Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
don'tbesilly said:
Brexit: Brexit is the planned withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU).
It's not a difficult concept, the UK had a referendum, and the result was that the UK voted to leave = Brexit.
If May was not indulging in spin and wanted to convey a specific concept, you'd have thought that she would have said: "Brexit means the planned withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union."It's not a difficult concept, the UK had a referendum, and the result was that the UK voted to leave = Brexit.
But she did not. It is often what people refuse to say, or are unable to, which carries the most dependable message. I know about statements. Putting words into peoples' mouths is self-indulgence.
Brexit means brexit is a nonsensical phrase. It means nothing. It is spin. I would have said it was quite crude, but some people are interpreting it to mean all sorts of things so perhaps not so silly.
She's a politician. She's inherited a dismembered party, thanks to her idiot predecessor. She needs to keep everyone on side. She has said something that neither side can argue against. Not because the meaning is clear - that would have left one side much upset - but because it is vague.
In essence, she could not be clearer in her meaning.
Did May really need to draw a picture when she said 'Brexit means Brexit'?
Are you really suggesting that because May didn't spell out what Brexit means, she didn't want to admit that in the cold light of day the UK was exiting the EU, and that she refused to say it?
I'm sorry Derek, but I'm really struggling with your explanation, you can dress it up as much as you like, but I don't think the message could have been any clearer, but then again it would be clear to someone who voted leave!
It's not difficult as a leave voter to understand a remain voter struggling with a concept (leaving the EU) as being unclear.
One day the clouds will clear.
Derek Smith said:
don4l said:
I agree with you.
However, I don't think that the opinion of professors is relevant.
We live in a Parliamentry democracy. The people get to elect a government every so often. Once the MP's are elected, they reign supreme.
As has been pointed out many times, the referendum has no legal basis. Therefore I think that a vote in Parliament will be needed.
This should not provide any solace to Remainers. The vote will only go one way.
The House of Lords won't block the triggering of Article 50 either. They would be replaced by an elected second chamber in the drop of a hat. They know this.
So you dismiss the opinions of the educated as irrelevant. That shows a great deal of self confidence. However, I don't think that the opinion of professors is relevant.
We live in a Parliamentry democracy. The people get to elect a government every so often. Once the MP's are elected, they reign supreme.
As has been pointed out many times, the referendum has no legal basis. Therefore I think that a vote in Parliament will be needed.
This should not provide any solace to Remainers. The vote will only go one way.
The House of Lords won't block the triggering of Article 50 either. They would be replaced by an elected second chamber in the drop of a hat. They know this.
Derek Smith said:
You state the vote of MPs would only go one way. I can't help but think you haven't read an awful lot about the history of our democracy.
I think it unlikely that the vote will go against leaving but, as it is not impossible, I can't really say that my opinion is a fact.
I'm not sure why you brought in the HoL. It can hold up legislation for a year or so. My belief is that there is a majority of MPs who wish to remain in the EU. Now there are all sorts of tricks and such that can be pulled by the government for a vote. There are all sort of tricks that the opposition can pull. The SNP will probably vote on block, the Welsh labour MPs will vote on block. If, and this is only thrown in as a possibility, we have a PM who is pro EU but, as politicians do, says the opposite, then say she suggests a free vote for something as constitutionally important as this matter, what would you say would happen? I don't know of course, but there might be others who are 100% sure they know the answer. But they don't know either. You could say what is more likely, but you can't be definitive.
You are, of course, correct. I think it unlikely that the vote will go against leaving but, as it is not impossible, I can't really say that my opinion is a fact.
I'm not sure why you brought in the HoL. It can hold up legislation for a year or so. My belief is that there is a majority of MPs who wish to remain in the EU. Now there are all sorts of tricks and such that can be pulled by the government for a vote. There are all sort of tricks that the opposition can pull. The SNP will probably vote on block, the Welsh labour MPs will vote on block. If, and this is only thrown in as a possibility, we have a PM who is pro EU but, as politicians do, says the opposite, then say she suggests a free vote for something as constitutionally important as this matter, what would you say would happen? I don't know of course, but there might be others who are 100% sure they know the answer. But they don't know either. You could say what is more likely, but you can't be definitive.
I do not think that the HoC will vote against Brexit for two reasons.
First:- The people have had their say. You wuold be a brave MP to vote against the clearly expressed wishes of your constituents.
Second:- I believe that there are many more Eurosceptic MPs than we are led to believe. Many Conservative MPs were under severe pressure to back the Remain campaign. Now that Dave is history, that presure is gone.
Derek Smith said:
I doubt it will happen unless something occurs that changes the current circumstances fundamentally. I can think of one or two things that might.
However, let's follow your logic. Let's say, for instance, that the EU comes to the UK with an offer of fundamental change, such as a two tier EU and certain restrictions of free movement of people for the lower tier. Article 50 is delayed by the HoL taking the developments into consideration, suggesting that the vote did not include the new option. To take notice of online petitions the hypothetical remainer PM decides on a new referendum. Or the woman could suggest that as the EU has changed, the new style is a Brexit. Job done.
If we have another referendum, then the Leave side will have an even bigger majority.However, let's follow your logic. Let's say, for instance, that the EU comes to the UK with an offer of fundamental change, such as a two tier EU and certain restrictions of free movement of people for the lower tier. Article 50 is delayed by the HoL taking the developments into consideration, suggesting that the vote did not include the new option. To take notice of online petitions the hypothetical remainer PM decides on a new referendum. Or the woman could suggest that as the EU has changed, the new style is a Brexit. Job done.
I know that the Remainers are totally convinced that the LLeave side told a bunch of lies. However, do you remember Osborne's emergency £32Bn budget? That was a much bigger whopper than anything the Leave side claimed. We were told that the stock markets would collapse - in fact they have performed very well indeed.
None of the doom laden predictions have come to pass.
Derek Smith said:
The only thing I will state for certain is that saying something does not make it happen. You might well believe that we will leave the EU but it remains an opinion. If there are options then there are options and circumstances might change. In fact I think it highly likely circumstances will change, but whether any of these will have an effect, I have no idea.
None of us knows what will happen. I know what I think is probable, and I would argue my point, but there is no one who knows what will happen in a few weeks, let alone a few months.
Wishing doesn't make it so.
Today we saw the EU make a grab for a bit more centralised power. The decision to try to force Apple to pay more corporation tax is monumentally stupid.None of us knows what will happen. I know what I think is probable, and I would argue my point, but there is no one who knows what will happen in a few weeks, let alone a few months.
Wishing doesn't make it so.
Some, not many, people in Ireland are already wondering if Ireland should follow Britain. The thinking is easy to follow. The EU is Irelands biggest export market. When Britain exits, then thye EU will no longer be Ireland's biggest market.
The only way that Ireland can have free trade with the UK is if Ireland also leaves.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I don't think anyone should hang their hat on the option that we will be able to withdraw our resignation once submitted if we don't like the terms on offer.
Excellent!The majority of people would be disgusted if we were able to withdraw our resignation.
The terms on offer are irrelevant. There isn't a hope in Hell that the EU would leave the WTO.
WTO tariffs are an average of 4.4%. The pound is down 10% since June 23rd.
So, even with WTO tariffs, we would still be 5.5% cheaper than we were before we voted to Leave.
We will sell more to the EU by being out of the single market.
Do you prefer Aspirin or Paracetomol?
don4l said:
None of the doom laden predictions have come to pass.
Why would they? We have not left the EU yet. We have no idea when we will or what the terms of our exit will be. In the meantime, there is money to be made! The market's clear expectation at this point is an economically favourable deal (or at the very least a neutral one) for the UK. If they don't get that and we are instead saddled with a Brexit arrangement that does not work for businesses and investors, then very bad things will almost certainly happen.
Derek Smith said:
The deal is the critical thing I think. May will want to come out of this with some form of victory.
The negotiation team is not pick of the litter and I would guess that they have been given the job as a sort of defence if they come up with a failure. May can point to them as the instigators of the crisis.
This is unknown territory. It is unpredictable.
I don't know if public opinion is the key to the reaction of the government. Let's face it, they've never bothered before. I'd agree with you if you suggested that the reaction of the normal tory voter and that of the floating voter will be critical.
I think we will get a few pointers as to what May is considering in the next couple of months. Just tid bits initially, but it will show a trend. If the Telegraph gets its nickers in a twist over something then that might suggest a direction. Or if the likes of IDS come out with some dubious comments. What's the likelihood of that, eh?
There are no signs of conflict at the moment, a sure sign of things bubbling underneath.
We await developments.
It will be interesting to see how tory eurosceptics and floaters react to the emerging brexit deal. The negotiation team is not pick of the litter and I would guess that they have been given the job as a sort of defence if they come up with a failure. May can point to them as the instigators of the crisis.
This is unknown territory. It is unpredictable.
I don't know if public opinion is the key to the reaction of the government. Let's face it, they've never bothered before. I'd agree with you if you suggested that the reaction of the normal tory voter and that of the floating voter will be critical.
I think we will get a few pointers as to what May is considering in the next couple of months. Just tid bits initially, but it will show a trend. If the Telegraph gets its nickers in a twist over something then that might suggest a direction. Or if the likes of IDS come out with some dubious comments. What's the likelihood of that, eh?
There are no signs of conflict at the moment, a sure sign of things bubbling underneath.
We await developments.
In some ways they may react adversely to a poor SM deal, yet that brings the greater risk and potentially much poorer non-SM deal. I struggle to see how any deal that does not leave us with an extremely similar free trade & customs deal to the SM will not have a very severe impact on key parts of our industry & GDP. The risk with a non-SM deal is that its proponents can hide behind its novelty - no-one can prove it could well be a disaster.
Its interesting that hard brexiters say just go for it, but there are many key brexiters who don't want that at all - North and Hannan both seem keen to retain and see the economic benefit of the SM. Having made so much of the EU brussels gravy train, it seems Hannan knows full well SM is not a gravy train at all.
Elysium said:
don4l said:
None of the doom laden predictions have come to pass.
Why would they? We have not left the EU yet. We have no idea when we will or what the terms of our exit will be. In the meantime, there is money to be made! The market's clear expectation at this point is an economically favourable deal (or at the very least a neutral one) for the UK. If they don't get that and we are instead saddled with a Brexit arrangement that does not work for businesses and investors, then very bad things will almost certainly happen.
Don't you remember Osborne's emergency £32Bn budget?
That was to cover the losses in the year after the vote... not the year after Brexit.
You Remainers are shameless in the way that you try to move the goalposts every time that you are proved wrong.
Things did change a bit.
The following is from parliament.
16. Before the referendum took place, the Prime Minister stated that, in the event of a vote to leave, he would make a formal notification under Article 50 more or less immediately. After the referendum result was announced, however, and at the same time as announcing his resignation, Mr Cameron stated that the decision on making such a notification would be for his successor.
The following is from parliament.
16. Before the referendum took place, the Prime Minister stated that, in the event of a vote to leave, he would make a formal notification under Article 50 more or less immediately. After the referendum result was announced, however, and at the same time as announcing his resignation, Mr Cameron stated that the decision on making such a notification would be for his successor.
don'tbesilly said:
Brexit is/was a specific concept,I would have thought most know/knew what Brexit means, after all that's what people were voting for, either to Brexit or not.
Did May really need to draw a picture when she said 'Brexit means Brexit'?
Are you really suggesting that because May didn't spell out what Brexit means, she didn't want to admit that in the cold light of day the UK was exiting the EU, and that she refused to say it?
I'm sorry Derek, but I'm really struggling with your explanation, you can dress it up as much as you like, but I don't think the message could have been any clearer, but then again it would be clear to someone who voted leave!
I am really saying that because May used an ambiguous phrase when a clear one would have settled matters then it was for a reason. She is not unintelligent and knows about politics. You say you are struggling to understand what I said, or the concept of what people don't say being important. Perhaps it is because you don't interview people for a living.Did May really need to draw a picture when she said 'Brexit means Brexit'?
Are you really suggesting that because May didn't spell out what Brexit means, she didn't want to admit that in the cold light of day the UK was exiting the EU, and that she refused to say it?
I'm sorry Derek, but I'm really struggling with your explanation, you can dress it up as much as you like, but I don't think the message could have been any clearer, but then again it would be clear to someone who voted leave!
I've had a number of courses on interviewing techniques - for suspects, for witnesses and for vacancies - and on the majority, what people avoid saying has been mentioned. It is much more dependable than what they say. In fact most useful follow-up questions are on what was not said in the original reply. One is told to look for what is not said.
For an example, look at Clinton's statement about Lewinsky. The reply appeared definite but was ambiguous. It was both of those things for a reason, the former to make out he was saying something specific, and the latter because he did not want to lie.
You put words in my mouth. I am saying that because she used an ambiguous phrase she did not want to say what she meant. I said nothing about her not wanting to exit the eu. It might have been said for political reasons. A bit off the wall that one.
You rather bewilderingly say that she couldn't make it any clearer after asking me if she needed to draw a picture. So let me say it quite clearly:
Brexit is a major change for the UK, the biggest since the end of WW2, and a political hot potato. It will be written about and discussed in years to come. May had every opportunity to be clear on the point and to include detail, but avoided doing so. She did this for a reason. What that reason is is open to argument, and not one that I will enter into.
I deleted your final two lines out of the quote. I won't say why.
You are massively cynical Derek.
So am I, when it comes to politicians.
However, in the subject to hand, I believe that the Government is going to work as a team for the best interests of the nation. As you say, this is an important issue, and when issues like this have come to pass in the past, the record for the Tories in particular, to stick to the program that is best for the country, has been a good one.
There is a document in the Parliament library that gives a lot of the history behind the Salisbury convention and its use in practice that is there for MP's and Lords to read as a reference source. It's a very long read but what you can take from it is that on matters of the Lords, they work for the benefit of the electorate first and foremost, and will set aside party lines if there is a mandate to do so.
But as I stated earlier, the Lords wont be involved in this process, as no new laws are required for the government to implement Art50.
With regards to triggering Art50 before we know the deal we are likely to achieve, I'm afraid that's the nature of the process. It's sensible before starting the process to build bridges with the people we will negotiate with (and have some sensible discussions off the record with the power players about what may be the goals of both sides), but that's about all you can do before you get into the negotiations proper, because that is how the Lisbon Treaty is written.
It's interesting that this debate has centred around the economics and immigration conditions for the future relationships we will have with the EU, but that is only a small part of what is going to be discussed and agreed on (or not) at the end of the process.
It appears lots of the remain voters on here still haven't understood that immigration and the economics of being in/leaving the EU were not the most important aspect in their vote choice for a lot of people. The British people value their parliamentary sovereignty above economics if push comes to shove. That was a major factor in the result, Cameron's promise of us being able to resist ever closer union was not believed, this was due to both the 40 years plus of history and the nature of EU in its current form and its mission statement.
It's most likely a good thing for both the EU and the UK for us to part company, but manage to be good friends and neighbours, because the EU was never a palatable option for the collective mind-set of the UK as a whole, even a large percentage of the remain voters were not enthusiastic about the EU and its goals going forward, which is why the only way to manage our relationship was to have opt outs from a lot of EU policy.
So am I, when it comes to politicians.
However, in the subject to hand, I believe that the Government is going to work as a team for the best interests of the nation. As you say, this is an important issue, and when issues like this have come to pass in the past, the record for the Tories in particular, to stick to the program that is best for the country, has been a good one.
There is a document in the Parliament library that gives a lot of the history behind the Salisbury convention and its use in practice that is there for MP's and Lords to read as a reference source. It's a very long read but what you can take from it is that on matters of the Lords, they work for the benefit of the electorate first and foremost, and will set aside party lines if there is a mandate to do so.
But as I stated earlier, the Lords wont be involved in this process, as no new laws are required for the government to implement Art50.
With regards to triggering Art50 before we know the deal we are likely to achieve, I'm afraid that's the nature of the process. It's sensible before starting the process to build bridges with the people we will negotiate with (and have some sensible discussions off the record with the power players about what may be the goals of both sides), but that's about all you can do before you get into the negotiations proper, because that is how the Lisbon Treaty is written.
It's interesting that this debate has centred around the economics and immigration conditions for the future relationships we will have with the EU, but that is only a small part of what is going to be discussed and agreed on (or not) at the end of the process.
It appears lots of the remain voters on here still haven't understood that immigration and the economics of being in/leaving the EU were not the most important aspect in their vote choice for a lot of people. The British people value their parliamentary sovereignty above economics if push comes to shove. That was a major factor in the result, Cameron's promise of us being able to resist ever closer union was not believed, this was due to both the 40 years plus of history and the nature of EU in its current form and its mission statement.
It's most likely a good thing for both the EU and the UK for us to part company, but manage to be good friends and neighbours, because the EU was never a palatable option for the collective mind-set of the UK as a whole, even a large percentage of the remain voters were not enthusiastic about the EU and its goals going forward, which is why the only way to manage our relationship was to have opt outs from a lot of EU policy.
///ajd said:
It will be interesting to see how tory eurosceptics and floaters react to the emerging brexit deal.
In some ways they may react adversely to a poor SM deal, yet that brings the greater risk and potentially much poorer non-SM deal. I struggle to see how any deal that does not leave us with an extremely similar free trade & customs deal to the SM will not have a very severe impact on key parts of our industry & GDP. The risk with a non-SM deal is that its proponents can hide behind its novelty - no-one can prove it could well be a disaster.
Its interesting that hard brexiters say just go for it, but there are many key brexiters who don't want that at all - North and Hannan both seem keen to retain and see the economic benefit of the SM. Having made so much of the EU brussels gravy train, it seems Hannan knows full well SM is not a gravy train at all.
The 'Norwegian Option' was mentioned a number of time during the leave campaign. The savings were immense, although, of course, nowhere near the £350m (Johnson) per week or £55m (Gove) per day stated. In fact, not much in the way of savings at all. Yet in the Telegraph was an article which suggested that we should not go for anything in any way similar to the Norwegian Option as this would betray the electorate who voted to leave. Logically flawed of course as Norway wasn't mention on the slip, only in the literature and broadcasts of the exit campaign. It is tempting to say that brexit means brexit, so Norway is an open option. But I won't as it is childish.In some ways they may react adversely to a poor SM deal, yet that brings the greater risk and potentially much poorer non-SM deal. I struggle to see how any deal that does not leave us with an extremely similar free trade & customs deal to the SM will not have a very severe impact on key parts of our industry & GDP. The risk with a non-SM deal is that its proponents can hide behind its novelty - no-one can prove it could well be a disaster.
Its interesting that hard brexiters say just go for it, but there are many key brexiters who don't want that at all - North and Hannan both seem keen to retain and see the economic benefit of the SM. Having made so much of the EU brussels gravy train, it seems Hannan knows full well SM is not a gravy train at all.
As you suggest, we are geared up for the single market. There will be oncosts for many companies.
I wonder how the negotiation details will emerge. Will it be an all at once, take it or take it approach, or will we be fed it detail by detail? If the former then the best of luck to May in selling it.
It seems quite plausible that May was keeping her options open when she said "brexit is brexit". It certainly gives latitude in the future in the same way as Clintons well chosen phrase.
If the deal turns out to be a lemon - she can quite clearly say "brexit is brexit - as a remainer I knew it would be a clusterfck and here it is, despite the best efforts of Fox & Davis....a clusterfck."
The sovereignty piece was also a triumph of rhetoric over reality. You can say its more important that the economy and immigration - but why? So we can make our own decisions about, er, the economy and immigration. Its a bit of a busted flush to get your own decision making but find you will be much worse off no matter what decisions you make.
If the deal turns out to be a lemon - she can quite clearly say "brexit is brexit - as a remainer I knew it would be a clusterfck and here it is, despite the best efforts of Fox & Davis....a clusterfck."
The sovereignty piece was also a triumph of rhetoric over reality. You can say its more important that the economy and immigration - but why? So we can make our own decisions about, er, the economy and immigration. Its a bit of a busted flush to get your own decision making but find you will be much worse off no matter what decisions you make.
With regards to the statement May made about Brexit meaning Brexit. It was the perfect statement that gave both the markets and the general population a basic understanding of what the government will do.
It is unambiguous in its meaning that the UK will be leaving the EU. If you think back to the time May walked into number 10, we had just had an election process that elected a remainer to the top job, what was required for the markets and the nation was to see that despite the fact she wanted us to remain, she would carry out the will of the electorate to take us out of the EU.
That statement settled the markets and gave clarity to the majority of people (obviously not all on here
) regarding the future direction she will be working towards.
A detailed explanation or long winded speech as she walked into number 10 was not appropriate for the time, its still not appropriate until the collective teams are in place and ready to start the process of taking us out.
It is unambiguous in its meaning that the UK will be leaving the EU. If you think back to the time May walked into number 10, we had just had an election process that elected a remainer to the top job, what was required for the markets and the nation was to see that despite the fact she wanted us to remain, she would carry out the will of the electorate to take us out of the EU.
That statement settled the markets and gave clarity to the majority of people (obviously not all on here
) regarding the future direction she will be working towards.A detailed explanation or long winded speech as she walked into number 10 was not appropriate for the time, its still not appropriate until the collective teams are in place and ready to start the process of taking us out.
Derek Smith said:
don'tbesilly said:
Brexit is/was a specific concept,I would have thought most know/knew what Brexit means, after all that's what people were voting for, either to Brexit or not.
Did May really need to draw a picture when she said 'Brexit means Brexit'?
Are you really suggesting that because May didn't spell out what Brexit means, she didn't want to admit that in the cold light of day the UK was exiting the EU, and that she refused to say it?
I'm sorry Derek, but I'm really struggling with your explanation, you can dress it up as much as you like, but I don't think the message could have been any clearer, but then again it would be clear to someone who voted leave!
I am really saying that because May used an ambiguous phrase when a clear one would have settled matters then it was for a reason. She is not unintelligent and knows about politics. You say you are struggling to understand what I said, or the concept of what people don't say being important. Perhaps it is because you don't interview people for a living.Did May really need to draw a picture when she said 'Brexit means Brexit'?
Are you really suggesting that because May didn't spell out what Brexit means, she didn't want to admit that in the cold light of day the UK was exiting the EU, and that she refused to say it?
I'm sorry Derek, but I'm really struggling with your explanation, you can dress it up as much as you like, but I don't think the message could have been any clearer, but then again it would be clear to someone who voted leave!
I've had a number of courses on interviewing techniques - for suspects, for witnesses and for vacancies - and on the majority, what people avoid saying has been mentioned. It is much more dependable than what they say. In fact most useful follow-up questions are on what was not said in the original reply. One is told to look for what is not said.
For an example, look at Clinton's statement about Lewinsky. The reply appeared definite but was ambiguous. It was both of those things for a reason, the former to make out he was saying something specific, and the latter because he did not want to lie.
You put words in my mouth.
What did Clinton put into Lewinski's mouth?
Sorry, I really shouldn't have typed that. I'm a good Catholic after all.
Derek Smith said:
I am saying that because she used an ambiguous phrase she did not want to say what she meant. I said nothing about her not wanting to exit the eu. It might have been said for political reasons. A bit off the wall that one.
You rather bewilderingly say that she couldn't make it any clearer after asking me if she needed to draw a picture. So let me say it quite clearly:
Brexit is a major change for the UK, the biggest since the end of WW2, and a political hot potato. It will be written about and discussed in years to come. May had every opportunity to be clear on the point and to include detail, but avoided doing so. She did this for a reason. What that reason is is open to argument, and not one that I will enter into.
I deleted your final two lines out of the quote. I won't say why.
I have to agree that the phrase "Brexit means Brexit" leaves a few doors open.You rather bewilderingly say that she couldn't make it any clearer after asking me if she needed to draw a picture. So let me say it quite clearly:
Brexit is a major change for the UK, the biggest since the end of WW2, and a political hot potato. It will be written about and discussed in years to come. May had every opportunity to be clear on the point and to include detail, but avoided doing so. She did this for a reason. What that reason is is open to argument, and not one that I will enter into.
I deleted your final two lines out of the quote. I won't say why.
When I first heard it I was probably as alarmed as you were heartened.
However, the appointments of Liam Fox, Boris, IDS and David Davis suggests that she is serious about leaving.
I get the impression that she has fewer convictions than Maggie had, but she is as determined.
I'm quietly optimistic that she will turn out to be a good 'un.
Gove would have been better.
jsf said:
You are massively cynical Derek.
So am I, when it comes to politicians.
However, in the subject to hand, I believe that the Government is going to work as a team for the best interests of the nation. As you say, this is an important issue, and when issues like this have come to pass in the past, the record for the Tories in particular, to stick to the program that is best for the country, has been a good one.
There is a document in the Parliament library that gives a lot of the history behind the Salisbury convention and its use in practice that is there for MP's and Lords to read as a reference source. It's a very long read but what you can take from it is that on matters of the Lords, they work for the benefit of the electorate first and foremost, and will set aside party lines if there is a mandate to do so.
But as I stated earlier, the Lords wont be involved in this process, as no new laws are required for the government to implement Art50.
With regards to triggering Art50 before we know the deal we are likely to achieve, I'm afraid that's the nature of the process. It's sensible before starting the process to build bridges with the people we will negotiate with (and have some sensible discussions off the record with the power players about what may be the goals of both sides), but that's about all you can do before you get into the negotiations proper, because that is how the Lisbon Treaty is written.
It's interesting that this debate has centred around the economics and immigration conditions for the future relationships we will have with the EU, but that is only a small part of what is going to be discussed and agreed on (or not) at the end of the process.
It appears lots of the remain voters on here still haven't understood that immigration and the economics of being in/leaving the EU were not the most important aspect in their vote choice for a lot of people. The British people value their parliamentary sovereignty above economics if push comes to shove. That was a major factor in the result, Cameron's promise of us being able to resist ever closer union was not believed, this was due to both the 40 years plus of history and the nature of EU in its current form and its mission statement.
It's most likely a good thing for both the EU and the UK for us to part company, but manage to be good friends and neighbours, because the EU was never a palatable option for the collective mind-set of the UK as a whole, even a large percentage of the remain voters were not enthusiastic about the EU and its goals going forward, which is why the only way to manage our relationship was to have opt outs from a lot of EU policy.
If you believe the government will work as a team, then you are not cynical. So am I, when it comes to politicians.
However, in the subject to hand, I believe that the Government is going to work as a team for the best interests of the nation. As you say, this is an important issue, and when issues like this have come to pass in the past, the record for the Tories in particular, to stick to the program that is best for the country, has been a good one.
There is a document in the Parliament library that gives a lot of the history behind the Salisbury convention and its use in practice that is there for MP's and Lords to read as a reference source. It's a very long read but what you can take from it is that on matters of the Lords, they work for the benefit of the electorate first and foremost, and will set aside party lines if there is a mandate to do so.
But as I stated earlier, the Lords wont be involved in this process, as no new laws are required for the government to implement Art50.
With regards to triggering Art50 before we know the deal we are likely to achieve, I'm afraid that's the nature of the process. It's sensible before starting the process to build bridges with the people we will negotiate with (and have some sensible discussions off the record with the power players about what may be the goals of both sides), but that's about all you can do before you get into the negotiations proper, because that is how the Lisbon Treaty is written.
It's interesting that this debate has centred around the economics and immigration conditions for the future relationships we will have with the EU, but that is only a small part of what is going to be discussed and agreed on (or not) at the end of the process.
It appears lots of the remain voters on here still haven't understood that immigration and the economics of being in/leaving the EU were not the most important aspect in their vote choice for a lot of people. The British people value their parliamentary sovereignty above economics if push comes to shove. That was a major factor in the result, Cameron's promise of us being able to resist ever closer union was not believed, this was due to both the 40 years plus of history and the nature of EU in its current form and its mission statement.
It's most likely a good thing for both the EU and the UK for us to part company, but manage to be good friends and neighbours, because the EU was never a palatable option for the collective mind-set of the UK as a whole, even a large percentage of the remain voters were not enthusiastic about the EU and its goals going forward, which is why the only way to manage our relationship was to have opt outs from a lot of EU policy.
I'm not cynical, I just go by the best teacher of all: History. On all the major decisions this country has faced since it became an effective democracy, MPs of the same party, regardless of whether they are in government, have squabbled in the expectation of getting something out of it for themselves. And that’s all of them, even, perhaps especially, regarding wars where you’d think there’d be some consensus. And that, rather obviously, includes WWII.
If you feel this one is different for some reason, then extraordinary evidence is required, and your belief is not enough. You suggest that the tories are better than other parties. Do me a favour. They have more factions.
Let’s ignore the Salisbury Convention and the fact that it has been ignored in the past. The argument is leading nowhere. But let’s look at the processes. Are you suggesting we will not have to pass new laws to exit? I think you will find we will have to, and a considerable number. We'll probably have to incorporate most of the EU regs. There could be some overarching act, but I doubt that will get through either house. So do many commentators; carte blanche? No chance I think.
You make some assertions about the British desires, as if the UK is a single unit, with similar desires, wishes and demands. That’s wrong.
You then suggest that the EU and UK will be good friends and neighbours after a break. That’s something that has never occurred to me. We will be competitors, with all that that entails. The EU is a trading block. Do you seriously suggest there will be any mutual aid? There will be antagonism. It will be the biggest schism we have seen since the war.
It matters not what people voted for in the referendum over and above leave and stay. Brexit means brexit as people keep saying. It does not mean immigration, economics or whatever. Nothing specific was voted for, it was a general out.
I am bewildered why your think that the future of the EU was the main reason people voted exit. I thought immigration and the economy were given as the top two reasons in various polls. Even Turkey joining, as if that is likely for some years, was higher.
There are ways we could drag the eu to the table before activating A50, Lisbon Treaty or no.
We are already seeing antagonism between the UK and France over the last few days. The motorway leading out of Calais will be blocked. Does it occur to you that this is all rather conveniently timed?
don4l said:
However, the appointments of Liam Fox, Boris, IDS and David Davis suggests that she is serious about leaving.
You really have no idea, do you. It was a cop out, or rather a punishment. She's got it tough as PM, but Fox, Smith, and Davis (why do you say Johnson? He's nothing to do with the negotiations) have got it much, much tougher. It is funny in a way. If anything, it shows she bitter about the vote.You've no idea what goes on.
Derek Smith said:
It was a cop out, or rather a punishment. She's got it tough as PM, but Fox, Smith, and Davis (why do you say Johnson? He's nothing to do with the negotiations) have got it much, much tougher. It is funny in a way. If anything, it shows she bitter about the vote.
Cannot agree. She had to appoint committed leavers to the posts in question, any posting of a stayer to the negotiations wouldnt be credible. Dont see any bitterness there, just pragmatism.jsf said:
With regards to the statement May made about Brexit meaning Brexit. It was the perfect statement that gave both the markets and the general population a basic understanding of what the government will do.
It is unambiguous in its meaning that the UK will be leaving the EU. If you think back to the time May walked into number 10, we had just had an election process that elected a remainer to the top job, what was required for the markets and the nation was to see that despite the fact she wanted us to remain, she would carry out the will of the electorate to take us out of the EU.
That statement settled the markets and gave clarity to the majority of people (obviously not all on here ) regarding the future direction she will be working towards.
A detailed explanation or long winded speech as she walked into number 10 was not appropriate for the time, its still not appropriate until the collective teams are in place and ready to start the process of taking us out.
So what direction will the negotiators take? Will they opt for something like the Norwegian Option, or the Swiss? What pieces will be sacrosanct and what will be on the table? What is her stance on immigration and free movement of labour? What changes to the structure of the UK will we see? Will we pay for membership of the EU like Norway (80% of the charge I believe. I could be wrong, it is from memory - let’s hope it is not 80% of £350 a week (Johnson) or £55m per day (Gove) )? Or, more to the point, what’s the maximum price we’ll go to. It is unambiguous in its meaning that the UK will be leaving the EU. If you think back to the time May walked into number 10, we had just had an election process that elected a remainer to the top job, what was required for the markets and the nation was to see that despite the fact she wanted us to remain, she would carry out the will of the electorate to take us out of the EU.
That statement settled the markets and gave clarity to the majority of people (obviously not all on here
) regarding the future direction she will be working towards.A detailed explanation or long winded speech as she walked into number 10 was not appropriate for the time, its still not appropriate until the collective teams are in place and ready to start the process of taking us out.
What about EFTA? TTIP seems dead mid Atlantic. Although, of course, the Yanks might demand it for us on our own.
And, more to the point, if we get no change from the EU, what will we do? Just wander off in the hope of better things?
The most appropriate time for an explanation was when she took over responsibility. But even allowing that she might have needed to go off for a new pair of shoes, she's had ample time to casually mention what she means by brexit. 'Cause it is ambiguous.
Derek Smith said:
You really have no idea, do you. It was a cop out, or rather a punishment. She's got it tough as PM, but Fox, Smith, and Davis (why do you say Johnson? He's nothing to do with the negotiations) have got it much, much tougher. It is funny in a way. If anything, it shows she bitter about the vote.
You've no idea what goes on.
That's how I read it too - its almost "OK Davis - lets see you negotiate your promised wonderful bilateral trade deals for the UK with each of the 27 members of the EU (please bear in mind they are all in a trading bloc called the EU where they don't do bilaterals.....)"You've no idea what goes on.
In some ways they may chose not to drip feed the negotiation - in many ways this would be a poor approach. Then again, they may decide to leak for various reasons.
If the drip feed is bad ("Nasty EU won't give us this") then I actually think its unclear how that may play out. There is a risk that instead of thinking "oh dear the remain fearmongers were right about not having barrier free SM access and FMOL, better rethink or we'll be FUBAR'd", it'll be turned into "rubbish govt can't deliver what we wanted /or/ bloody EU not giving us what we want, we should definitely leave such a nasty club!".
Its a minefield!
Derek Smith said:
So what direction will the negotiators take? Will they opt for something like the Norwegian Option, or the Swiss? What pieces will be sacrosanct and what will be on the table? What is her stance on immigration and free movement of labour? What changes to the structure of the UK will we see? Will we pay for membership of the EU like Norway (80% of the charge I believe. I could be wrong, it is from memory - let’s hope it is not 80% of £350 a week (Johnson) or £55m per day (Gove) )? Or, more to the point, what’s the maximum price we’ll go to.
What about EFTA? TTIP seems dead mid Atlantic. Although, of course, the Yanks might demand it for us on our own.
And, more to the point, if we get no change from the EU, what will we do? Just wander off in the hope of better things?
The most appropriate time for an explanation was when she took over responsibility. But even allowing that she might have needed to go off for a new pair of shoes, she's had ample time to casually mention what she means by brexit. 'Cause it is ambiguous.
The Norwegian option was talked about in the context of Flexit. As a staged means of exiting, first Norwegian model. Build up trade deals with RoW, then fully exit. It was one of several strategies discussed ad-neuseam.What about EFTA? TTIP seems dead mid Atlantic. Although, of course, the Yanks might demand it for us on our own.
And, more to the point, if we get no change from the EU, what will we do? Just wander off in the hope of better things?
The most appropriate time for an explanation was when she took over responsibility. But even allowing that she might have needed to go off for a new pair of shoes, she's had ample time to casually mention what she means by brexit. 'Cause it is ambiguous.
BTW its aprox 50% not 80. However Norway does its own thing with loans to eastern Europe. You only get to 80% if you include those, they dont go anywhere near the EU institutions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff