Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[ccc]

6 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You have got to admit that at the moment that wouldn't be too hard. The EU's original plan of letting the UK understand what a hard exit will entail and then offering some movement on FoM if they decide to stay looks like it is firmly on track.

It is obviously an agreed position as Macron used the same words in front of May earlier tonight.

 

Only because May has ******ed this election up so badly. 

[Richmond]

7 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You have got to admit that at the moment that wouldn't be too hard. The EU's original plan of letting the UK understand what a hard exit will entail and then offering some movement on FoM if they decide to stay looks like it is firmly on track.

It is obviously an agreed position as Macron used the same words in front of May earlier tonight.

 

May is probably in on the whole thing anyway. The outcome is already known, but the show must go on!

[Futuroid]

2 hours ago, ccc said:

Only because May has ******ed this election up so badly. 

If she couldn't hit the back of the net with only a crusty old bearded leftie* standing in front of it, what makes you think May and her "team" will be able to emerge with the trophies when debating with hard nosed negotiators from both the EU and the rest of the world?

Germany have a history of winning on penalties - the way this is going, May and Davis will drive the England team coach off a viaduct and never even get to the stadium.

( * = I actually like Corbyn, because he believes in what he's doing, and because the shadow chancellor is a fan of LVT).

[rollover]

 

Quote

 

PM 'must listen' to other parties over Brexit says Cameron

FT reported the former PM saying there would be pressure for a "softer" exit from the EU after his party did not win an election majority. Speaking in Poland, he said his successor should "consult more widely" both inside Parliament and beyond. BBC

 

Now when they hit the brick wall, isn't it too late to say there is need for wide consultation both inside Parliament and beyond?

[rollover]

 

Quote

 

Labour rules out working with Theresa May on Brexit until she dumps 'no deal' rhetoric

Top shadow cabinet minister says Government must be ‘honest’ about devastating impact of no EU deal. “The idea that they can coral opposition into rubber stamping whatever bad deal they come up with is a joke.” Claiming that the Conservatives are not being straight with people about the potential impacts of leaving with no deal, he said: “There is not going to be a consensus, unless there is honesty.”

While Mr Gardiner said Labour wants a successful Brexit, he went on: “When Governments are in a fix they say ‘let’s have a royal commission’ or ‘we need to consult other parties about this’. “What that means is ‘shit, we don’t know what to do, so let’s rope others into this so they can share the blame’. Independent

 

The Government has lost its Brexit battle last week. To drag it on and on is not helpful for anyone.

[cashinmattress]

10 hours ago, Venger said:

 

How would rest of the world see us if we grovel back after all this.  Or even try to.  What a shambles. 

TBH the rest of the world doesn't really care. UK is doing a perfectly fine job of fvcking it's position by its lonesome.

[Confusion of VIs]

9 hours ago, Venger said:

Still it is interesting framing of us 'rejoining' and being on the other side of the doors.

Suggests to me A50 set things in motion and no going back, and just a bit of mischief to suggest open to discussion on it... 'but UK says it's leaving so we doubt it.'

Many years ago I used to have a repeat nightmare about having to grovel back to my old employer for my old position.

And I hadn't given my previous employer anything like as much trouble / me-ness.

How would rest of the world see us if we grovel back after all this.  Or even try to.  What a shambles. 

Not too bad if they are offering a better deal to stay, but agree would be very embarrassing/politically impossible to come back for a worse deal. 

I heard (Brussels rumor but everything in it has turned out to be accurate so far) that one of the options being discussed after the vote was to take away the rebate if we changed our minds but this was rejected by Merkel. Instead agreement reached that we would be offered a deal on limiting FoM for a period of 10-15 years.   

I expect some deal to be offered on FoM, but probably not until all the costs and consequences of Leaving are clear.   

[thecrashingisles]

31 minutes ago, cashinmattress said:

TBH the rest of the world doesn't really care. UK is doing a perfectly fine job of fvcking it's position by its lonesome.

If we did grovel back it would show the rest of the world two things:

- The EU is 'strong and stable' and a force to be reckoned with

- The UK will be one of its most important members going forwards

Of course we'd need to get fully on board and join the Euro, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

[thecrashingisles]

33 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I expect some deal to be offered on FoM, but probably not until all the costs and consequences of Leaving are clear.   

By that time FoM won't be a concern for us because no-one will be moving here.

[thecrashingisles]

39 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Not too bad if they are offering a better deal to stay, but agree would be very embarrassing/politically impossible to come back for a worse deal.

Just because things are politically embarrassing, it doesn't mean they don't happen.

Greece signed up to a worse deal after rejecting the previous one in a referendum.

[Errol]

We will be leaving. It is in our long term interests to do so.

Just need to get the show on the road asap.

[cashinmattress]

24 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Just because things are politically embarrassing, it doesn't mean they don't happen.

Aye. The UK has just made its biggest political blunder in generations with GE 2017 MkI. That's just slightly more embarrassing than an A50 retraction.

Besides...the UK has a long and proud history of massive political blunders.

As I've said on this thread many times....Brexit = return of perfidious Albion.

The EU, USA, & world know how 'solid' a UK pledge is...and we are a century removed from being able to force policy via the big stick. Far too much empire nostalgia exists.

Trade and finance care not for the politics that drove Brexit...just that the result meant a potential to impare it, introduce unesessary barriers, and slim the profit margins

Far too many still don't get it.

 

 

[pig]

20 hours ago, Riedquat said:

What have I lost? I didn't even vote Conservative but spoiled my paper in the end. I voted for no-one, and no-one won! I was considering it when the election was announced but I didn't like anything about all the non-Brexit stuff in their campaign. There is more to life than staying or leaving the EU you know.

From a practical view the election result makes the job of the government pushing through whatever they want much harder, if not impossible. I wouldn't even say that that's a bad thing, but it'll depend upon the details. Stating that it's a rejection of Brexit by the population though is not supported by any evidence and is desperate twisting wishful thinking by Remainers and, it appears, the EU itself.

To be honest  I doubt there has been a 'big' shift. At most we've flipped to a few percentage points in favour of leave although in 'practical' terms Brexit itself may be in trouble.

We can chuck the 'big shift' to remain in the bin alongside the silly idea that 80% of the public now support Brexit.

Instead I suspect it's more complex. For example I'd expect Grizzly Dave (apologies if I'm misrepresenting) would vote Leave again tomorrow but could not stomach a conservative government.  That's a subtle shift of priority at one end of a spectrum whose other limit are those who simply could not stomach the idea of a 'hard' Brexit. 

I understand the 'negotiating position' logic, but it's not as if everybody's hand is hidden - everybody knows the UK is extremely likely to be completely  fecked by a 'hard' Brexit. And how do you sell that on top of the argument for the need for austerity ? Does not compute.

Presumably this is why it's proponents are shamelessly peddling the idea that oh well everybody knew what they were signing up for. Lying fear-mongering establishment  Cameron said said this would be a 'hard' Brexit.

The fantasy that what we had was 52% of the country for a 'hard' Brexit, if it ever existed has been smashed:  whatever the demographic change, the election result clearly indicates even if you put up a scruffy commie as the alternative and pummel the electorate with propaganda against him from all sides a large swathe of the population, (including a significant amount of kippers), unsurprisingly will still put Britains interest above that of the  batshit Brexiters.

[Peter Hun]

21 minutes ago, Errol said:

We will be leaving. It is in our long term interests to do so.

Just need to get the show on the road asap.

Thanks, Mr Putin

[Riedquat]

23 minutes ago, pig said:

The fantasy that what we had was 52% of the country for a 'hard' Brexit, if it ever existed has been smashed:  whatever the demographic change, the election result clearly indicates even if you put up a scruffy commie as the alternative and pummel the electorate with propaganda against him from all sides a large swathe of the population, (including a significant amount of kippers), unsurprisingly will still put Britains interest above that of the  batshit Brexiters.

I don't think anyone ever seriously claimed that 52% of the country voted for hard Brexit.

The election result shows that policies that gather headlines like "dementia tax" are hugely unpopular. Nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing one way or the other about Brexit or whether people think it's for or against Britain's interests.

[slawek]

26 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Thanks, Mr Putin

Is Errol a Russian agent or he just read too much zerohedge?

[Confusion of VIs]

27 minutes ago, pig said:

To be honest  I doubt there has been a 'big' shift. At most we've flipped to a few percentage points in favour of leave although in 'practical' terms Brexit itself may be in trouble.

We can chuck the 'big shift' to remain in the bin alongside the silly idea that 80% of the public now support Brexit.

Instead I suspect it's more complex. For example I'd expect Grizzly Dave (apologies if I'm misrepresenting) would vote Leave again tomorrow but could not stomach a conservative government.  That's a subtle shift of priority at one end of a spectrum whose other limit are those who simply could not stomach the idea of a 'hard' Brexit. 

I understand the 'negotiating position' logic, but it's not as if everybody's hand is hidden - everybody knows the UK is extremely likely to be completely  fecked by a 'hard' Brexit. And how do you sell that on top of the argument for the need for austerity ? Does not compute.

Presumably this is why it's proponents are shamelessly peddling the idea that oh well everybody knew what they were signing up for. Lying fear-mongering establishment  Cameron said said this would be a 'hard' Brexit.

The fantasy that what we had was 52% of the country for a 'hard' Brexit, if it ever existed has been smashed:  whatever the demographic change, the election result clearly indicates even if you put up a scruffy commie as the alternative and pummel the electorate with propaganda against him from all sides a large swathe of the population, (including a significant amount of kippers), unsurprisingly will still put Britains interest above that of the  batshit Brexiters.

What would Grizzly do if it was a Labour government that forced a GE on the question to save us from a Tory hard Brexit by revoking A50.

I think all the claims for support of Remain Leave are pretty meaningless until we see the deal on offer.  The GE has changed everything because it has made it impossible for the government to force through a Hard Brexit or no deal, without going through a GE to attempt to get a majority.

Add in that only 10% of people say they would accept a deal that left them 100pm poorer and it's difficult to see any party going to the country, on a vote for me to make yourself poorer ticket.        

[Confusion of VIs]

12 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I don't think anyone ever seriously claimed that 52% of the country voted for hard Brexit.

The election result shows that policies that gather headlines like "dementia tax" are hugely unpopular. Nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing one way or the other about Brexit or whether people think it's for or against Britain's interests.

The election was called by the PM expressly to gain a mandate for her hard Brexit, so that's what it was about.

Strange you think that a diversion around "dementia tax" invalidates that, but all the lies around £350m pw for the NHS, 80m Turks will have FoM next week, etc. don't invalidate the referendum.     

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The election was called by the PM expressly to gain a mandate for her hard Brexit, so that's what it was about.

Strange you think that a diversion around "dementia tax" invalidates that, but all the lies around £350m pw for the NHS, 80m Turks will have FoM next week, etc. don't invalidate the referendum.     

That's the reason it was called. That doesn't mean that that's the issue that made people put their cross where they did, and considering that sentiment swung quite a lot against the Conservatives during the campaign without Brexit actually playing much part in the campaign the most likely explanation is that it was other things that made up peoples' minds. It's Remainer wishful thinking that Brexit was the reason people voted the way they did. You're making the same mistake Theresa May did if you think that people vote on the issues they're told to vote on.

You're equating two different issues by comparing it with the referendum. One is about which issues people voted for, the other is about the accuracy of the information that may have influenced people.

[pig]

35 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I don't think anyone ever seriously claimed that 52% of the country voted for hard Brexit.

The election result shows that policies that gather headlines like "dementia tax" are hugely unpopular. Nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing one way or the other about Brexit or whether people think it's for or against Britain's interests.

David Davis and Theresa May ?

[Confusion of VIs]

Just now, Riedquat said:

That's the reason it was called. That doesn't mean that that's the issue that made people put their cross where they did, and considering that sentiment swung quite a lot against the Conservatives during the campaign without Brexit actually playing much part in the campaign the most likely explanation is that it was other things that made up peoples' minds. It's Remainer wishful thinking that Brexit was the reason people voted the way they did. You're making the same mistake Theresa May did if you think that people vote on the issues they're told to vote on.

You're equating two different issues by comparing it with the referendum. One is about which issues people voted for, the other is about the accuracy of the information that may have influenced people.

No matter how you personally rationalise it, May gambled and lost and now has to accept the consequences.

One of which is having other people take their own view of what the people actually voted for. 

[slawek]

42 minutes ago, pig said:

To be honest  I doubt there has been a 'big' shift. At most we've flipped to a few percentage points in favour of leave although in 'practical' terms Brexit itself may be in trouble.

We can chuck the 'big shift' to remain in the bin alongside the silly idea that 80% of the public now support Brexit.

Instead I suspect it's more complex. For example I'd expect Grizzly Dave (apologies if I'm misrepresenting) would vote Leave again tomorrow but could not stomach a conservative government.  That's a subtle shift of priority at one end of a spectrum whose other limit are those who simply could not stomach the idea of a 'hard' Brexit. 

I understand the 'negotiating position' logic, but it's not as if everybody's hand is hidden - everybody knows the UK is extremely likely to be completely  fecked by a 'hard' Brexit. And how do you sell that on top of the argument for the need for austerity ? Does not compute.

Presumably this is why it's proponents are shamelessly peddling the idea that oh well everybody knew what they were signing up for. Lying fear-mongering establishment  Cameron said said this would be a 'hard' Brexit.

The fantasy that what we had was 52% of the country for a 'hard' Brexit, if it ever existed has been smashed:  whatever the demographic change, the election result clearly indicates even if you put up a scruffy commie as the alternative and pummel the electorate with propaganda against him from all sides a large swathe of the population, (including a significant amount of kippers), unsurprisingly will still put Britains interest above that of the  batshit Brexiters.

There is no big shift but it seems there is a gradual drift in the Remain direction. At the moment Remain camp has probably 1% lead over Leave camp. The Leavers are mostly convinced that they can get better bargain they have now but if you take that option away then number of people supporting Brexit drops. Around 36% people prefer the hard Brexit now.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/attitudes-brexit-everything-we-know-so-far/

http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Post-Election_Poll_June10.pdf 

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, pig said:

David Davis and Theresa May ?

OK, anyone worth paying attention to

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

No matter how you personally rationalise it, May gambled and lost and now has to accept the consequences.

One of which is having other people take their own view of what the people actually voted for. 

I'm not saying that May didn't gamble and lost and has to deal with the consequences. Because people didn't just pay attention to the issue she wanted them to. It was a spectacular own goal.

[pig]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That's the reason it was called. That doesn't mean that that's the issue that made people put their cross where they did, and considering that sentiment swung quite a lot against the Conservatives during the campaign without Brexit actually playing much part in the campaign the most likely explanation is that it was other things that made up peoples' minds. It's Remainer wishful thinking that Brexit was the reason people voted the way they did. You're making the same mistake Theresa May did if you think that people vote on the issues they're told to vote on.

You're equating two different issues by comparing it with the referendum. One is about which issues people voted for, the other is about the accuracy of the information that may have influenced people.

Sure, you'll get plenty Remainer support for the idea that a lot of the Leave vote didn't ACTUALLY want to leave.