, like promises on the side of a bus.

Step 7. We aren't forced to do anything. Not if Parliament is sovereign and has control of our laws. Just leave the EU and rejoin EFTA. If it had been 98% leave and 2% remain I'd concede, but on such a narrow vote in a perfect storm of tabloid/Boris lies, an asylum crisis, racism and evil UKIP posters, this crazy "winner takes all" stance it's just nonsense. The country is not coming together. You can get committed for self-harm.

Step 8. I understand your point - but it's May who's given in to Major's "bastards" rather than defend the nation's interests and go for soft Brexit. That's assuming she believed what she said during the campaign about how damaging Brexit would be - she was either lying then or is lying now.

 

[mcfc1632]

Sorry @mcfc1632 I don't post in this thread normally because I think the level of understanding of the EU is generally uinformed. You have tried to explain your view in as simple a way as possible in your post above but it has simply made clear that you are unable to make any sense of this issues at all. Your point 4 is an excellent example of your misunderstanding:

Step 4. The EU are clear that membership of the Single Market is dependent on acceptance of the '4 freedoms'.

The single market is the four freedoms - the freedom to provide services across the EU, the freedom to move capital across the EU, the freedom to provide goods across the EU and the freedom of movement of citizens to take up employment across the EU. These are defined in their georaphical extent by a common border for trade- the customs union.

The UK voted to leave the customs union in a referendum on June 23 of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single market for goods in a referendum on 23 June of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single market for services in a referendum on 23 June of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single market for capital in a referendum on 23 June of last year.
The UK voted to leave the single area for movement of people ina referendum on 23 June last year.

How can this possibly this correspond to "intransigence from the EU"?

Thanks, excellent post and you help me make my point very well.

TBF with regard my step 4, I was being simplistic because the posts/points that I was responding to were the misguided comments and plain inaccuracies that the Brexit plans to leave the Single Market is down to a level of 'individual extremism' from May - as if she has single-handedly hijacked the referendum result to impose her hardest of hard departures from the EU.

You hear it all the time at Westminster - and in some of the press - and certainly some posters on here. They have invented this 'range' of options from 'Soft to Hard' - the way you have described it is excellent proof that all May is doing is giving effect to the result of the Referendum. That Farron and others bang on about keeping the UK in the Single Market is strangely not reported as meaning that effectively he will ensure that we do not leave the EU.

You are clearer than me that it is a straight-forward consequence of a decision on 23/06 that we must leave the Single Market - it is nothing to do with some invented extremism from May.

In the pages leading up to this I have been talking about access to the Single Market - which any country can have though a Trading Agreement. I was trying to keep to one-liners, but in my step 4 I guess I could have better worded it:

"The EU are clear that membership of the Single Market is dependent on acceptance of the '4 freedoms' and therefore it is a simple consequence of the 23/06 vote and not an act of extremism by May that we must leave. Now can you agree with that?

My view of 'intransigence' is to do with the continual and inflexible statements by the EU that it will not start discussions on access to the SM until we have agreed to all the other elements of leaving - fully on the EU's terms which are set-out in an Hardest of Hard Mandate.

 

[mcfc1632]

I'll play. Step 2. No it was a majority of those voting, and excluded all those under 18 whose future is most damaged by the result.

Step 3. What? Nothing to do with immigration? Control of borders? We had control of our borders, which is why we can have a morally bankrupt policy on keeping out asylum seekers. You think the slump in the pound since Brexit means we have control of our money? You think the massive cost of reviewing all the EU regulations and deciding whether we want to keep (e.g.) anti-pollution laws is worth it?

Step 4. See above.

Step 5. Probably - but I'm not sure people voted for the cost to businesses of administrative delays, compliance with customs checks, and the rules of origin if the UK left the customs union. I bet your business leaders in the civil service are telling the government it will be messy. And what happens with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? They're not in the EU but in the customs union and don't have freedom of movement.

Step 6. Yes, but that wasn't on the ballot paper - that was just electioneering, like promises on the side of a bus.

Step 7. We aren't forced to do anything. Not if Parliament is sovereign and has control of our laws. Just leave the EU and rejoin EFTA. If it had been 98% leave and 2% remain I'd concede, but on such a narrow vote in a perfect storm of tabloid/Boris lies, an asylum crisis, racism and evil UKIP posters, this crazy "winner takes all" stance it's just nonsense. The country is not coming together. You can get committed for self-harm.

Step 8. I understand your point - but it's May who's given in to Major's "bastards" rather than defend the nation's interests and go for soft Brexit. That's assuming she believed what she said during the campaign about how damaging Brexit would be - she was either lying then or is lying now.

Need to pop out, but I will have a go at a brief response.

Re your response to Point 8.

By Soft-Brexit I assume you mean staying in the Single Market - that is what people seem to consider to be a Soft-Brexit. I am surprised after Blueswede's helpful post that you remain to see the decision to leave the Single Market as anything other than an inevitable consequence of the 23/06 vote to leave. If she was to commit the UK to your 'Soft-Brexit' she will have committed the UK to retaining the 4 freedoms and effectively single-handedly effectively kept the UK within the EU and thereby betrayed the electorate's democratic decision. Now that would have been an act of wilful extremism.

Re your response to Point 2.

I fail to see how anyone can keep taking this view. The referendum was carried out consistent with the democratic processes of the UK. I could have changed my point to:

"The result was an instruction to the UK government that the majority of the electorate, that turned out to vote, wished to leave the EU. Now can you agree with that?

would you accept it with those added words?


Re your response to Points 3 & 4.

Sorry that just seems to me distraction and not addressing my points at all. The point(s), as amplified by Blueswede. is that you have to accept the 4 freedoms and that is totally inconsistent with securing control of our borders, money and laws. You say we have those controls already - no we do not and that is plain as a pikestaff, IMO, to anyone thinking objectively.


Re your response to Points 5 & 6.

Sounds like grudging acceptance but why the need to be grudging - what I posted was simple fact.


Re your response to Point 7.

What was on the ballot paper was a simple decision - it was not a multiple choice against a set of options. It was the question fashioned by the leading Remain figures and then the referendum process was undertaken with the shortest amount of time possible and the maximum amount of project Fear.

I have accepted in my reply to Blueswede that I would have been better posting the intransigence point as being with regard to access to/trading with, but it is indeed the EU that are stating that nothing can be discussed until we agree to all their other conditions on their terms - guess what, a lot of us are against that.

 

[The perfect fumble]

;


Fuck me you have done some flouncing and drawn out departures from this thread but surely this must be a new PB for you?

More than 2 weeks since your most recent flounce - but you're still here.

Seeing as you are around, rather than more of your distracting the thread by deliberately taking things out of context, why not have a try at answering the question I put to you a couple of weeks ago:

'.......you have a problem explaining the inconsistency with your craving for a 'left-wing model' and opposition to leaving the EU.'

Given that the left wing model that you crave simply cannot come forward whilst we remain in the EU I would have expected a really profound answer form you.

Is your silence because you are more of a faux left-winger - or just someone that likes to make arguments and post about topics whether consistent with their views or not?

Touching you've noticed my absence, I've been "flouncing" around retiring, buying a house and setting up a little company.

As for you? You're the scab I can't stop picking.

As for your left wing model, I'm a social democrat, mixed economy bloke me. I leave storming the barricades to younger men and women with waistlines and clear skin.

My advice to you, work on your handicap your argument is beyond saving.

It's for you.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Oh, by the way, when you were extoling the virtues of the private sector in the public sphere....

With regards business professionals though it would be good if they could be recruited into the Civil Service. Their attitude and and experience of setting and achieving targets could bring about a much needed culture change.

did you have this in mind...

Greater Manchester mayor could change 'insane' bus system

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39709700

Or this....

Atos 'wrongly assessed' thousands of sick and disabled people as fit for work

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/atos-wrongly-assessed-thousands-sick-3159343

You're as sharp as a tack! It's a fucking marriage made in heaven...

I've an idea, when the "professionals" have worked out what the fuck they're going to do with Brexit we can get Atos to negotiate the terms! Then we can hire a fleet of Manchester buses to take them there!

But we'll need a private sector hotshot with an eye for detail to head it up....

Step forward....

Ready to take on the Brussels fat cats!

 

[mcfc1632]

Why do you so often post crap that has little or nothing to do with the content of my posts that you are often replying to and deliberately takes them out of context? - a psychologist could probably make sense of whatever personal failing you have that causes this need.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Why do you so often post crap that has little or nothing to do with the content of my posts that you are often replying to and deliberately takes them out of context? - a psychologist could probably make sense of whatever personal failing you have that causes this need.

You've lost the plot and everyone knows it but you.

 

[The perfect fumble]

This is from the Berlin Bureau Chief at the Economist and is well worth reading. You'll need to click show all replies after you hit 16 but it's worth it. If this is how it went it's very bad news for us....

 

[HelloCity]

This is going to be a disaster of unimaginable magnitude.

What a mess.

 

[hgblue]

This is from the Berlin Bureau Chief at the Economist and is well worth reading. You'll need to click show all replies after you hit 16 but it's worth it. If this is how it went it's very bad news for us....

So the EU now know that we won't be ripped off on the exit deal and we are serious when we say no deal is better than a bad deal? Where's the bad news?

 

[Vic]

Need to pop out, but I will have a go at a brief response.

Re your response to Point 8.

By Soft-Brexit I assume you mean staying in the Single Market - that is what people seem to consider to be a Soft-Brexit. I am surprised after Blueswede's helpful post that you remain to see the decision to leave the Single Market as anything other than an inevitable consequence of the 23/06 vote to leave. If she was to commit the UK to your 'Soft-Brexit' she will have committed the UK to retaining the 4 freedoms and effectively single-handedly effectively kept the UK within the EU and thereby betrayed the electorate's democratic decision. Now that would have been an act of wilful extremism.

Re your response to Point 2.

I fail to see how anyone can keep taking this view. The referendum was carried out consistent with the democratic processes of the UK. I could have changed my point to:

"The result was an instruction to the UK government that the majority of the electorate, that turned out to vote, wished to leave the EU. Now can you agree with that?

would you accept it with those added words?


Re your response to Points 3 & 4.

Sorry that just seems to me distraction and not addressing my points at all. The point(s), as amplified by Blueswede. is that you have to accept the 4 freedoms and that is totally inconsistent with securing control of our borders, money and laws. You say we have those controls already - no we do not and that is plain as a pikestaff, IMO, to anyone thinking objectively.


Re your response to Points 5 & 6.

Sounds like grudging acceptance but why the need to be grudging - what I posted was simple fact.


Re your response to Point 7.

What was on the ballot paper was a simple decision - it was not a multiple choice against a set of options. It was the question fashioned by the leading Remain figures and then the referendum process was undertaken with the shortest amount of time possible and the maximum amount of project Fear.

I have accepted in my reply to Blueswede that I would have been better posting the intransigence point as being with regard to access to/trading with, but it is indeed the EU that are stating that nothing can be discussed until we agree to all their other conditions on their terms - guess what, a lot of us are against that.

It's only worth teasing out point 8.

Perhaps soft Brexit would have had an even bigger majority and would indeed have seen the country "coming together". Out of the EU but without all the pain and economic dislocation. Sounds like a plan.

 

[The perfect fumble]

So the EU now know that we won't be ripped off on the exit deal and we are serious when we say no deal is better than a bad deal? Where's the bad news?

You're a canny fella...I can give you a good deal on a load of shares in Blockbuster if you're interested.

 

[The perfect fumble]

This is going to be a disaster of unimaginable magnitude.

What a mess.

Downing Street has said it "does not recognise" an account published in a German newspaper of a dinner last week between Prime Minister Theresa May and EC President Jean-Claude Juncker....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39770328

Don't sweat it mate, when questioned about it May killed it dead with a phrase I've not heard from her before....

"That's why you need strong and stable leadership in order to conduct those negotiations and get the best deal for Britain."

 

[mcfc1632]

You've lost the plot and everyone knows it but you.

Wow - that I have gone down in your opinion is a massive blow to my self-esteem.

I guess, painful as it is, it is just something that I will have to try and recover from.

 

[mcfc1632]

If this is how it went it's very bad news for us....

Well you should be a very happy Chappy tonight.

Me, I only see that May has not just lapped up everything the EU delegation wanted to lay down as they attempt to boss the negotiations from the outset. Shame you were not there, Juncker would have at least one member of the audience hanging on his every word.

Interesting how there is a private meeting followed by a call from Juncker to Merkel with the full details then leaked to the German press - sort of shows just who is running things.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Wow - that I have gone down in your opinion is a massive blow to my self-esteem.

I suggest you get a dog.

I guess, painful as it is, it is just something that I will have to try and recover from.

Your road to redemption would be to succumb

 

[The perfect fumble]

Well you should be a very happy Chappy tonight.

Of course, I'm a traitor and hate my country.

 

[smudgedj]

Of course, I'm a traitor and hate my country.

lol

 

[JULES]

I'll play. Step 2. No it was a majority of those voting, and excluded all those under 18 whose future is most damaged by the result.


simple point, at what age do you think kids should get the vote? after all, its all their futures.....16...15 ...14 ...13 its their future

 

[Vic]

16. Arbitrary maybe. Like not giving the vote to Brits who've lived a long time outside the UK, but might now have to come back.