Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[The perfect fumble]

There really wasn't a better word to use mate :) But the suggestion that we voted to Brexit and in was unfair isn't lost on me.

I was perhaps a bit too flippant. The UK has politically weakened the EU and as a net contributor foisted a bigger financial burden on to Germany and France.

There are no winners in this scenario, but we will be the biggest loser and fairness will have nothing to do with it.

The only upsides to leaving was all that centre of global trading, sunny uplands bollocks where we ran round the world hoovering up scrummy trade deals, even if this vision had any balls at all is now a mute point, if we end up in some half way house set up, Liam Fox and the Department for International Trade will fold, we'll be no freer to make our own trade deals in the future than we are now.

 

[peter.evans]

That's May's dilemma. The EU might well serve up an unacceptable divorce bill and May would be stymied, this would be the bad deal is worse than no deal scenario. I'll happily be corrected, but I believe that when Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 they tied their own hands, they have the power to accept a deal or reject it, but not the power to instruct the government to go back and get a better deal. So if Parliament rejects whatever May comes back with then we exit with no deal.

Be in no doubt that we are completely at the mercy of the EU now, whatever blows they may inflict we have to take them. Calmer heads might prevail over time, but the EU will extract as much as they want, they might do so for all sorts of reasons, not least the hope that this whole slow painful process, and it will be painful, will weary the British public in to changing their mind. But that is a vain hope, the Tories are weak and riven but they want to leave and Labour wants to leave but for different reasons.

This is the worst of all worlds for remainers like me, obviously, but for the leavers as well. The best we can hope for is that we'll end up poorer and more isolated in some shitty half way house that satisfies no one.

I agree and that is a good post, but I would say that both Labour or Tory MPs are in the majority firmly in the remain camp. They are only going ahead with thisout of loyalty to the result ( which was damn close but leave just about won, fair enough ) but if they could get out of it they would do as the vast majority of MPs believe we should stay in the EU. Once the shit hits the fan and the economy goes down the pan, which it will do pretty soon, we may get a re think. Any deal other than remaining in the EU leaves the UK worse off and no deal is a complete disaster, which is what will happen. I notice the opinion poll at the weekend confirmed that most British people now want to stay in the EU. Quelle surprise ! Nicola Horlick on sunday said that all this talk of being able to forge wonderful new trade deals is nonsense. We've already got trade deals with China ! and if being in the EU affects our ability to trade with China or anyone else, why do Germany export seven times as any goods and services to China than us !?

 

[vonkeynotvenky]

I was perhaps a bit too flippant. The UK has politically weakened the EU and as a net contributor foisted a bigger financial burden on to Germany and France.

There are no winners in this scenario, but we will be the biggest loser and fairness will have nothing to do with it.

The only upsides to leaving was all that centre of global trading, sunny uplands bollocks where we ran round the world hoovering up scrummy trade deals, even if this vision had any balls at all is now a mute point, if we end up in some half way house set up, Liam Fox and the Department for International Trade will fold, we'll be no freer to make our own trade deals in the future than we are now.

I make no secret that I voted to Brexit and I really do respect your opinion and where you are coming from even though you voted to remain, I can't even honestly tell you that you are wrong because I don't know what's going to happen. This very well be a wing and a prayer but for me that's better than what we have now. Thankfully it looks like Labour are on board (Do you think that's a vote grab only?) and we will fashion a way out of this situation with much needed expedience.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I agree and that is a good post, but I would say that both Labour or Tory MPs are in the majority firmly in the remain camp. They are only going ahead with thisout of loyalty to the result ( which was damn close but leave just about won, fair enough ) but if they could get out of it they would do as the vast majority of MPs believe we should stay in the EU. Once the shit hits the fan and the economy goes down the pan, which it will do pretty soon, we may get a re think. Any deal other than remaining in the EU leaves the UK worse off and no deal is a complete disaster, which is what will happen. I notice the opinion poll at the weekend confirmed that most British people now want to stay in the EU. Quelle surprise ! Nicola Horlick on sunday said that all this talk of being able to forge wonderful new trade deals is nonsense. We've already got trade deals with China ! and if being in the EU affects our ability to trade with China or anyone else, why do Germany export seven times as any goods and services to China than us !?

Agreed.

Being at the centre of the EU, as Germany is, has not hindered her export trade, she is a far more successful exporter than we are.

What the opinion polls say about changing attitudes to Brexit are interesting but only to a point. There is no mechanism whereby that change of sentiment can be expressed politically, there'll be no new referendum or a new election (if the Tories have anything to do with it) and even if we did have an election and Labour won, we'd still leave.

In the UK two thirds of those polled want the railways nationalised, that's been the case for some time now, but it's not going to happen because our elected representatives (or at least enough of them) say no.

 

[CitizenTID]

The issue in contention was the idea that the UK would get eastern European nations to take a different line to other EU countries so an EU politician suggested that this "divide and rule" idea could be used to exploit divisions between component parts of the UK.

You started a semantic argument about what "union" means that frankly did sound a bit thick, or at least odd. You've proved you're not thick but it's still odd, not least whatever you mean by "uniform culture" (from Cornwall to Caithness when most people would not know what happened the other side of the hill) - which sounds like whatever happened, invasions, migration, war, French Dutch or German monarchs, we have a "uniform culture". It's cobblers, however you define it.

No it wasn't a semantic argument. The poster said Northern Ireland and Scotland are not this country - yes they bloody well are, it's in legal writing. There are no component parts of the UK, there are devolved parts. These are very different meanings. These isles sharing the same category of culture is not "cobblers" - we share culture with Europe but we have our own very definable culture as a country compared to others. In reference to our celtic culture (most of Europe had celtic culture at a time, but ours continued and evolved), this is termed insular celtic - one of the scarce examples of a word used in reference to Britain and Ireland collectively (that doesn't include "British"). We can break that up into regional categories ourselves - not for some tit that isn't from here and has no say here to involve himself with.

I posted where that German politician could go and someone tried to infer I (and Brexit voters in general) an idiot for replying in comment to what the politician said by explaining the difference - the poster tried to tell me I was wrong about what my own country is when it is in legal definition for all to read, so no - pointing out why I was not an idiot and where he fails to understand the most basics of what his country is was not semantic.

 

[cibaman]

That's May's dilemma. The EU might well serve up an unacceptable divorce bill and May would be stymied, this would be the bad deal is worse than no deal scenario. I'll happily be corrected, but I believe that when Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 they tied their own hands, they have the power to accept a deal or reject it, but not the power to instruct the government to go back and get a better deal. So if Parliament rejects whatever May comes back with then we exit with no deal.

Be in no doubt that we are completely at the mercy of the EU now, whatever blows they may inflict we have to take them. Calmer heads might prevail over time, but the EU will extract as much as they want, they might do so for all sorts of reasons, not least the hope that this whole slow painful process, and it will be painful, will weary the British public in to changing their mind. But that is a vain hope, the Tories are weak and riven but they want to leave and Labour wants to leave but for different reasons.

This is the worst of all worlds for remainers like me, obviously, but for the leavers as well. The best we can hope for is that we'll end up poorer and more isolated in some shitty half way house that satisfies no one.

Its also a dilemna for Labour. Either the negotiations will lead to a settlement on the divorce bill or they'll end up in a Mexican stand off. If there is a settlement its unlikely that the EU will agree to anything that will be acceptable to the Tory "no deal" MPs. So that deal would only pass with support, or abstention, by Labour. Is it likely that Labour would vote with the government if the alternative is a general election and the possibility of Labour taking over the negotiations?

It is perhaps more likely that we'll end up with a failure to agree, with the EU believing that eventually the UK will back down. But how long can that Mexican stand off last with the clock ticking and the time available for trade negotiations ebbing away? I think its inevitable that at some point in the next 12 months parliament will have to approve a divorce deal. I think its unlikely that deal can be approved without Labour's support, which will make for a interesting debate.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Its also a dilemna for Labour. Either the negotiations will lead to a settlement on the divorce bill or they'll end up in a Mexican stand off. If there is a settlement its unlikely that the EU will agree to anything that will be acceptable to the Tory "no deal" MPs. So that deal would only pass with support, or abstention, by Labour. Is it likely that Labour would vote with the government if the alternative is a general election and the possibility of Labour taking over the negotiations?

It is perhaps more likely that we'll end up with a failure to agree, with the EU believing that eventually the UK will back down. But how long can that Mexican stand off last with the clock ticking and the time available for trade negotiations ebbing away? I think its inevitable that at some point in the next 12 months parliament will have to approve a divorce deal. I think its unlikely that deal can be approved without Labour's support, which will make for a interesting debate.

But what debate might that be? There'll be no cross-party approach, the hard line Brexiters would see it as a route to betrayal. If May were clever she might bring tit bits to parliament and gradually and painstakingly get every step approved, but come to think of it, with a slim majority and each concession seen as not enough, or a betrayal, the whips would probably top themselves.

I can't see the route for this one. May was right on only one thing when she called the election, she needed a stonking majority to steam roller this through. She doesn't have it. Today the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England effectively opened up another front, the corporate front, in this on going war, it's a shambles. Davis is doing god knows what over in Brussels, apart from being shafted, it's a complete mystery. Let's be truthful, no one outside a small circle in the Tory government knows what Davis is up to. Is there an agreed line? do we have a strategy? Is it the same as the Chancellor's? The PM? Boris? And what's our destination?

You couldn't make this up.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I make no secret that I voted to Brexit and I really do respect your opinion and where you are coming from even though you voted to remain, I can't even honestly tell you that you are wrong because I don't know what's going to happen. This very well be a wing and a prayer but for me that's better than what we have now. Thankfully it looks like Labour are on board (Do you think that's a vote grab only?) and we will fashion a way out of this situation with much needed expedience.

It's not a vote grab, though Labour know they'd be cutting their electoral throat if they reverted to remain. No, Labour has had a long tradition of animosity towards Europe, from the right of the party it was about loss of sovereignty and from the left that membership locked us in to a form of corporatist capitalism that prevented the red flag ever flying over Westminster.

The Labour party came to terms with Europe because it worked and more importantly it was a buffer against neoliberalism and rampant globalisation, but the party never bought in to the European Project, Blair and Brown were reluctant fans.

Corbyn went in to the EU referendum rating the EU as a seven out of ten, he saw the jobs and protection of workers rights as a plus, but little else. But on the morning after the result he called for the immediate triggering of Article 50, considered at the time as a real bollock, but looking back it would have been a smart move.

 

[Len Rum]

Has anyone been in to see if mcfc1632 is alright? I guess he must be taking this pretty bad. Here's hoping he's just gone off to spend more time with his golf clubs.

Last sighting was Cyprus British Legion (lounge and bar) reading a copy of the Art of the Deal by Donald Trump.

 

[Len Rum]

It might help our negotiating position if Davis got a haircut.