Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

[smudgedj]

LOL
They pass their WEIRD statements off as facts.
Wishes, Emotions, Impersonal expressions, Recommendations, Doubt/Denial.

 

[mcfc1632]

Then it's just your interpretation based on your own sentiments of hope that accepting a deal for access to the single market would be seen by 'brexiteers' of backpeddling or a comedown. Single Market access does not entail being a member of the EU which is what we voted against. If it becomes clear that access to the Single Market means retaining EU citizen immigration rights then it does not still mean the UK will be bound to the political union of the EU.

China, Canada, Mexico et al all have access to the Single Market for example. It entails, quote: "Access to the single market requires acceptance of all four EU freedoms — of movement of goods, capital, services, and people. The single market is predicated on the belief that these four freedoms drive prosperity." Personally this does not bother me nor would I consider it a 'soft brexit' if the UK Government agreed to these principles if it continued to want access to the Single Market. I was one before the referendum advocating that once we left we re-negotiated for ETFA rules on trade as being our future relationship with Europe. Yes there are some who advocated having nothing to do with the EU at all, trade or otherwise. That doesn't mean we were different in our objectives when we voted; a complete clean slate. End all current associations with the EU and then renegotiate afterwards.

For me, the freedom to make trade deals with other blocs and nations without the EU glaring over our decisions is what I wanted. There is absolutely nothing to suggest Fox, Davis, Hammond or May, are currently 'failing' to deliver on that promise, despite the hopes of those who are taking every soundbite, passing comment or fart as being examples of failed brexit policy and evidence of disaster. Note that today Germany's Mittelstand fears Britain not being given access to the Single Market as it would lose them and us billions in Euros; a scenario many remainers stated was just hearsay and had no basis in reality. http://www.cityam.com/262559/germanys-mittelstand-wants-avoid-hard-brexit-fear-harm-eu. The pride of the EU and it's politicians will ultimately result in it's downfall; that's what we've been trying to point out. Remember that the referendum would have been avoided in it's entirety had they entertained our request for EU reform. They didn't and now we are where we are.

We wanted to end the political aspect of our association with the EU; if they state that having access to the Single Market means continuing the political association with the EU (something that does not apply to any nation that trades with the EU) we're saying we should walk away from any deal, in spite of any financial hardships which we could rectify by establishing new deals with the other trading blocs around the world. May take a few years but we've suffered recessions before and gone without. What's so unreasonable about that? Not everything in life is about money, and that's coming from someone considered to be living on a 'poverty wage'.

This bit of your post I find very telling:

"if they state that having access to the Single Market means continuing the political association with the EU (something that does not apply to any nation that trades with the EU)...."

This would be clear evidence of discriminatory behaviour towards the UK - deliberately seeking to damage us

 

[Metal Biker]

What we are getting is the drip of not so good news re brexit as everybody is realising this is calamitous to go hard brexit.

As the months go on more will emerge. What we will end up with is a halwY house of fudge that puts us in the shit of not delivering what brexiteers wanted and tariffs. No trade deals allowed until we are out etc.

It's unraveling and it will continue to do so because it doesn't add up to anything other than fudge.

And not nice fudge either.

Nothing is unravelling. You are interpreting it as 'unravelling' because you are opposed to the decision, yet you're trying to say to others that 'you can see the problems ahead' when they aren't problems to us because for most part we approve of the steps towards 'hard brexit'.

You assume we aren't prepared for financial hardships and think that money will descend from the sky. We know that times are going to be tougher, we simply don't know the extent and here's the rub, neither do you. What we also don't know is how long it will take to recover from it. Suzanne Evans was recently on This Week and was asked about how it was unrealistic, given the intricacies and complications surrounding brexit that a deal could be completed within the 2 years and she agreed, but went even further. She stated that Article 50 was most likely set up precisely because it was unworkable and unrealsitic to make any arrangements in that timeframe so as to act as a deterrant to stop members from leaving, and I agree. Article 50 wasn't set up to make the process of voluntarily leaving easy but difficult to prevent the Union breaking up. But those are the rules the EU created if we wanted to follow the correct procedure in leaving so we have to follow it, even if the idea behind it is bullshit.

Of course it's going to take longer than 2 years to reach a deal with the EU; it took them 9 years to agree to one with Canada. But this is where I feel you and other pro-EU minds are failing to understand; the success of Brexit is not down to what deal we have with the EU but with the new deals we are now free to make with the rest of the world. We're leaving the EU, but I wil only consider it a 'disaster' if we fail to make trade agreements with other nations, the Commonwealth etc, not if we fail to reach a successful agreement with the EU.

 

[mcfc1632]

LOL
They pass their WEIRD statements off as facts.
Wishes, Emotions, Impersonal expressions, Recommendations, Doubt/Denial.

Actually, it could be a whole lot worse.

I sometimes pop onto the RAWK version of this thread - not to post just to observe and 90% of the posters are like MP, Len and Fumble - actually far worse

If any poster dares to stray from the 'party line' they get pounced upon by the pack. I do it just now and then as it helps me to just smile at the equivalents on here

 

[Metal Biker]

This bit of your post I find very telling:

"if they state that having access to the Single Market means continuing the political association with the EU (something that does not apply to any nation that trades with the EU)...."

This would be clear evidence of discriminatory behaviour towards the UK - deliberately seeking to damage us

That's the bit that irks me and something remainers often avoid. Canada is not a member of the EU yet has a trade deal. The UK is not a member of the EU (anymore, soon) and is negotiating a trade deal. That's what we're doing, that's what we wanted. If we don't get a satsifactory deal with the EU...oh well, oh Canada, China, India, Australia, United States, wanna do a deal? A failed agreement should not be interpreted as "cripes, we failed to satsifactorily conclude a trade arrangement with the EU...quick, rejoin at once as that was what leave voters wanted!"

They want us 'politically' connected. We've said nuts to that but the pro-EU remainers are stating we're the ones who are damaging our relationship with Europe. If the EU are meant to be our 'friends' i'd hate to see them as enemies. You don't treat a friend the way the EU treats the UK in regards to how they've done deals with other, non EU nations. It all smacks a bit of wounded pride to me.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Ha!
'We WILL end up a halfway house of fudge!'
'Unravelling!
'EVERYBODY is realising this is calamitous to go hard Brexit!

Yeah, right.

 

[blueinsa]

Nothing is unravelling. You are interpreting it as 'unravelling' because you are opposed to the decision, yet you're trying to say to others that 'you can see the problems ahead' when they aren't problems to us because for most part we approve of the steps towards 'hard brexit'.

You assume we aren't prepared for financial hardships and think that money will descend from the sky. We know that times are going to be tougher, we simply don't know the extent and here's the rub, neither do you. What we also don't know is how long it will take to recover from it. Suzanne Evans was recently on This Week and was asked about how it was unrealistic, given the intricacies and complications surrounding brexit that a deal could be completed within the 2 years and she agreed, but went even further. She stated that Article 50 was most likely set up precisely because it was unworkable and unrealsitic to make any arrangements in that timeframe so as to act as a deterrant to stop members from leaving, and I agree. Article 50 wasn't set up to make the process of voluntarily leaving easy but difficult to prevent the Union breaking up. But those are the rules the EU created if we wanted to follow the correct procedure in leaving so we have to follow it, even if the idea behind it is bullshit.

Of course it's going to take longer than 2 years to reach a deal with the EU; it took them 9 years to agree to one with Canada. But this is where I feel you and other pro-EU minds are failing to understand; the success of Brexit is not down to what deal we have with the EU but with the new deals we are now free to make with the rest of the world. We're leaving the EU, but I wil only consider it a 'disaster' if we fail to make trade agreements with other nations, the Commonwealth etc, not if we fail to reach a successful agreement with the EU.

Well said that man!

 

[mcfc1632]

"............... the success of Brexit is not down to what deal we have with the EU but with the new deals we are now free to make with the rest of the world. We're leaving the EU, but I will only consider it a 'disaster' if we fail to make trade agreements with other nations, the Commonwealth etc, not if we fail to reach a successful agreement with the EU."

Of course the logical and face saving option would be to agree a transition period beyond the 2 years where we operate on exactly the same basis as we do now until a replacement FTA is agreed - i.e. zero tariffs.

I have proposed that we would/could/should accept a tapering payment regime over a few years beyond the 2 to help the EU deal with the black hole they will find themselves in if access to our money ends abruptly.

On the basis though that we have left and there are tight controls over a pre-determined framework for concluding the FTA to make sure that they cannot simply backslide. We can then also get on with trading directly with other nations as the detail of the EU deal is finalised.

Somewhere in such an arrangement is what I would suggest might be the eventual negotiated settlement allowing both sides to present it positively - because it is the sensible way forward

It will only happen IMO, when 'the actual negotiators' start to interact and not the 'front of house' politicians people keep quoting. I also think that this will only occur once the EU side see some steel/backbone from the UK side and realise that we will not just cough up the funding for all their over-commitments without something in return.

Of course the more extreme Remainers on here will not consider this because - "....there are none so blind as those who will not see........."

 

[Metal Biker]

Of course the logical and facing saving option would be to agree a transition period beyond the 2 years where we operate on exactly the same basis as we do now until a replacement FTA is agreed - i.e. zero tariffs.

I have proposed that we would/could/should accept a tapering payment regime over a few years beyond the 2 to help the EU deal with the black hole they will find themselves in if access to our money ends abruptly.

On the basis thought that we have left and there is tight controls over a pre-determined framework for concluding the FTA to make sure that they cannot simply backslide. We can then also get on with trading directly with other nations as the detail of the EU deal is finalised.

Somewhere in such an arrangement is what I would suggest might be the actual negotiated settlement allowing both sides to present it positively - because it is the sensible way forward

It will only happen IMO, when 'the actual negotiators' start to interact and not the 'front of house' politicians people keep quoting. I also think that this will only occur once the EU side see some steel/backbone from the UK side and realise that we will not just cough up the funding for all their over-commitments without something in return.

Of course the more extreme Remainers on here will not consider this because - "....there are none so blind as those who will not see........."

You see, THIS is the sort of post Article 50 discussions I've wanted to see on here.

Options, scenarios, feasible paths. Now obviously those on the remain side are free to challenge you on the points you raised as being realistic or not, but all they've done so far is say "you're deluded, that's rubbish, pie in the sky, blind optimism" They say all this but offer NO alternative solutions and they do so because they DON'T want to see brexit happen. Debate descends into tit-for-tat point scoring and everything slows down.

My view is this; the moment the EU starts to make things difficult for us to arrange trade deals outside the EU bloc we should call an end to the EU negotiations completely, freeing ourselves up. What I want to know, from those in the know, is explain whether or not such a scenario is possible, without penalty, or is legally impossible and would do us more harm than good, because that's my current stance. If they start playing hard ball and preventing us from even speaking to other nations until our negotiations with the EU are complete, what ways around their stubborness are there and what would be the realistic ramifications of such an act?

*cue responses from others of "see! leavers DIDN'T know what they were voting for!"* :)

 

[mcfc1632]

That is because they are not able to live and post in the here and now 2017-2019 phase

They are back in 2015-2016

Re the other points in your post MB - from a negotiating POV I have explained why the UK need to have a viable walk-away option and why the EU, through its champions in Westminster, have been (the veto amendment) and continue (Hilary Benn's latest attempt) to seek to deny that option to the UK.

Without it the EU can just drag everything out and we will be paralysed and unable to break out of the loop.

 

[Len Rum]

Then it's just your interpretation based on your own sentiments of hope that accepting a deal for access to the single market would be seen by 'brexiteers' of backpeddling or a comedown. Single Market access does not entail being a member of the EU which is what we voted against. If it becomes clear that access to the Single Market means retaining EU citizen immigration rights then it does not still mean the UK will be bound to the political union of the EU.

China, Canada, Mexico et al all have access to the Single Market for example. It entails, quote: "Access to the single market requires acceptance of all four EU freedoms — of movement of goods, capital, services, and people. The single market is predicated on the belief that these four freedoms drive prosperity." Personally this does not bother me nor would I consider it a 'soft brexit' if the UK Government agreed to these principles if it continued to want access to the Single Market. I was one before the referendum advocating that once we left we re-negotiated for ETFA rules on trade as being our future relationship with Europe. Yes there are some who advocated having nothing to do with the EU at all, trade or otherwise. That doesn't mean we were different in our objectives when we voted; a complete clean slate. End all current associations with the EU and then renegotiate afterwards.

For me, the freedom to make trade deals with other blocs and nations without the EU glaring over our decisions is what I wanted. There is absolutely nothing to suggest Fox, Davis, Hammond or May, are currently 'failing' to deliver on that promise, despite the hopes of those who are taking every soundbite, passing comment or fart as being examples of failed brexit policy and evidence of disaster. Note that today Germany's Mittelstand fears Britain not being given access to the Single Market as it would lose them and us billions in Euros; a scenario many remainers stated was just hearsay and had no basis in reality. http://www.cityam.com/262559/germanys-mittelstand-wants-avoid-hard-brexit-fear-harm-eu. The pride of the EU and it's politicians will ultimately result in it's downfall; that's what we've been trying to point out. Remember that the referendum would have been avoided in it's entirety had they entertained our request for EU reform. They didn't and now we are where we are.

We wanted to end the political aspect of our association with the EU; if they state that having access to the Single Market means continuing the political association with the EU (something that does not apply to any nation that trades with the EU) we're saying we should walk away from any deal, in spite of any financial hardships which we could rectify by establishing new deals with the other trading blocs around the world. May take a few years but we've suffered recessions before and gone without. What's so unreasonable about that? Not everything in life is about money, and that's coming from someone considered to be living on a 'poverty wage'.

If you can't see that there has been a recent shift in the Government's position on immigration then there is no point in discussing other issues they have rowed back on.
You mentioned earlier that the tone of the debate on here has worsened. That's because since Art 50 was invoked some hard Brexiters on here led by one character in particular decided that Remainers that didn't give unqualified support to the Government were unpatriotic.
You mentioned you would be in favour of us joining EFTA, but EFTA members are not in the customs union so that's no good if you want tariff free trade in goods. You also have to accept free movement of people and pay up annually. By default you end up accepting most EU laws as Norway do. You don't have access to EU trade deals but can negotiate your own ( there would be a time lag there for us).
Nevertheless you appear happy to accept that whatever the Government decides you will be happy to go along with it. But your's appears to be a long term view that we'll be better off in say 15 years time or whatever and there will be 'short term' pain, and we've had recessions anyway and not everything's about money.That's not what a lot of leavers voted for and certainly not young people for whom 15 years in relative terms would appear to be a lifetime. You can't blame others therefore for using their democratic and legal rights to put pressure on the Govt not to enter a fifteen year limbo period of financial hardships to then enter into the possible ( but not certain) sunny uplands of global trading Britain.
You put a lot of store by us gaining advantages from trading with the rest of the world vs EU. Of course nobody knows how this will pan out but without a decent transition period beyond article 50in which we are allowed to negotiate such deals then it's definitely short term pain for possible long term gain. Also the reason we are told that the EU needs us more than we need them is because we import a lot more than export to them, so not a good track record for exporting to new markets.
You mention free trade deals that other countries have with the EU as though that means we are entitled to the same. But these deals all differ in their scope,breadth and complexity depending on what each side wants from the other and how much they can get away with in negotiations. I suspect neither side in the Canada/ EU deal was bothered about free movement of people but in an EU/ UK deal the EU certainly would be. Turkey was let into the Customs Union because at the time the EU saw them as becoming a full member. Now that has receded the EU probably wishes they hadn't done it.
In short you appear to be trusting of a Government that doesn't share your view of how we should exit the EU as regards trade as long as politically we are out of the EU( although your EFTA scenario is wrong on this). You also hold view that short term ( say ten to fifteen years) there will be financial hardship and then we will emerge into sunny uplands via global trade. That's not acceptable to a lot of leave voters particularly young people who see Brexit as an old people's home.So you will excuse some of us on here who want to try and bring about a different outcome than your long term scenario of what if,maybe, who knows,we've had recessions before,it' not all about money.

 

[Len Rum]

No way, what the boy Henry is really thinking is:
"We few ( Len Rum,the perfect fumble,Magicpole, Vic, Chippy boy).
We happy few.
We band of brothers.
For he today that joins with me on Bluemoon.
Shall be my brother."

 

[Metal Biker]

If you can't see that there has been a recent shift in the Government's position on immigration then there is no point in discussing other issues they have rowed back on.
You mentioned earlier that the tone of the debate on here has worsened. That's because since Art 50 was invoked some hard Brexiters on here led by one character in particular decided that Remainers that didn't give unqualified support to the Government were unpatriotic.
You mentioned you would be in favour of us joining EFTA, but EFTA members are not in the customs union so that's no good if you want tariff free trade in goods. You also have to accept free movement of people and pay up annually. By default you end up accepting most EU laws as Norway do. You don't have access to EU trade deals but can negotiate your own ( there would be a time lag there for us).
Nevertheless you appear happy to accept that whatever the Government decides you will be happy to go along with it. But your's appears to be a long term view that we'll be better off in say 15 years time or whatever and there will be 'short term' pain, and we've had recessions anyway and not everything's about money.That's not what a lot of leavers voted for and certainly not young people for whom 15 years in relative terms would appear to be a lifetime. You can't blame others therefore for using their democratic and legal rights to put pressure on the Govt not to enter a fifteen year limbo period of financial hardships to then enter into the possible ( but not certain) sunny uplands of global trading Britain.
You put a lot of store by us gaining advantages from trading with the rest of the world vs EU. Of course nobody knows how this will pan out but without a decent transition period beyond article 50in which we are allowed to negotiate such deals then it's definitely short term pain for possible long term gain. Also the reason we are told that the EU needs us more than we need them is because we import a lot more than export to them, so not a good track record for exporting to new markets.
You mention free trade deals that other countries have with the EU as though that means we are entitled to the same. But these deals all differ in their scope,breadth and complexity depending on what each side wants from the other and how much they can get away with in negotiations. I suspect neither side in the Canada/ EU deal was bothered about free movement of people but in an EU/ UK deal the EU certainly would be. Turkey was let into the Customs Union because at the time the EU saw them as becoming a full member. Now that has receded the EU probably wishes they hadn't done it.
In short you appear to be trusting of a Government that doesn't share your view of how we should exit the EU as regards trade as long as politically we are out of the EU( although your EFTA scenario is wrong on this). You also hold view that short term ( say ten to fifteen years) there will be financial hardship and then we will emerge into sunny uplands via global trade. That's not acceptable to a lot of leave voters particularly young people who see Brexit as an old people's home.So you will excuse some of us on here who want to try and bring about a different outcome than your long term scenario of what if,maybe, who knows,we've had recessions before,it' not all about money.

I still consider myself a 'young' person, especially in regards to the supposed demographic of people who voted to leave so I was voting for my own future. I don't 'trust' this government but I trust the Lib Dems and Labour even less given the rhetoric they've been spouting in recent weeks, especially Farron (weasel) I expect Parliament to get us the best deal, as they continually claim to expect from the government themselves whilst offering no solutions themselves. I especially do not trust the EU to ensure the UK separates amicably, once again showing the animosity that the organisation has always held towards us. A positive deal benefits everyone. Lamenting about leaving the EU does not.

EFTA rules were being mentioned as a possible Norway does not have to accept EU laws, it does have the option to reject them if they want. This is an example of one of those 'Project Fear' statements that ended up being inaccurate so as to diminish potential avenues upon Brexit. If someone on here made a sweeping statement about remainers and their patriotism, and you're STILL affected by what they said, then take it up with them and not demonise every other 'Brexiteer' during the debate about how we leave and what we can acheive as being misguided, blinded by optimism and other such rot i've seen other characters on here profess.

I'm expecting ten years, maybe longer before we even start to see an Independant UK begin to show actual change from years of being in the EU. Twenty years before we start to see significant benefits, but i'm prepared to wait, after all we've all had to wait 25 years to have my say on whether or not I accepted the Maastrict Treaty (and that was still 15 years after I even knew what it was!) Even by that time i'll still be younger than the age you are right now so time is on my side before I even begin to 'feel the effects of Brexit'. Also, do not make the mistake of thinking you speak for all 'young' people. It's arrogant, inaccurate and smacks of desperation from a losing argument that seeks to advocate 'doing it for the children' as a way of earning virtue points for your stance on the EU as being the correct one. Most young people didn't even bother to vote, that's how little they cared about the EU.

But this is all pointless as it once again takes away from the main topic of debate; why is this thread continuing to see posters attacking other posters instead of their ideas and theories about how Brexit can work.Well now I know, it's because some pro leave poster slagged off pro remainers as being 'traitors' or something and you've all taken it upon yourself to derail the debate. At least that's how it's coming across. Leavers have the 'racist' card being labelled against them as a point of victimisation, and the remainers have the 'traitors' card labelled against them.

Here's a novel idea, why not ignore both sides of the debate that posts such idiotic statements instead of fuelling the vitriol in an effort to be seen as 'right'? Why not instead move on, offer your insight on how it could feasibly work to the betterment of all opinions because just exclaiming "it won't work, it won't work" offers nothing and claiming "i'm just trying to prepare you Brexiteers for the reality that it WON'T work!" yet failing to provide any information that backs your statement, just causes yet more of the infighting.

I suppose it all comes down to whether you want to be a positive influence or a negative one? Because even a remainer who dislikes Brexit and refuses to accept it can still have a positive influence when keeping leavers bullshit ideas in check so as not to have us all misguided, provided they are backed by factual evidence of course. But coming out with statements like "the kids love the EU", "leavers want a quick fix" or any other generalised statements about the British population and their expectations on Brexit when you have no proof of any of this, just continues to create the divisions we're trying to heal since the referendum campaigns.

 

[Len Rum]

I still consider myself a 'young' person, especially in regards to the supposed demographic of people who voted to leave so I was voting for my own future. I don't 'trust' this government but I trust the Lib Dems and Labour even less given the rhetoric they've been spouting in recent weeks, especially Farron (weasel) I expect Parliament to get us the best deal, as they continually claim to expect from the government themselves whilst offering no solutions themselves. I especially do not trust the EU to ensure the UK separates amicably, once again showing the animosity that the organisation has always held towards us. A positive deal benefits everyone. Lamenting about leaving the EU does not.

EFTA rules were being mentioned as a possible Norway does not have to accept EU laws, it does have the option to reject them if they want. This is an example of one of those 'Project Fear' statements that ended up being inaccurate so as to diminish potential avenues upon Brexit. If someone on here made a sweeping statement about remainers and their patriotism, and you're STILL affected by what they said, then take it up with them and not demonise every other 'Brexiteer' during the debate about how we leave and what we can acheive as being misguided, blinded by optimism and other such rot i've seen other characters on here profess.

I'm expecting ten years, maybe longer before we even start to see an Independant UK begin to show actual change from years of being in the EU. Twenty years before we start to see significant benefits, but i'm prepared to wait, after all we've all had to wait 25 years to have my say on whether or not I accepted the Maastrict Treaty (and that was still 15 years after I even knew what it was!) Even by that time i'll still be younger than the age you are right now so time is on my side before I even begin to 'feel the effects of Brexit'. Also, do not make the mistake of thinking you speak for all 'young' people. It's arrogant, inaccurate and smacks of desperation from a losing argument that seeks to advocate 'doing it for the children' as a way of earning virtue points for your stance on the EU as being the correct one. Most young people didn't even bother to vote, that's how little they cared about the EU.

But this is all pointless as it once again takes away from the main topic of debate; why is this thread continuing to see posters attacking other posters instead of their ideas and theories about how Brexit can work.Well now I know, it's because some pro leave poster slagged off pro remainers as being 'traitors' or something and you've all taken it upon yourself to derail the debate. At least that's how it's coming across. Leavers have the 'racist' card being labelled against them as a point of victimisation, and the remainers have the 'traitors' card labelled against them.

Here's a novel idea, why not ignore both sides of the debate that posts such idiotic statements instead of fuelling the vitriol in an effort to be seen as 'right'? Why not instead move on, offer your insight on how it could feasibly work to the betterment of all opinions because just exclaiming "it won't work, it won't work" offers nothing and claiming "i'm just trying to prepare you Brexiteers for the reality that it WON'T work!" yet failing to provide any information that backs your statement, just causes yet more of the infighting.

I suppose it all comes down to whether you want to be a positive influence or a negative one? Because even a remainer who dislikes Brexit and refuses to accept it can still have a positive influence when keeping leavers bullshit ideas in check so as not to have us all misguided, provided they are backed by factual evidence of course. But coming out with statements like "the kids love the EU", "leavers want a quick fix" or any other generalised statements about the British population and their expectations on Brexit when you have no proof of any of this, just continues to create the divisions we're trying to heal since the referendum campaigns.

Despite your show of "positivity" your paragraph three is what puts the shits up most people and is not acceptable to leave voters in view of commitments/ promises made by the Leave campaign and the Govt. ( ok both sides lied but the winners rightly have to be held to account for their lies). Basically your para. 3 is totally unacceptable.
However In the spirit of "positivity" in your last three paragraphs I have on the previous EU thread put forward my options of what I believe to be a good settlement which represents the interests of the whole nation. But that was before the Chief Remainer and others on this new thread started their political agenda.
I will happily share this with you, not at the minute as I'm off out.Soon.

 

[mcfc1632]

If you can't see that there has been a recent shift in the Government's position on immigration then there is no point in discussing other issues they have rowed back on.
You mentioned earlier that the tone of the debate on here has worsened. That's because since Art 50 was invoked some hard Brexiters on here led by one character in particular decided that Remainers that didn't give unqualified support to the Government were unpatriotic.
You mentioned you would be in favour of us joining EFTA, but EFTA members are not in the customs union so that's no good if you want tariff free trade in goods. You also have to accept free movement of people and pay up annually. By default you end up accepting most EU laws as Norway do. You don't have access to EU trade deals but can negotiate your own ( there would be a time lag there for us).
Nevertheless you appear happy to accept that whatever the Government decides you will be happy to go along with it. But your's appears to be a long term view that we'll be better off in say 15 years time or whatever and there will be 'short term' pain, and we've had recessions anyway and not everything's about money.That's not what a lot of leavers voted for and certainly not young people for whom 15 years in relative terms would appear to be a lifetime. You can't blame others therefore for using their democratic and legal rights to put pressure on the Govt not to enter a fifteen year limbo period of financial hardships to then enter into the possible ( but not certain) sunny uplands of global trading Britain.
You put a lot of store by us gaining advantages from trading with the rest of the world vs EU. Of course nobody knows how this will pan out but without a decent transition period beyond article 50in which we are allowed to negotiate such deals then it's definitely short term pain for possible long term gain. Also the reason we are told that the EU needs us more than we need them is because we import a lot more than export to them, so not a good track record for exporting to new markets.
You mention free trade deals that other countries have with the EU as though that means we are entitled to the same. But these deals all differ in their scope,breadth and complexity depending on what each side wants from the other and how much they can get away with in negotiations. I suspect neither side in the Canada/ EU deal was bothered about free movement of people but in an EU/ UK deal the EU certainly would be. Turkey was let into the Customs Union because at the time the EU saw them as becoming a full member. Now that has receded the EU probably wishes they hadn't done it.
In short you appear to be trusting of a Government that doesn't share your view of how we should exit the EU as regards trade as long as politically we are out of the EU( although your EFTA scenario is wrong on this). You also hold view that short term ( say ten to fifteen years) there will be financial hardship and then we will emerge into sunny uplands via global trade. That's not acceptable to a lot of leave voters particularly young people who see Brexit as an old people's home.So you will excuse some of us on here who want to try and bring about a different outcome than your long term scenario of what if,maybe, who knows,we've had recessions before,it' not all about money.

"That's because since Art 50 was invoked some hard Brexiters on here led by one character in particular decided that Remainers that didn't give unqualified support to the Government were unpatriotic."

Hmmm - not sure if this was aimed at me - quite possibly I think. I will actually check, but I would not be surprised if there are no posts from me stating that Remainers are unpatriotic - if there are, they will be few in number I am sure.

What I have clearly said is that yourself Len and a few others, are clearly unable to get with what is going on in the 2017-2019 timeframe and get behind the UK government in the momentous task that it is facing.

There is a big difference.

There have been many disappointments we will have all have faced - but then you have to move on.

Now I can genuinely understand that the current circumstances allow for Remainers to hope for the Referendum result to be effectively reversed - Indeed I have posted on a number of occasions how the machinations of the EU, aided and abetted by its sycophants at Westminster, are geared to achieve this.

So again, I can acknowledge the 'remaining' hope that you and the others have that the outcome can be sabotaged.

What I struggle with is the glee that you guys sometimes seem to project whenever there is any news at all that can be 'twisted' to make the UK look to be in troubles. Indeed it does not have to be real news - just something that can be projected to be bad news.

Even in these last posts you 'go the extra mile' to seek to do down anything leave

Immigration. I genuinely do not know any leave voter that has ever had a view that leaving the EU will lead to a stop on EU immigration. For leave voters, apart from a small minority of potty ones, (but there are those on both sides) it is about control - to have the ones we need to support the key jobs and mundane jobs. Remainers often seem to demonstrate glee on potential risks to key services such as the NHS. It is just fabricated bollocks - these will be the top of the priority list and we will be able to prioritise, rather than discriminate against those from Asia and other parts of the world.

Long-term / Short-term outcomes: Well I would suggest that it is abundantly clear from my posts that I view that in the short to medium term there are major challenges to be overcome, but - due to my certainty of where the EU is headed and how the UK holds no status higher than a milch cow - we must get out. We will, IMO, be undoubtedly better off in the medium to long-term - how long that medium to long-term is depends, again IMO, on how well these negotiations go. So all the more reason to hope for the UK to 'max out'.

Transition period: you mention that it will be important to have a period following a successful negotiation. I really doubt there is a poster on here that has suggested this more frequently and explained in more detail as to why. I have even suggested that we extend the period of this transition and commit longer-term funding to help the EU - who are not in as strong a negotiating position as some seem to think that they are. We can use our money to make them 'give' - IMO, they can be made to be desperate if we are allowed to negotiate without hands tied behind our backs.

Free movement of people: This simply has to be a 'Red Line' we will not have left the EU unless we put some distance between us and this one is the key issue. I do not actually care if immigration increases so long as it is through processes of control that we have introduced - both for the EU and ROW. If it increases then it must be required in such circumstances and therefore our economy must require it and the consequence will be associated earnings to fund the required infrastructure programmes.

ECJ: I actually do not disagree with you very much on this. There does indeed to be an agreed controlling function for a number of years. the problem is that it is an emotive subject and people confuse it with other bodies. We just need a pre-determined agreement on where its scope is in effect and on when it ends and agreed path to how how we get the appropriate controls.

For me, the crux of where we differ is my view that we need to take this amazing and surprising opportunity to 'consciously uncouple' from this dreadful model and take control over the next decades. It might seem perverse, but my views are not totally out of line with those of Damocles. I am not insular or nationalistic - I would be very open to a model that could bring together 'successfully' mixed cultures and make it work - but for me that is a world away from where the EU is. For me the 'EU project' has been shamefully hijacked by the ideological extremists that I have previously posted about and the governance model now means that nations have no/little influence on the direction - well at least with the exception of some, we certainly do not.

I will freely accept that a number of leave voters undertook a protest vote - equally a number of remain voters were swayed by project fear.

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.

 

[mcfc1632]

I still consider myself a 'young' person, especially in regards to the supposed demographic of people who voted to leave so I was voting for my own future. I don't 'trust' this government but I trust the Lib Dems and Labour even less given the rhetoric they've been spouting in recent weeks, especially Farron (weasel) I expect Parliament to get us the best deal, as they continually claim to expect from the government themselves whilst offering no solutions themselves. I especially do not trust the EU to ensure the UK separates amicably, once again showing the animosity that the organisation has always held towards us. A positive deal benefits everyone. Lamenting about leaving the EU does not.

EFTA rules were being mentioned as a possible Norway does not have to accept EU laws, it does have the option to reject them if they want. This is an example of one of those 'Project Fear' statements that ended up being inaccurate so as to diminish potential avenues upon Brexit. If someone on here made a sweeping statement about remainers and their patriotism, and you're STILL affected by what they said, then take it up with them and not demonise every other 'Brexiteer' during the debate about how we leave and what we can acheive as being misguided, blinded by optimism and other such rot i've seen other characters on here profess.

I'm expecting ten years, maybe longer before we even start to see an Independant UK begin to show actual change from years of being in the EU. Twenty years before we start to see significant benefits, but i'm prepared to wait, after all we've all had to wait 25 years to have my say on whether or not I accepted the Maastrict Treaty (and that was still 15 years after I even knew what it was!) Even by that time i'll still be younger than the age you are right now so time is on my side before I even begin to 'feel the effects of Brexit'. Also, do not make the mistake of thinking you speak for all 'young' people. It's arrogant, inaccurate and smacks of desperation from a losing argument that seeks to advocate 'doing it for the children' as a way of earning virtue points for your stance on the EU as being the correct one. Most young people didn't even bother to vote, that's how little they cared about the EU.

But this is all pointless as it once again takes away from the main topic of debate; why is this thread continuing to see posters attacking other posters instead of their ideas and theories about how Brexit can work.Well now I know, it's because some pro leave poster slagged off pro remainers as being 'traitors' or something and you've all taken it upon yourself to derail the debate. At least that's how it's coming across. Leavers have the 'racist' card being labelled against them as a point of victimisation, and the remainers have the 'traitors' card labelled against them.

Here's a novel idea, why not ignore both sides of the debate that posts such idiotic statements instead of fuelling the vitriol in an effort to be seen as 'right'? Why not instead move on, offer your insight on how it could feasibly work to the betterment of all opinions because just exclaiming "it won't work, it won't work" offers nothing and claiming "i'm just trying to prepare you Brexiteers for the reality that it WON'T work!" yet failing to provide any information that backs your statement, just causes yet more of the infighting.

I suppose it all comes down to whether you want to be a positive influence or a negative one? Because even a remainer who dislikes Brexit and refuses to accept it can still have a positive influence when keeping leavers bullshit ideas in check so as not to have us all misguided, provided they are backed by factual evidence of course. But coming out with statements like "the kids love the EU", "leavers want a quick fix" or any other generalised statements about the British population and their expectations on Brexit when you have no proof of any of this, just continues to create the divisions we're trying to heal since the referendum campaigns.

Well said, this point is one that really irks me:

"..but i'm prepared to wait, after all we've all had to wait 25 years to have my say on whether or not I accepted the Maastrict Treaty.."

The insidious manner in which these treaties have been brought forward without exposure to the views of citizens is shameful. Even Brown was too embarrassed to attend the signing...

 

[Metal Biker]

Well said, this point is one that really irks me:

"..but i'm prepared to wait, after all we've all had to wait 25 years to have my say on whether or not I accepted the Maastrict Treaty.."

The insidious manner in which these treaties have been brought forward without exposure to the views o citizens is shameful. Even Brown was to embarrassed to attend the signing...

In hindsight it wouldn't have made much difference anyway. Just ask the Irish. And the Dutch. (You will accept the Lisbon Treaty!)

 

[urban genie]

After watching an article on the news yesterday about northern ireland and the border, the twats in government should do everything they can to keep it as it is, ridiculous if they don't for the stupid reasons of smuggling goods from eire ( which would cost more than in the the north anyway) or people sneaking into the uk ???? you would have to sail past us to get here and ain't gonna happen.
The situation should not change open border that is mostly fields and country roads anyway you can have a customs check point on the major highway but you don't need anything else.

 

[mcfc1632]

In hindsight it wouldn't have made much difference anyway. Just ask the Irish. And the Dutch. (You will accept the Lisbon Treaty!)

And not just the Irish and the Dutch. I have posted several times about the undoubted desire/expectation/intention of the EU and their acolytes seeking to manage things so that another referendum can be held to get the 'right vote' - it is what they do.

 

[Len Rum]

"That's because since Art 50 was invoked some hard Brexiters on here led by one character in particular decided that Remainers that didn't give unqualified support to the Government were unpatriotic."

Hmmm - not sure if this was aimed at me - quite possibly I think. I will actually check, but I would not be surprised if there are no posts from me stating that Remainers are unpatriotic - if there are, they will be few in number I am sure.

What I have clearly said is that yourself Len and a few others, are clearly unable to get with what is going on in the 2017-2019 timeframe and get behind the UK government in the momentous task that it is facing.

There is a big difference.

There have been many disappointments we will have all have faced - but then you have to move on.

Now I can genuinely understand that the current circumstances allow for Remainers to hope for the Referendum result to be effectively reversed - Indeed I have posted on a number of occasions how the machinations of the EU, aided and abetted by its sycophants at Westminster, are geared to achieve this.

So again, I can acknowledge the 'remaining' hope that you and the others have that the outcome can be sabotaged.

What I struggle with is the glee that you guys sometimes seem to project whenever there is any news at all that can be 'twisted' to make the UK look to be in troubles. Indeed it does not have to be real news - just something that can be projected to be bad news.

Even in these last posts you 'go the extra mile' to seek to do down anything leave

Immigration. I genuinely do not know any leave voter that has ever had a view that leaving the EU will lead to a stop on EU immigration. For leave voters, apart from a small minority of potty ones, (but there are those on both sides) it is about control - to have the ones we need to support the key jobs and mundane jobs. Remainers often seem to demonstrate glee on potential risks to key services such as the NHS. It is just fabricated bollocks - these will be the top of the priority list and we will be able to prioritise, rather than discriminate against those from Asia and other parts of the world.

Long-term / Short-term outcomes: Well I would suggest that it is abundantly clear from my posts that I view that in the short to medium term there are major challenges to be overcome, but - due to my certainty of where the EU is headed and how the UK holds no status higher than a milch cow - we must get out. We will, IMO, be undoubtedly better off in the medium to long-term - how long that medium to long-term is depends, again IMO, on how well these negotiations go. So all the more reason to hope for the UK to 'max out'.

Transition period: you mention that it will be important to have a period following a successful negotiation. I really doubt there is a poster on here that has suggested this more frequently and explained in more detail as to why. I have even suggested that we extend the period of this transition and commit longer-term funding to help the EU - who are not in as strong a negotiating position as some seem to think that they are. We can use our money to make them 'give' - IMO, they can be made to be desperate if we are allowed to negotiate without hands tied behind our backs.

Free movement of people: This simply has to be a 'Red Line' we will not have left the EU unless we put some distance between us and this one is the key issue. I do not actually care if immigration increases so long as it is through processes of control that we have introduced - both for the EU and ROW. If it increases then it must be required in such circumstances and therefore our economy must require it and the consequence will be associated earnings to fund the required infrastructure programmes.

ECJ: I actually do not disagree with you very much on this. There does indeed to be an agreed controlling function for a number of years. the problem is that it is an emotive subject and people confuse it with other bodies. We just need a pre-determined agreement on where its scope is in effect and on when it ends and agreed path to how how we get the appropriate controls.

For me, the crux of where we differ is my view that we need to take this amazing and surprising opportunity to 'consciously uncouple' from this dreadful model and take control over the next decades. It might seem perverse, but my views are not totally out of line with those of Damocles. I am not insular or nationalistic - I would be very open to a model that could bring together 'successfully' mixed cultures and make it work - but for me that is a world away from where the EU is. For me the 'EU project' has been shamefully hijacked by the ideological extremists that I have previously posted about and the governance model now means that nations have no/little influence on the direction - well at least with the exception of some, we certainly do not.

I will freely accept that a number of leave voters undertook a protest vote - equally a number of remain voters were swayed by project fear.

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.

Unbelievable Jeff.
Reduction in immigration was the main reason Leave won.
They were nearly rumbled when the Remainer Amber Rudd no less called out BoJo on it in a tv debate.
So Brexit was sold on a lie ( plus the 380 M a week to the NHS and some other untruths that they were told).
A lot of leave voters are going to be mightily disappointed when they realize they have been conned.
Not you of course.
It suits your agenda.
You're not bothered about reduction in immigration per se (only control), your paranoia centers around the EU as a failing institution and it's collapse ( which of course if it happens will bring the UK down with it). However this was not a reason given by Leave for Brexit during the campaign.
Lucky you.