Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[CitizenTID]

Not sure want out is the right way of putting it, both accept unless we agree to free movement and other EU red lines we have to come out of the single market. As you say both want as close as they can get to it. What I think has changed is where before May, Fox and Davis put the emphasis on border controls and immigration targets at the expense of market access, that will change now led by Ruth Davidson and Phillip Hammond willing to compromise on movement to gain a better deal on trade. Think we will see the tens of thousands immigration target disappear. Wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of cross party involvement in negotiations eventually.

I just can't believe anything the Tories say on immigration - they couldn't carry out the simple task of cutting non-EU immigration to 100,000 7 years ago and they're still promising it now like it's a new policy.

Their tactics are flawed - too concerned with squeezing the NHS that workers get fed up and leave - they then see this as "skills shortages" where they bring in a wave of immigrants, who themselves get fed up and leave that work and the cycle repeats. Skills shortages need to be address by investing in the education of the people already here - immigration should be a short-term solution for this. They've been using this "short-term" solution over the long-term though.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Not sure want out is the right way of putting it, both accept unless we agree to free movement and other EU red lines we have to come out of the single market. As you say both want as close as they can get to it. What I think has changed is where before May, Fox and Davis put the emphasis on border controls and immigration targets at the expense of market access, that will change now led by Ruth Davidson and Phillip Hammond willing to compromise on movement to gain a better deal on trade. Think we will see the tens of thousands immigration target disappear. Wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of cross party involvement in negotiations eventually.

I agree - I view it as they view it as something that will happen as a result of everything else tied to it, and then needing something to replace it.
Without UKIP's immigration-driven grandstanding, the economic concerns are more important now.

the crossparty, UK-wide involvement that is now required is a good thing too.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

Not sure want out is the right way of putting it, both accept unless we agree to free movement and other EU red lines we have to come out of the single market. As you say both want as close as they can get to it. What I think has changed is where before May, Fox and Davis put the emphasis on border controls and immigration targets at the expense of market access, that will change now led by Ruth Davidson and Phillip Hammond willing to compromise on movement to gain a better deal on trade. Think we will see the tens of thousands immigration target disappear. Wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of cross party involvement in negotiations eventually.

i agree with that, it was a stupid target in the first place, completely unrealistic. as i said looking at there brexit plans, labour and the tories have very similar ideas of what they want. I think the tone will change and probably more focus on business, but I just dont see how they can ignore the immigration part of it, especially labour. if we could get some kind of deal in the middle where we have full/ as close as possible access to now, but control over immigration and laws. that would be my ideal scenario. cross party involvement would be good.

 

[Blue Whale]

I voted remain you fucking muppet.

Apologies Captain. It read like you voted the opposite. Now I see that you just hate who you perceive as being a spanner-in-the-works communist. Especially him.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's a sample form of democracy. It's not the will of the people as they aren't voting. The MEPs are the ones voting, who form their own agendas as matters arise which affect a range of other issues. The only influence people of the country have is to vote for a party based on what they say in the country's election run/by-elections, this may or may not reference matters within the EU, but as I say - they each affect a range of issues on such a grand scale as the EU. They aren't voting for MEPs directly, but MEPs are elected based upon party results within different regions of the nation (this is my understanding of how MEPs are elected in basic form). You see how removed the power of influence by the people becomes.

Easy example before you get to the EU - immigration. When Blair pushed for further multiculturalism (aka multiculturalism, not British culture balanced with multiculturalism) - when did they give us a vote on that? He and his advisers took that decision for 60m or so people, without a mandate.

The major, major decisions that affect us/have a knock on effect on all other things affecting us aren't voted on by the people. The ability for the people to influence such matters is very far removed them, to the point of ineffectual and always reactionary.

You could say that British democracy is not the will of the people as they aren't voting.

Same thing.

Seems your issue are with the way democracy works in the world today, rather than how it works with respect to the EU.

 

[Chippy_boy]

McDonnell's stance of finding mutual wants and building from there in negotiation is more sensible than May's fist banging and feet stomping approach though. The EU will be more inclined to think they can walk all over us with May as PM after this.

Agreed. Yet another thing in the seemingly endless list of cock ups she's made. I struggle to think of a single decent decision that cretin of a woman has made in her entire career. She's fucking useless and the sooner we see the back of her, the better.

 

[CitizenTID]

You could say that British democracy is not the will of the people as they aren't voting.

Same thing.

Seems your issue are with the way democracy works in the world today, rather than how it works with respect to the EU.

No because British people vote on manifestos that directly address domestic policies. Sometimes they might include international policy. That is representative (when they follow through on promises).

The difference with the EU is, there is never a manifesto to vote on - it's always someone pushing an agenda/idea within the EU that MEPs either decide to vote for or against at their own discretion.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I just can't believe anything the Tories say on immigration - they couldn't carry out the simple task of cutting non-EU immigration to 100,000 7 years ago and they're still promising it now like it's a new policy.

Their tactics are flawed - too concerned with squeezing the NHS that workers get fed up and leave - they then see this as "skills shortages" where they bring in a wave of immigrants, who themselves get fed up and leave that work and the cycle repeats. Skills shortages need to be address by investing in the education of the people already here - immigration should be a short-term solution for this. They've been using this "short-term" solution over the long-term though.

It is nevertheless a fact that as we get old as a nation, we are going to need more and more and more carers and nurses and very probably there won't be enough British people able or willing to do it.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Ha! Belgium sells more to us than any other EU country per head of population - an £8bn surplus in their favour. They would be hammered if tariffs arise.

Nice try. Your every day Belgium doesn't give sweet FA about this. Have you ever seen how the EU works up close? Belgium always votes with France and rarely with the UK on contentious issues.

 

[Chippy_boy]

No because British people vote on manifestos that directly address domestic policies. Sometimes they might include international policy. That is representative (when they follow through on promises).

The difference with the EU is, there is never a manifesto to vote on - it's always someone pushing an agenda/idea within the EU that MEPs either decide to vote for or against at their own discretion.

I don't recognise any difference in principle. Still, you have your view, which is fine by me.