Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[CitizenTID]

I know there will probably be a dedicated team of expert negotiators but I don't feel comfortable with Theresa May leading these negotiations. She's proven failure after failure.

McDonnell is the best suited politician I've seen for this. Bar him, I'd have had more confidence in Cameron and Osbourne than any other Tory politician at present. Boris Johnson would be a disaster.

Also why does the media keep trying to separate membership of the EU and membership of the single market? As McDonnell says, the vast majority of people would interpret the single market as EU membership and that perception is what was voted on. It's one of the integral reasons the EU was setup but it overreaches into matters that is wrong to deprive nation's their sovereignty over.

 

[HelloCity]

Reality will hit big time in the next few years. I don't really think people understood what leaving the EU really involved.

 

[goalmole]

sneering ? all I've seen from a large number of remainers is sneering. looking down on people who voted leave and calling them idiots and telling them they didnt know what they voted for..... you've given me two examples there of labour mps. barry gardiner in an interview on the daily politics last week said wed be leaving the single market. the majority consensus from labour seems to be closest possible access to the single market, but not membership. as I said mcdonnel, corbyn and emily thornberry all said we are leaving the single market and are committed to that, so unless there manifesto was a lie and all the top labors mps are lying ?. hammodn in an interview today also agrees with that.

Mays version of brexit is pretty much the same as labours version, the only difference is labour wont accept no deal at all. both parties ran on ending freedom of movement and leaving the single market and most of population voted for those two. If commentators are to be believed then the dup also share the same vision of brexit. all a lot of remainers have done is laugh and look down at people who voted leave.........btw i fully accept it might not be as simple as that and we could end up with a different version, but so far it seems both parties in the main are committed to fully leaving the eu.






3.15 onwards

There's nothing new there. It's essentially the politicians trying to have their cake and eat it.
What McDonnell is saying is that to stay in the single market would mean that we hadn't left the EU. He is also saying that to access tariff free trade you have to be in the single market. He also said that to preserve jobs and the economy we would need a deal where we had access to tariff free trade. He also said that they wouldn't support the Government if they decided to walk away on WTO tariffs.
Gardiner said that jobs and the economy must govern the ultimate deal we make with Europe. He also said that to leaving the EU means leaving the single market because you can't have the single market without free movement. He said he wants the benefits of the single market and how we get them is secondary. The EU have said that they will not give membership of the single market without immigration but ( and I find this hilarious) he says "if they offer that would we turn it down?". He also says it is highly unlikely.
There was no point in threatening the EU with walking away without a deal because at the end of the 2 year period we get thrown out without a deal anyway. The result of walking away or being thrown out being that we face customs barriers and tariff barriers for our businesses.
So basically McDonnell and Gardiner are saying exactly the same thing.
To summarise
1) We have to get tariff free access above anything else.
2) We can't have tariff free access unless we're in the single market.
3) Being in the single market means allowing free movement, It also means paying in, by the way.
4) Walking away he says is'nt an option and they wouldn't support the Tories if they wanted to do so.
5) Most importantly for the Leavers he says that we have to leave the single market because if we don't then we haven't really left.


This is all before we decide on how we are going to accommodate Northern Ireland into all this without a) reunifying Ireland which the loyalists are never going to stand for or
b) having a hard border which the nationalists won't stand for.
What Hammond has said today is essentially the same as Labour, that Brexit talks should prioritise the economy and leaving without a deal would be a very, very bad outcome.
The EU have said that if we don't want free movement then we can't have tariff free, trade and they have no incentive to change their stance.

The politicians are essentially in a fix. They know they have to stay in the EU for the sake of jobs and the economy and they have to leave because they need to be seen to be carrying out the will of the majority (all 2% of it) as voted for in the referendum.
The language of the politicians has changed discernably since the election. I haven't for example heard"Brexit means Brexit" for a while and seems to be all about prioritising the economy and "jobs first Brexit" and "business friendly Brexit".
The conclusion is that the politicians, being the slimy creatures that we know them to be, will come up with a formula that allows them to say that they have left but at the same time retaining the essential characters of membership, including free movement and paying into the budget, with a few tweaks here or there, probably with another name and written on a different piece of paper in the hope of keeping everybody happy.
I would be happy to hear your constructive comments on how you think this circle is going to be squared, what realistically the final outcome is likely to be, and why the EU would give us everything we want when that would just invite other members to go for the same thing, thereby jeopardising the existence of the EU.

 

[goalmole]

Lots of "if's and but's" there.

 

[BobKowalski]

Had a quick recap on where we stand and it seems that we must quit the Single Market and Customs Union whilst maintaining the benefits and trading advantages of the Single Market and Customs Union otherwise we are screwed. I may be misreading this but it seems we enter talks today in a very strong negotiating position.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

There's nothing new there. It's essentially the politicians trying to have their cake and eat it.
What McDonnell is saying is that to stay in the single market would mean that we hadn't left the EU. He is also saying that to access tariff free trade you have to be in the single market. He also said that to preserve jobs and the economy we would need a deal where we had access to tariff free trade. He also said that they wouldn't support the Government if they decided to walk away on WTO tariffs.
Gardiner said that jobs and the economy must govern the ultimate deal we make with Europe. He also said that to leaving the EU means leaving the single market because you can't have the single market without free movement. He said he wants the benefits of the single market and how we get them is secondary. The EU have said that they will not give membership of the single market without immigration but ( and I find this hilarious) he says "if they offer that would we turn it down?". He also says it is highly unlikely.
There was no point in threatening the EU with walking away without a deal because at the end of the 2 year period we get thrown out without a deal anyway. The result of walking away or being thrown out being that we face customs barriers and tariff barriers for our businesses.
So basically McDonnell and Gardiner are saying exactly the same thing.
To summarise
1) We have to get tariff free access above anything else.
2) We can't have tariff free access unless we're in the single market.
3) Being in the single market means allowing free movement, It also means paying in, by the way.
4) Walking away he says is'nt an option and they wouldn't support the Tories if they wanted to do so.
5) Most importantly for the Leavers he says that we have to leave the single market because if we don't then we haven't really left.


This is all before we decide on how we are going to accommodate Northern Ireland into all this without a) reunifying Ireland which the loyalists are never going to stand for or
b) having a hard border which the nationalists won't stand for.
What Hammond has said today is essentially the same as Labour, that Brexit talks should prioritise the economy and leaving without a deal would be a very, very bad outcome.
The EU have said that if we don't want free movement then we can't have tariff free, trade and they have no incentive to change their stance.

The politicians are essentially in a fix. They know they have to stay in the EU for the sake of jobs and the economy and they have to leave because they need to be seen to be carrying out the will of the majority (all 2% of it) as voted for in the referendum.
The language of the politicians has changed discernably since the election. I haven't for example heard"Brexit means Brexit" for a while and seems to be all about prioritising the economy and "jobs first Brexit" and "business friendly Brexit".
The conclusion is that the politicians, being the slimy creatures that we know them to be, will come up with a formula that allows them to say that they have left but at the same time retaining the essential characters of membership, including free movement and paying into the budget, with a few tweaks here or there, probably with another name and written on a different piece of paper in the hope of keeping everybody happy.
I would be happy to hear your constructive comments on how you think this circle is going to be squared, what realistically the final outcome is likely to be, and why the EU would give us everything we want when that would just invite other members to go for the same thing, thereby jeopardising the existence of the EU.

I don't want to get into a circular debate on here but I just wanted to say that you talk the most sense on this thread.

I still believe that as more and more stones are overturned, and reality hits home with the less-politically-informed (who voted for this madness in the first place), then common sense will prevail. The tide is turning already. This is not over.

 

[dave_blue12]

There's nothing new there. It's essentially the politicians trying to have their cake and eat it.
What McDonnell is saying is that to stay in the single market would mean that we hadn't left the EU. He is also saying that to access tariff free trade you have to be in the single market. He also said that to preserve jobs and the economy we would need a deal where we had access to tariff free trade. He also said that they wouldn't support the Government if they decided to walk away on WTO tariffs.
Gardiner said that jobs and the economy must govern the ultimate deal we make with Europe. He also said that to leaving the EU means leaving the single market because you can't have the single market without free movement. He said he wants the benefits of the single market and how we get them is secondary. The EU have said that they will not give membership of the single market without immigration but ( and I find this hilarious) he says "if they offer that would we turn it down?". He also says it is highly unlikely.
There was no point in threatening the EU with walking away without a deal because at the end of the 2 year period we get thrown out without a deal anyway. The result of walking away or being thrown out being that we face customs barriers and tariff barriers for our businesses.
So basically McDonnell and Gardiner are saying exactly the same thing.
To summarise
1) We have to get tariff free access above anything else.
2) We can't have tariff free access unless we're in the single market.
3) Being in the single market means allowing free movement, It also means paying in, by the way.
4) Walking away he says is'nt an option and they wouldn't support the Tories if they wanted to do so.
5) Most importantly for the Leavers he says that we have to leave the single market because if we don't then we haven't really left.


This is all before we decide on how we are going to accommodate Northern Ireland into all this without a) reunifying Ireland which the loyalists are never going to stand for or
b) having a hard border which the nationalists won't stand for.
What Hammond has said today is essentially the same as Labour, that Brexit talks should prioritise the economy and leaving without a deal would be a very, very bad outcome.
The EU have said that if we don't want free movement then we can't have tariff free, trade and they have no incentive to change their stance.

The politicians are essentially in a fix. They know they have to stay in the EU for the sake of jobs and the economy and they have to leave because they need to be seen to be carrying out the will of the majority (all 2% of it) as voted for in the referendum.
The language of the politicians has changed discernably since the election. I haven't for example heard"Brexit means Brexit" for a while and seems to be all about prioritising the economy and "jobs first Brexit" and "business friendly Brexit".
The conclusion is that the politicians, being the slimy creatures that we know them to be, will come up with a formula that allows them to say that they have left but at the same time retaining the essential characters of membership, including free movement and paying into the budget, with a few tweaks here or there, probably with another name and written on a different piece of paper in the hope of keeping everybody happy.
I would be happy to hear your constructive comments on how you think this circle is going to be squared, what realistically the final outcome is likely to be, and why the EU would give us everything we want when that would just invite other members to go for the same thing, thereby jeopardising the existence of the EU.

To get out of the fix that the politicians have got themselves into they need to engineer another referendum, the result of which allows them to 'square the circle'.

Tricky !

 

[cibaman]

There's nothing new there. It's essentially the politicians trying to have their cake and eat it.
What McDonnell is saying is that to stay in the single market would mean that we hadn't left the EU. He is also saying that to access tariff free trade you have to be in the single market. He also said that to preserve jobs and the economy we would need a deal where we had access to tariff free trade. He also said that they wouldn't support the Government if they decided to walk away on WTO tariffs.
Gardiner said that jobs and the economy must govern the ultimate deal we make with Europe. He also said that to leaving the EU means leaving the single market because you can't have the single market without free movement. He said he wants the benefits of the single market and how we get them is secondary. The EU have said that they will not give membership of the single market without immigration but ( and I find this hilarious) he says "if they offer that would we turn it down?". He also says it is highly unlikely.
There was no point in threatening the EU with walking away without a deal because at the end of the 2 year period we get thrown out without a deal anyway. The result of walking away or being thrown out being that we face customs barriers and tariff barriers for our businesses.
So basically McDonnell and Gardiner are saying exactly the same thing.
To summarise
1) We have to get tariff free access above anything else.
2) We can't have tariff free access unless we're in the single market.
3) Being in the single market means allowing free movement, It also means paying in, by the way.
4) Walking away he says is'nt an option and they wouldn't support the Tories if they wanted to do so.
5) Most importantly for the Leavers he says that we have to leave the single market because if we don't then we haven't really left.


This is all before we decide on how we are going to accommodate Northern Ireland into all this without a) reunifying Ireland which the loyalists are never going to stand for or
b) having a hard border which the nationalists won't stand for.
What Hammond has said today is essentially the same as Labour, that Brexit talks should prioritise the economy and leaving without a deal would be a very, very bad outcome.
The EU have said that if we don't want free movement then we can't have tariff free, trade and they have no incentive to change their stance.

The politicians are essentially in a fix. They know they have to stay in the EU for the sake of jobs and the economy and they have to leave because they need to be seen to be carrying out the will of the majority (all 2% of it) as voted for in the referendum.
The language of the politicians has changed discernably since the election. I haven't for example heard"Brexit means Brexit" for a while and seems to be all about prioritising the economy and "jobs first Brexit" and "business friendly Brexit".
The conclusion is that the politicians, being the slimy creatures that we know them to be, will come up with a formula that allows them to say that they have left but at the same time retaining the essential characters of membership, including free movement and paying into the budget, with a few tweaks here or there, probably with another name and written on a different piece of paper in the hope of keeping everybody happy.
I would be happy to hear your constructive comments on how you think this circle is going to be squared, what realistically the final outcome is likely to be, and why the EU would give us everything we want when that would just invite other members to go for the same thing, thereby jeopardising the existence of the EU.

Being in but not in essentially just takes us back to where we were on 22 June 2016. Its much better than no deal but it isn't going to unite this much divided country. Its not really a final outcome. It leaves us with the risk that a future eurosceptic government will simply overturn the deal and go for a rock hard brexit. I think the final outcome needs to go further than simply being out in name only, albeit after a lengthy transition period. We need to find a solution that most of the country can live with.

 

[goalmole]

Being in but not in essentially just takes us back to where we were on 22 June 2016. Its much better than no deal but it isn't going to unite this much divided country. Its not really a final outcome. It leaves us with the risk that a future eurosceptic government will simply overturn the deal and go for a rock hard brexit. I think the final outcome needs to go further than simply being out in name only, albeit after a lengthy transition period. We need to find a solution that most of the country can live with.

I get what you're saying but it's quite a difficult thing for a government to do this on the back of a parliamentary majority. There is always going to be quite a few remain MPs in the Tory party and they won't necessarily be able to rely on the Opposition to help them get the votes they need. I'm not saying it could never happen, it could. But the stars would really have to align in an extraordinary way for it to be possible. The only reason it's happening now is because of the narrow referendum result. If you gave MPs a free vote today, parliament would vote to remain.
If it fails now it will be dead for a generation if not longer.

 

[inbetween]

Being in but not in essentially just takes us back to where we were on 22 June 2016. Its much better than no deal but it isn't going to unite this much divided country. Its not really a final outcome. It leaves us with the risk that a future eurosceptic government will simply overturn the deal and go for a rock hard brexit. I think the final outcome needs to go further than simply being out in name only, albeit after a lengthy transition period. We need to find a solution that most of the country can live with.

The problem is how do we ratify a deal the country can live with. I think if Parliament voted tomorrow they would not allow a hard deal to go through but I think if the people were asked they would narrowly reject a soft deal...

If we go into a negotiation, negotiate something and the people reject it what do we do then? This all hinges on the EU and what they are prepared to do but they know that fact very well which is a terrible position for us to be in.

To be honest I think this will go on for a very long time and either we will pull the plug or we will be bent over backwards into accepting a far softer deal than we might be comfortable with.