Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
bmw535i said:
Elysium said:
Looking at this logically there are two possibilities:
1. You and Don4l have some special and unique insight
2. The situation is not as simple as you believe it to be
I think it is the latter. The issue in respect of the Single Market is clouded in semantics. It is obvious that we must leave the Single Market as currently defined as it requires adoption of the four freedoms.
The clarity we now have relates to May's ambition for a 'tweaked' version of the Single Market. Like the Norway model that was proposed by many leave campaigners pre-referendum.
We now know that this is not part of the plan as any bespoke deal must not include significant payments to the EU and we are to refuse to submit to EU courts. That brings clarity that was previously missing.
Overall, this is a positive move because:
1. Our negotiating position with the EU is stronger.
2. The markets and business get to react early to the 'problem'. Lack of single market access can be priced in early and calmly. A 'dry run' for the real thing.
3. Market sentiment will no longer lurch to and fro depending on the mixed signals from Govt.
I don't agree with her approach, but I absolutely welcome this clarity and the signs are that the markets like it as well.
I knew you'd see sense and get on board in the end 1. You and Don4l have some special and unique insight
2. The situation is not as simple as you believe it to be
I think it is the latter. The issue in respect of the Single Market is clouded in semantics. It is obvious that we must leave the Single Market as currently defined as it requires adoption of the four freedoms.
The clarity we now have relates to May's ambition for a 'tweaked' version of the Single Market. Like the Norway model that was proposed by many leave campaigners pre-referendum.
We now know that this is not part of the plan as any bespoke deal must not include significant payments to the EU and we are to refuse to submit to EU courts. That brings clarity that was previously missing.
Overall, this is a positive move because:
1. Our negotiating position with the EU is stronger.
2. The markets and business get to react early to the 'problem'. Lack of single market access can be priced in early and calmly. A 'dry run' for the real thing.
3. Market sentiment will no longer lurch to and fro depending on the mixed signals from Govt.
I don't agree with her approach, but I absolutely welcome this clarity and the signs are that the markets like it as well.
I wonder where all the other deniers and abstainers have sloped off to.
The remaining problem for me has always been May's bizarre determination toward secrecy and her intention to exclude parliament. The secrecy has lifted, which is good, and I hope that the Supreme Court does it's job and put's Parliament firmly in the frame.
What May has said, and the fact that she has finally said something, will be helpful to business and avoid constant lurching from crisis to crisis in the coming months. It is far less risky to issue an a50 notice now that the basic strategy is out there as the markets can price the risk in advance.
I've been arguing for months on here that the automatic rejection of the views of remain voters on the basis that they were 'remoaners' intent on thwarting the will of the people was a mistake. I hope that more people can see that now.
Donald Tusk and most other European reactions were very sensible and mature.
Guy Verhofstadt, who is the EU Parliament's Chief Negotiator, however, was not.
My response, in order;
1 We respect democracy and want to get a better deal for everyone than simply WTO, but if you refuse to do so, so be it. We have offered certainty to EU citizens, if you reciprocate, and you refuse to do so.
2 We don't want to have to use our economic power agressively, and want to get a better deal for everyone, but we act on behalf of our own country and if that is the right thing to do, we will do so.
3 We just want a trade deal that reflects the fact we are a G7 economy, on your doorstep, with whom we have a huge trade deficit. We don't want any more preferable deal than that circumstance would give if we were in Asia or North America.
It's good that you feel more comfortable now, but in all honesty has she said a material amount more than has been plainly obvious for months?
And ref "secrecy"... These are large scale negotiations. They take time to gear up for and even then, telling everyone who will listen every last detail is as far from the best strategy as it's possible to be. There was enough out there to understand what was said yesterday in advance and there's nothing more to tell. Yet.
As for excluding Parliament... Again, I scratch my head on what is wanted here...
- invoking Article 50...a bit of procedural clarity now achieved, but apart from the idiot Farron and his merry men, was there really any danger that Parliament would vote against its invocation? Just feels like we've wasted time here (equally May should have had faith that MPs wouldn't really be able to vote against it and not bothered with judicial reviews etc. Probably a daft play there).
- there's a cross party working group on us Leaving. MPs are involved.
- a vote on the deal... I still don't get what this is going to achieve. It weakens our negotiating position (though not really materially) and what are Parliament realistically going to do? The deal that is put in front of them is not going to be bettered any which way you look at it. So it's either take it or go fully down the WTO path. The only way I can see a vote making any sense is if the deal is considered worse than WTO... which can't happen by definition. So what is the point other than to give some sort of veneer that the two houses in full have added some value?
It was a good speech yesterday. If our baying masses weren't quite so frothy I'd personally have waited until March to deliver it (relative silence is often a very good tool in negotiation), but that it's giving some comfort is positive. Hopefully people will start to give them space to get on with it now. Somehow I doubt it though.
And ref "secrecy"... These are large scale negotiations. They take time to gear up for and even then, telling everyone who will listen every last detail is as far from the best strategy as it's possible to be. There was enough out there to understand what was said yesterday in advance and there's nothing more to tell. Yet.
As for excluding Parliament... Again, I scratch my head on what is wanted here...
- invoking Article 50...a bit of procedural clarity now achieved, but apart from the idiot Farron and his merry men, was there really any danger that Parliament would vote against its invocation? Just feels like we've wasted time here (equally May should have had faith that MPs wouldn't really be able to vote against it and not bothered with judicial reviews etc. Probably a daft play there).
- there's a cross party working group on us Leaving. MPs are involved.
- a vote on the deal... I still don't get what this is going to achieve. It weakens our negotiating position (though not really materially) and what are Parliament realistically going to do? The deal that is put in front of them is not going to be bettered any which way you look at it. So it's either take it or go fully down the WTO path. The only way I can see a vote making any sense is if the deal is considered worse than WTO... which can't happen by definition. So what is the point other than to give some sort of veneer that the two houses in full have added some value?
It was a good speech yesterday. If our baying masses weren't quite so frothy I'd personally have waited until March to deliver it (relative silence is often a very good tool in negotiation), but that it's giving some comfort is positive. Hopefully people will start to give them space to get on with it now. Somehow I doubt it though.
Elysium said:
I'm still in the same place. I don't welcome Brexit because I think it will be bad for our economy. Fortunately the delay in starting it has allowed some of the impacts to happen in slow motion.
Presumably you are referring to "impacts" such as the economy growing, unemployment staying the same, house prices continuing to rise and companies continuing to invest in the uk such (eg China, UK Tech Investment, Snapchat)?So are you suggesting that the speed at which these "impacts" are felt will increase once the Article 50 is invoked? Sounds awful...
wiggy001 said:
Elysium said:
I'm still in the same place. I don't welcome Brexit because I think it will be bad for our economy. Fortunately the delay in starting it has allowed some of the impacts to happen in slow motion.
Presumably you are referring to "impacts" such as the economy growing, unemployment staying the same, house prices continuing to rise and companies continuing to invest in the uk such (eg China, UK Tech Investment, Snapchat)?So are you suggesting that the speed at which these "impacts" are felt will increase once the Article 50 is invoked? Sounds awful...
Sway said:
jjlynn27 said:
The genius that could reduce NHS budget by '30-50% without affecting service' telling someone about 'bolleaux'.
'my trade'
If you remember, and if necessary I'll pull up the quote, I said that I couldn't do that. But that it was possible.'my trade'
Indeed, many of the comments I made about failure demand reduction and systems thinking being necessary are being raised on the 'nurses say nhs is f
ked' thread.Don't worry, it's like Kim Jong Healthy thinking that UK car manufacturing is still operating like its the 70s, except it's a whole industry that thinks that it's unique and special enough that principles applied across dozens of sectors (who've then seen those sorts of benefits) can't be applied to it.
Now, fancy trying to refute my post on this thread? Or just going to stick to one ad hominem dragged up from a post months ago on a completely different topic?
You have seen the 'debate pyramid', or shall I bring that up again?
So, yes, your post calling out someone else's 'bolloux' or whatever is laughable.
jjlynn27 said:
You can bring up anything you like. That you even believe that's possible to reduce health budget by '30-50%' is a sure-fire sign of a fantasist. You did claim that 'you and your friend' achieved those figures, and that all industries and companies are the same.
So, yes, your post calling out someone else's 'bolloux' or whatever is laughable.
Cutting the NHS budget by that much would be easy.. Just cut out the commensurate %age of treatments offered. You're right that it's fantasy though. At least right now... One day it will be forced upon us as we won't have the money for never ending increases in supply So, yes, your post calling out someone else's 'bolloux' or whatever is laughable.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Has the EU published its negotiating strategy for dealing with Brexit yet? We are constantly bombarded with complaints about TM not revealing details of her negotiating strategy, but never complaints about how the EU has not revealed what it is going to do. Why is that?
Who is this EU you are referring to? I know of no such person? Do you mean the Council, the Commission, the Parliament?Murph7355 said:
jjlynn27 said:
You can bring up anything you like. That you even believe that's possible to reduce health budget by '30-50%' is a sure-fire sign of a fantasist. You did claim that 'you and your friend' achieved those figures, and that all industries and companies are the same.
So, yes, your post calling out someone else's 'bolloux' or whatever is laughable.
Cutting the NHS budget by that much would be easy.. Just cut out the commensurate %age of treatments offered. You're right that it's fantasy though. At least right now... One day it will be forced upon us as we won't have the money for never ending increases in supply So, yes, your post calling out someone else's 'bolloux' or whatever is laughable.
Mrr T said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Has the EU published its negotiating strategy for dealing with Brexit yet? We are constantly bombarded with complaints about TM not revealing details of her negotiating strategy, but never complaints about how the EU has not revealed what it is going to do. Why is that?
Who is this EU you are referring to? I know of no such person? Do you mean the Council, the Commission, the Parliament?Murph7355 said:
jjlynn27 said:
You can bring up anything you like. That you even believe that's possible to reduce health budget by '30-50%' is a sure-fire sign of a fantasist. You did claim that 'you and your friend' achieved those figures, and that all industries and companies are the same.
So, yes, your post calling out someone else's 'bolloux' or whatever is laughable.
Cutting the NHS budget by that much would be easy.. Just cut out the commensurate %age of treatments offered. You're right that it's fantasy though. At least right now... One day it will be forced upon us as we won't have the money for never ending increases in supply So, yes, your post calling out someone else's 'bolloux' or whatever is laughable.
Exact wording of a fantasist were '30-50% budget reduction, for the same or better care'. Just imagine how much he could save to countries spending more.
paulrockliffe said:
Mrr T said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Has the EU published its negotiating strategy for dealing with Brexit yet? We are constantly bombarded with complaints about TM not revealing details of her negotiating strategy, but never complaints about how the EU has not revealed what it is going to do. Why is that?
Who is this EU you are referring to? I know of no such person? Do you mean the Council, the Commission, the Parliament?
Elysium said:
bmw535i said:
Elysium said:
Looking at this logically there are two possibilities:
1. You and Don4l have some special and unique insight
2. The situation is not as simple as you believe it to be
I think it is the latter. The issue in respect of the Single Market is clouded in semantics. It is obvious that we must leave the Single Market as currently defined as it requires adoption of the four freedoms.
The clarity we now have relates to May's ambition for a 'tweaked' version of the Single Market. Like the Norway model that was proposed by many leave campaigners pre-referendum.
We now know that this is not part of the plan as any bespoke deal must not include significant payments to the EU and we are to refuse to submit to EU courts. That brings clarity that was previously missing.
Overall, this is a positive move because:
1. Our negotiating position with the EU is stronger.
2. The markets and business get to react early to the 'problem'. Lack of single market access can be priced in early and calmly. A 'dry run' for the real thing.
3. Market sentiment will no longer lurch to and fro depending on the mixed signals from Govt.
I don't agree with her approach, but I absolutely welcome this clarity and the signs are that the markets like it as well.
I knew you'd see sense and get on board in the end 1. You and Don4l have some special and unique insight
2. The situation is not as simple as you believe it to be
I think it is the latter. The issue in respect of the Single Market is clouded in semantics. It is obvious that we must leave the Single Market as currently defined as it requires adoption of the four freedoms.
The clarity we now have relates to May's ambition for a 'tweaked' version of the Single Market. Like the Norway model that was proposed by many leave campaigners pre-referendum.
We now know that this is not part of the plan as any bespoke deal must not include significant payments to the EU and we are to refuse to submit to EU courts. That brings clarity that was previously missing.
Overall, this is a positive move because:
1. Our negotiating position with the EU is stronger.
2. The markets and business get to react early to the 'problem'. Lack of single market access can be priced in early and calmly. A 'dry run' for the real thing.
3. Market sentiment will no longer lurch to and fro depending on the mixed signals from Govt.
I don't agree with her approach, but I absolutely welcome this clarity and the signs are that the markets like it as well.
I wonder where all the other deniers and abstainers have sloped off to.
The remaining problem for me has always been May's bizarre determination toward secrecy and her intention to exclude parliament. The secrecy has lifted, which is good, and I hope that the Supreme Court does it's job and put's Parliament firmly in the frame.
What May has said, and the fact that she has finally said something, will be helpful to business and avoid constant lurching from crisis to crisis in the coming months. It is far less risky to issue an a50 notice now that the basic strategy is out there as the markets can price the risk in advance.
I've been arguing for months on here that the automatic rejection of the views of remain voters on the basis that they were 'remoaners' intent on thwarting the will of the people was a mistake. I hope that more people can see that now.
What is more accurate is that the EU says it does not wish to allow the UK to be a member of the single market without free movement of people. That is miles away from being the same thing as it is not possible.
Granted single market membership still leaves the UK subject to ECJ rulings...at least those related to the single market.
WinstonWolf said:
alfie2244 said:
bmw535i said:
I still have no idea why people thought we'd stay in the single market.
Mind you, Jimboka is still adamant we won't be leaving
Where's slasher? Mind you, Jimboka is still adamant we won't be leaving
However I see your point and he is being a little quiet but I'm enjoying the break from him rubbishing all my points to leave
B'stard Child said:
WinstonWolf said:
alfie2244 said:
bmw535i said:
I still have no idea why people thought we'd stay in the single market.
Mind you, Jimboka is still adamant we won't be leaving
Where's slasher? Mind you, Jimboka is still adamant we won't be leaving
However I see your point and he is being a little quiet but I'm enjoying the break from him rubbishing all my points to leave
B'stard Child said:
Never understood the catnip thing myself as I've never had a car that has been remotely attracted to it......
However I see your point and he is being a little quiet but I'm enjoying the break from him rubbishing all my points to leave
Like you I have never had a car interested However I see your point and he is being a little quiet but I'm enjoying the break from him rubbishing all my points to leave
I have had cats. One was so wild for it when we orders some which came by post we came home to find the padded envelope and the plastic bag shredded where the cat had ripped it apart to get its fix.
Edited by Mrr T on Wednesday 18th January 12:37
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff