Brexit delayed

[Mellsblue]

Can’t say I agree. Most MP’s work diligently in the background, working on causes they believe in and fighting for their constituents.

[Sandydragon]

Some do. Many see it as a career.

[Digby]

Labour fudged it, who knew

[Digby]

Comrade John confirms if forced into a people's vote it wouldn’t in his estimation include an option to remain

[Mellsblue]

Yep, big fudge. I was going to be nice and suggest it’s a compromise, which would be nice given the current political weather, but it’s a fudge. Even the wording is a fudge on a fudge.

[Digby]

It's essentially the same fantasy as David Davis and his brethren, that by virtue of them being in charge the EU will offer up a deal that replicates our current access with little concession on our part, and absent of such it's no deal

Also obvious is the idea they be in charge is more important than the country, I would ask where they're getting the money for all their social investment but getting the money isn't a problem for Glorious Leader

I don't as it happens think they'll be able to hold to the dream of the leadership not to include remain on any future vote, but I also thought Trump could never get elected

[Sandydragon]

Remind me again why triggering article 50 without a clear plan of what we actually wanted was a good idea? I know businesses wanted clarity but we are no closer to providing them with any.

[Puja]

Remind me again why triggering article 50 without a clear plan of what we actually wanted was a good idea? I know businesses wanted clarity but we are no closer to providing them with any.

If I were European, I'd be baffled by us and our drama.

First, we vote out. That's fine, that's okay, that's our prerogative.

Then the leader who made the referendum happen resigns. None of the people involved in Leave make a competent run for leader and we end up with someone who was very solidly Remain in charge. Does she have policy? Does the party have a policy? Apparently not, from her panicked attempts to avoid answering direct questions.

She denies that any general election is needed and that the will of the people is known. She then waits until March to trigger Article 50 to set the count down going, before calling a General Election to take up 2 months of this as apparently she wants the British people to provide her with a mandate for her Brexit plan, which apparently the other parties oppose. Few details actually emerge about her Brexit plan and fewer details still about the opposition's. And oddly, no questions are really asked about this and the elction comes and goes without Brexit really being any kind of an issue.

We then get a weaker government, now with 22 months to negotiate, who still are refusing to answer questions about what the official plan is. The opposition push, but they won't really answer questions about their position on it either, for fear of having to actually take one. Regardless of that, Parliament has become so divided and weakly run, that everyone ends up arguing with each other for the next 13 months about what we actually plan to do. And because the two parties are so polarised, there's no hope of MPs working together and forming cross-party consensuses on things, as anyone going outside of party lines is now denounced in the press as a traitor. And asking MPs opinions wouldn't be helpful as the majority of them want to Remain, but don't want to vote for it because of the putative public uproar. You'd've thought an electorate that wanted Brexit would've elected Brexit-wanting MPs, but because no-one really made an issue of it in the election, that didn't really happen.

We're technically negotiating with the EU as we argue with ourselves, but without an official position on what we actually want from the negotiations. Mostly our negotiating style involves loudly announcing that we cannot and will not do something, with accompanying bluster from various MPs, before agreeing to do it. Most contentious issues are kicked down the line for later in the name of not bringing down the government by making them have a policy on something.

Finally, in July 2018, we release actual policy. There is a plan, agreed by the government, stating what we want and what our actual aims are. It's contradictory in places, some of it is impossible, most of it is things that we've already been told won't be agreed, and some bits actually go against things already previously agreed. But at least the UK government has finally decided what they actually wa... oh good, half of them are resigning.

Never mind, the EU engage with this plan and point out that it's not something that can be agreed to. We appear to treat this No with surprise, despite that fact that it really can't be, and continue to barrack for it, declaring that it is the only route forward and the only deal possible. This is despite the fact that it no longer appears to be possible on the UK side, as there don't appear to be votes enough to get it through Parliament, so it is irrelevant if the EU says yes or no, as the UK is now saying no to its own plan. Again.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that they've turned to cake-related pranks.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Good summary, but why should Europeans on the continent be the only ones who are confused? With months to go, most of us are none the wiser.

[Which Tyler]

Remind me again why triggering article 50 without a clear plan of what we actually wanted was a good idea? I know businesses wanted clarity but we are no closer to providing them with any.

If I were European, I'd be baffled by us and our drama.

First, we vote out. That's fine, that's okay, that's our prerogative.

Then the leader who made the referendum happen resigns. None of the people involved in Leave make a competent run for leader and we end up with someone who was very solidly Remain in charge. Does she have policy? Does the party have a policy? Apparently not, from her panicked attempts to avoid answering direct questions.

She denies that any general election is needed and that the will of the people is known. She then waits until March to trigger Article 50 to set the count down going, before calling a General Election to take up 2 months of this as apparently she wants the British people to provide her with a mandate for her Brexit plan, which apparently the other parties oppose. Few details actually emerge about her Brexit plan and fewer details still about the opposition's. And oddly, no questions are really asked about this and the elction comes and goes without Brexit really being any kind of an issue.

We then get a weaker government, now with 22 months to negotiate, who still are refusing to answer questions about what the official plan is. The opposition push, but they won't really answer questions about their position on it either, for fear of having to actually take one. Regardless of that, Parliament has become so divided and weakly run, that everyone ends up arguing with each other for the next 13 months about what we actually plan to do. And because the two parties are so polarised, there's no hope of MPs working together and forming cross-party consensuses on things, as anyone going outside of party lines is now denounced in the press as a traitor. And asking MPs opinions wouldn't be helpful as the majority of them want to Remain, but don't want to vote for it because of the putative public uproar. You'd've thought an electorate that wanted Brexit would've elected Brexit-wanting MPs, but because no-one really made an issue of it in the election, that didn't really happen.

We're technically negotiating with the EU as we argue with ourselves, but without an official position on what we actually want from the negotiations. Mostly our negotiating style involves loudly announcing that we cannot and will not do something, with accompanying bluster from various MPs, before agreeing to do it. Most contentious issues are kicked down the line for later in the name of not bringing down the government by making them have a policy on something.

Finally, in July 2018, we release actual policy. There is a plan, agreed by the government, stating what we want and what our actual aims are. It's contradictory in places, some of it is impossible, most of it is things that we've already been told won't be agreed, and some bits actually go against things already previously agreed. But at least the UK government has finally decided what they actually wa... oh good, half of them are resigning.

Never mind, the EU engage with this plan and point out that it's not something that can be agreed to. We appear to treat this No with surprise, despite that fact that it really can't be, and continue to barrack for it, declaring that it is the only route forward and the only deal possible. This is despite the fact that it no longer appears to be possible on the UK side, as there don't appear to be votes enough to get it through Parliament, so it is irrelevant if the EU says yes or no, as the UK is now saying no to its own plan. Again.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that they've turned to cake-related pranks.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

That is the post of an arch remainer. There’s quite a few things I don’t agree with. Of the main ones, the first is the very contention that we should’ve agreed what we wanted before triggering Article 50. Firstly, we still can’t agree what we want - ranging from back in, EEA, EFTA, Chequers, Canada +, hard Brexit - all these months later, with a deadline. Secondly, it is difficult to know what is a reasonable plan when the EU refused to enter negotiations before article 50 is triggered. No point deciding what you want - not that it is possible, as the last goodness knows how long has proved - without first speaking to those who you will be negotiating with.
The other major point is that the GE should’ve seen the public voting for Brexit wanting MP’s. The electorate infact voted for two parties that ran on pro-Brexit manifestos/has pro-Brexit leaders. The Lib Dems ran on a pro-EU manifesto and lost me money as I bet they’d make gains. In fact, both the Cons and Lab increased their vote share.
Finally, your assertion the EU would be baffled about our dramas. They’re an institution that has constant dramas. From members who actively campaign for its abolition, through to Juncker crow-barring his man into power against the EU’s own conventions and rules (admittedly bent but not broken) and all the myriad of other dramas over Schengen, quantative easing etc etc. The EU is as big a basket case as we are, which is to say a big basket full of rabid geese.
Finally, finally May was not solidly Remain. She spent ages equivocating but decided that security concerns trumped all the negative issues she has with the EU. Beyond security concerns she’s fairly eurosceptic from what I’ve read.

[Digby]

That suggests triggering article 50 and then hoping you'd figure out what you wanted with the clock ticking was a good idea, there was an alternative

I suspect it was done on some combination of being witless, a brexit wankfest, and trying to avoid the next round of EU budget negotiations. But whether one thought it looked a bad idea at the time it sure as shit looks rank bad now

[Mellsblue]

I don’t think there was an alternative. In most scenarios you’d decide your position, have scoping talks with the other side and then set a timetable. Absolutely none of those things were possible.

[Digby]

Well leaving to oneside getting a good brexit deal is impossible then I'd still have preferred getting a plan in place before triggering article 50. I know what the EU said but such stance would have proved impossible to maintain, but our leave zealots would have been busy crying foul

As an aside I've done no work today and instead have read all the papers. Most of the writing is appalling even before one gets onto the lunatic levels of bias. That said the photo of Neville Southall in the Mirror has made me laugh, it's not a kind laugh but he does look amusing

[Mellsblue]

You think we’d get a plan in place?!?!? We still don’t have consensus now, with a deadline fast looming. Let’s just be glad the Puja’s PM elect wasn’t in power at the time. He’d have triggered article 50 the morning the result was declared.

[BBD]

I think it also misses a fairly vital element

In any negotiation there has to be an element of good faith that both parties are willing to actually negotiate, ie put forward proposals, consider the other sides proposals, consider and then offer counters and concessions, bargaining your way through. Following this from the outset it has been fairly clear that only one side is doing this, and it isnt the EU. Ive yet to see a constructive proposal from them, a reasonable concession or a willingness to consider any proposal put to them for any length of time before rejecting it.

I do understand their reticence, they literally cannot afford to do otherwise but the internal bickering, indecision and mollification of the UK is merely a welcome distraction for them and the remain camp. This confusion is manna from heaven for them. Its all clouding the water, Corbyns election promises, Tony Blair sticking his oar in, Gina Miller, Nigel Farage, campaigns for second referendum etc . Its all serving the EUs cause. They have no intention of making it easy and why the hell would they or should they? turkeys dont vote for Xmas was never more apt

[Puja]

You think we’d get a plan in place?!?!? We still don’t have consensus now, with a deadline fast looming. Let’s just be glad the Puja’s PM elect wasn’t in power at the time. He’d have triggered article 50 the morning the result was declared.

I'd like to point out I'm not a Corbyn fan - he's just the least worst option at the moment. That's a sad statement.

That is the post of an arch remainer. There’s quite a few things I don’t agree with. Of the main ones, the first is the very contention that we should’ve agreed what we wanted before triggering Article 50. Firstly, we still can’t agree what we want - ranging from back in, EEA, EFTA, Chequers, Canada +, hard Brexit - all these months later, with a deadline. Secondly, it is difficult to know what is a reasonable plan when the EU refused to enter negotiations before article 50 is triggered. No point deciding what you want - not that it is possible, as the last goodness knows how long has proved - without first speaking to those who you will be negotiating with.

I also don't think a demand that we know what we want to get out of negotiations is the sign of an arch remainer - I'd regard it as minimum fucking standards. I'm not asking for a reasonable plan or anything sounded out with the EU - I'm talking about broadest brush, high level policy. We needed to know before starting whether we wanted to be in or out the single market, in or out the ECJ, in or out common standards for goods, etc. This should've been done by cross-parliamentary commission based on MP share, so that everyone was involved and this didn't become a partisan party issue to attack each other with.

Basically, we needed to come up with a plan that Parliament could agree on before we started. It might not have survived contact with the EU, but we needed to know what we wanted before we could start asking for it. Basically, we needed the Chequers plan back in 2017.

The problem started with "Brexit means Brexit" - May needed to pin down what she thought was best for Britain from the start; that was literally her job.

The other major point is that the GE should’ve seen the public voting for Brexit wanting MP’s. The electorate infact voted for two parties that ran on pro-Brexit manifestos/has pro-Brexit leaders. The Lib Dems ran on a pro-EU manifesto and lost me money as I bet they’d make gains. In fact, both the Cons and Lab increased their vote share.

The electorate voted for Labour and Conservatives, not pro and anti-Brexit, as can be seen by large gains in Remain areas by both Tories and Labour and Lib Dems not getting 48% of the vote. Because both parties were in disarray on Brexit, they steered the debate away from it as hard as they could, turning the vote into arguments about the economy, austerity and social justice. And May's complete inability to make people like her, of course.

I actually equivocated over which way to vote in the referendum, as I can see definite advantages to leaving if done well - ie, with any kind of plan, retaining cordial relations and not pissing everyone off on the way out. I ended up voting remain, because I didn't trust the bunch of hoofwanking bunglecunts who would likely have power if Cameron fell to accomplish or lead anything and I'm very sad to have been proven right. Although I was expecting Gove and Johnson rather than May.

Puja

[Puja]

I think it also misses a fairly vital element

In any negotiation there has to be an element of good faith that both parties are willing to actually negotiate, ie put forward proposals, consider the other sides proposals, consider and then offer counters and concessions, bargaining your way through. Following this from the outset it has been fairly clear that only one side is doing this, and it isnt the EU. Ive yet to see a constructive proposal from them, a reasonable concession or a willingness to consider any proposal put to them for any length of time before rejecting it.

I do understand their reticence, they literally cannot afford to do otherwise but the internal bickering, indecision and mollification of the UK is merely a welcome distraction for them and the remain camp. This confusion is manna from heaven for them. Its all clouding the water, Corbyns election promises, Tony Blair sticking his oar in, Gina Miller, Nigel Farage, campaigns for second referendum etc . Its all serving the EUs cause. They have no intention of making it easy and why the hell would they or should they? turkeys dont vote for Xmas was never more apt

You're not wrong there. They haven't been remotely constructive, but then again haven't been forced to be, as we've spent more time arguing against our own proposals than they have. We haven't provided them with that much to shoot down before Chequers and even then they can reasonably ask why they should even entertain it considering it won't get through our Parliament anyway.

Puja

[fivepointer]

The EU have made it perfectly plain what we could have from the outset. They have laid out the options and been entirely consistent.
It is up to our Govt to decide what route we want to pursue, and then to engage in sensible negotiation based on what realistically can be achieved.
Cakeism was never on the menu.
Not for the first time, and it wont be the last i'm sure, I would recommend following Chris Grey.
His latest below is yet another bullseye.

"Perhaps most humiliating of all is the call from the Prime Minister for the EU to come up with a form of Brexit which is acceptable to Britain. This, apparently, is where ‘taking back control’ has brought us.

There has actually been an undercurrent of this right from the outset, as if Brexit were a problem for the EU to sort out rather than a choice that Britain had made and was responsible for. This was evident in reports that in private meetings with Angela Merkel the Prime Minister repeatedly asked to be “made an offer”, to which Merkel replied “but you’re leaving, we don’t have to make you and offer. Come on, what do you want?” with May responding by simply saying again “make me an offer”.

It is also present, in a slightly different way, in the entire notion of a ‘negotiation’, as if getting a good deal for Britain were a shared problem, whereas in fact it is Britain’s problem: for the EU the problem is how to minimise the damage of Brexit to itself"

http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/

[Mellsblue]

You think we’d get a plan in place?!?!? We still don’t have consensus now, with a deadline fast looming. Let’s just be glad the Puja’s PM elect wasn’t in power at the time. He’d have triggered article 50 the morning the result was declared.

I'd like to point out I'm not a Corbyn fan - he's just the least worst option at the moment. That's a sad statement.

That is the post of an arch remainer. There’s quite a few things I don’t agree with. Of the main ones, the first is the very contention that we should’ve agreed what we wanted before triggering Article 50. Firstly, we still can’t agree what we want - ranging from back in, EEA, EFTA, Chequers, Canada +, hard Brexit - all these months later, with a deadline. Secondly, it is difficult to know what is a reasonable plan when the EU refused to enter negotiations before article 50 is triggered. No point deciding what you want - not that it is possible, as the last goodness knows how long has proved - without first speaking to those who you will be negotiating with.

I also don't think a demand that we know what we want to get out of negotiations is the sign of an arch remainer - I'd regard it as minimum fucking standards. I'm not asking for a reasonable plan or anything sounded out with the EU - I'm talking about broadest brush, high level policy. We needed to know before starting whether we wanted to be in or out the single market, in or out the ECJ, in or out common standards for goods, etc. This should've been done by cross-parliamentary commission based on MP share, so that everyone was involved and this didn't become a partisan party issue to attack each other with.

Basically, we needed to come up with a plan that Parliament could agree on before we started. It might not have survived contact with the EU, but we needed to know what we wanted before we could start asking for it. Basically, we needed the Chequers plan back in 2017.

The problem started with "Brexit means Brexit" - May needed to pin down what she thought was best for Britain from the start; that was literally her job.

The other major point is that the GE should’ve seen the public voting for Brexit wanting MP’s. The electorate infact voted for two parties that ran on pro-Brexit manifestos/has pro-Brexit leaders. The Lib Dems ran on a pro-EU manifesto and lost me money as I bet they’d make gains. In fact, both the Cons and Lab increased their vote share.

The electorate voted for Labour and Conservatives, not pro and anti-Brexit, as can be seen by large gains in Remain areas by both Tories and Labour and Lib Dems not getting 48% of the vote. Because both parties were in disarray on Brexit, they steered the debate away from it as hard as they could, turning the vote into arguments about the economy, austerity and social justice. And May's complete inability to make people like her, of course.

I actually equivocated over which way to vote in the referendum, as I can see definite advantages to leaving if done well - ie, with any kind of plan, retaining cordial relations and not pissing everyone off on the way out. I ended up voting remain, because I didn't trust the bunch of hoofwanking bunglecunts who would likely have power if Cameron fell to accomplish or lead anything and I'm very sad to have been proven right. Although I was expecting Gove and Johnson rather than May.

Puja

That is a sad state of affairs and accurate portrayal of where we are.


What’s the point of forming a position if it’s then blown out of the water by the EU? It also avoids the issue that a consensus would never be reached. You ask for a committee proportional to the Commons but this is just having the same argument amongst a smaller amount of people. Opinion would still be split five different ways, as it is parliament, and their recommendation would still need to go through parliament before becoming an official position, and if the basis of that position was agreed to by the EU after negotiations and changes it would then have go back to parliament to be voted on. You can avoid the parliamentary arithmetic.



If the electorate didn’t vote based on Brexit - and I don’t believe that to be wholly true - then it’s safe to assume that it’s so low down people’s worries that all this media attention and self-flagellation is a monumental waste of time, and that the population as a whole aren’t that bothered about the result. So, let’s just get on with it. As much as I wish the whole sorry mess had never happened.

[Mellsblue]

The EU have made it perfectly plain what we could have from the outset. They have laid out the options and been entirely consistent.
It is up to our Govt to decide what route we want to pursue, and then to engage in sensible negotiation based on what realistically can be achieved.
Cakeism was never on the menu.
Not for the first time, and it wont be the last i'm sure, I would recommend following Chris Grey.
His latest below is yet another bullseye.

"Perhaps most humiliating of all is the call from the Prime Minister for the EU to come up with a form of Brexit which is acceptable to Britain. This, apparently, is where ‘taking back control’ has brought us.

There has actually been an undercurrent of this right from the outset, as if Brexit were a problem for the EU to sort out rather than a choice that Britain had made and was responsible for. This was evident in reports that in private meetings with Angela Merkel the Prime Minister repeatedly asked to be “made an offer”, to which Merkel replied “but you’re leaving, we don’t have to make you and offer. Come on, what do you want?” with May responding by simply saying again “make me an offer”.

It is also present, in a slightly different way, in the entire notion of a ‘negotiation’, as if getting a good deal for Britain were a shared problem, whereas in fact it is Britain’s problem: for the EU the problem is how to minimise the damage of Brexit to itself"

http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/

That’s not the point, though. The debate is about when to trigger article 50 which had to be done before any negotiations were allowed and before the EU could set out their stance, as the EU/Juncker/Selmayr decided. As for being consistent, there have been a lot of mixed messages. Not just from different mouths but just from Barnier himself. One minute it’s a bespoke arrangement, the next it’s off the shelf only and then back and forth a few more times. I’ve read Grey’s stuff and, for me, he’s lost perspective. Sadly, he’s very much not alone on that.

[fivepointer]

Triggering A50 was dumb. But then, almost everything May has done falls into that category.
What could she have done differently?
How about firstly acknowledging Brexit was going to be complex; that she would look at all options; that she would look to carry out a Brexit that minimised harm; and that she would seek consensus, not just at home but with the EU.
She could have gone to the EU for informal talks. She could have built up trust and goodwill, while at the same time having a very clear understanding of exactly what kind of Brexit could be achieved.
She could have stopped talking nonsense, painting herself into a corner, reined in some of her idiotic ministers and MPs, and been open about the impacts Brexit would have.
She could have commissioned impact assessments, made them freely available and been truthful to the public about the consequences of going down a particular route.
She could honestly have laid out the possibilities, while at the same time making it plain that trade offs would be inevitable.
She could have acted like a politician concerned with the national well being, rather than one whose main interest was in retraining power.
She could have worked towards a soft brexit position that would have been acceptable to a majority in the House.
She then could have triggered A50, in the knowledge that she had looked at the options and come out in favour of one that caused the least harm, and commanded enough support across the House to get through.
But she has done none of these things.

[Puja]

What’s the point of forming a position if it’s then blown out of the water by the EU? It also avoids the issue that a consensus would never be reached. You ask for a committee proportional to the Commons but this is just having the same argument amongst a smaller amount of people. Opinion would still be split five different ways, as it is parliament, and their recommendation would still need to go through parliament before becoming an official position, and if the basis of that position was agreed to by the EU after negotiations and changes it would then have go back to parliament to be voted on. You can avoid the parliamentary arithmetic.

Because how can you negotiate if you don't know what you want? Even if a plan was going to get blown out of the water by the EU on first contact, at least we'd know what direction we were aimed in. I don't get your idea that knowing what you would like isn't a prerequisite for a negotiation - how can you try and get things if you don't know what you want?

And the point of having a committee would be to turn the endeavour into a joint "Delivering the will of the people" and sharing the credit/blame, rather than having the absurd current situation where it's an argument over who's delivering the will of the people better and where MPs of similar opinions won't vote on an amendment because the enemy was the one who proposed it. Brexit is the complete renegotiation of our foreign policy, econonic policy and interactions with the world - it's as important as a war and should have been treated like one rather than being petty politics.

If the electorate didn’t vote based on Brexit - and I don’t believe that to be wholly true - then it’s safe to assume that it’s so low down people’s worries that all this media attention and self-flagellation is a monumental waste of time, and that the population as a whole aren’t that bothered about the result. So, let’s just get on with it. As much as I wish the whole sorry mess had never happened.

I'd mark it as another failure of our absurd voting system, which is designed to vote in local MPs individually, but where most people vote for a party or, worse, the leader. In a lot of areas, it's irrelevant who the actual people are, compared to what colour rosette they're wearing.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Triggering A50 was dumb. But then, almost everything May has done falls into that category.
What could she have done differently?
How about firstly acknowledging Brexit was going to be complex; that she would look at all options; that she would look to carry out a Brexit that minimised harm; and that she would seek consensus, not just at home but with the EU.
She could have gone to the EU for informal talks. She could have built up trust and goodwill, while at the same time having a very clear understanding of exactly what kind of Brexit could be achieved.
She could have stopped talking nonsense, painting herself into a corner, reined in some of her idiotic ministers and MPs, and been open about the impacts Brexit would have.
She could have commissioned impact assessments, made them freely available and been truthful to the public about the consequences of going down a particular route.
She could honestly have laid out the possibilities, while at the same time making it plain that trade offs would be inevitable.
She could have acted like a politician concerned with the national well being, rather than one whose main interest was in retraining power.
She could have worked towards a soft brexit position that would have been acceptable to a majority in the House.
She then could have triggered A50, in the knowledge that she had looked at the options and come out in favour of one that caused the least harm, and commanded enough support across the House to get through.
But she has done none of these things.

She couldnt have informal talks as the EU explicitly ruled it out.
There is no soft Brexit that would unite the house. If there was we'd be there by now.
Yes she's made a myriad of mistakes and I don't think she's a good PM. However, she's in an impossible position. She's fighting the EU, strident Brexiteers, strident reamainers, an opposition that have set six unobtainable tests and Lib Dem party that would vote against any Brexit whatsoever. It's a clusterfuck and if you think following your ten point plan would've made any difference I think your wrong; and that is before at least two are impossible.

[Mellsblue]

What’s the point of forming a position if it’s then blown out of the water by the EU? It also avoids the issue that a consensus would never be reached. You ask for a committee proportional to the Commons but this is just having the same argument amongst a smaller amount of people. Opinion would still be split five different ways, as it is parliament, and their recommendation would still need to go through parliament before becoming an official position, and if the basis of that position was agreed to by the EU after negotiations and changes it would then have go back to parliament to be voted on. You can avoid the parliamentary arithmetic.

Because how can you negotiate if you don't know what you want? Even if a plan was going to get blown out of the water by the EU on first contact, at least we'd know what direction we were aimed in. I don't get your idea that knowing what you would like isn't a prerequisite for a negotiation - how can you try and get things if you don't know what you want?

And the point of having a committee would be to turn the endeavour into a joint "Delivering the will of the people" and sharing the credit/blame, rather than having the absurd current situation where it's an argument over who's delivering the will of the people better and where MPs of similar opinions won't vote on an amendment because the enemy was the one who proposed it. Brexit is the complete renegotiation of our foreign policy, econonic policy and interactions with the world - it's as important as a war and should have been treated like one rather than being petty politics.

If the electorate didn’t vote based on Brexit - and I don’t believe that to be wholly true - then it’s safe to assume that it’s so low down people’s worries that all this media attention and self-flagellation is a monumental waste of time, and that the population as a whole aren’t that bothered about the result. So, let’s just get on with it. As much as I wish the whole sorry mess had never happened.

I'd mark it as another failure of our absurd voting system, which is designed to vote in local MPs individually, but where most people vote for a party or, worse, the leader. In a lot of areas, it's irrelevant who the actual people are, compared to what colour rosette they're wearing.

Puja

Well it's 18 months down the line with negotiations and a looming deadline and there's still no plan as the one we did put to the EU was blown out of the water. If only we'd done that before triggering article 50! Once your idea is blown out of the water it doesn't matter how much prep you've done as your position has been blown out of the water. If you are saying that we should've war gamed lots of different scenarios then I'd agree but once the EU said, childishly, no negotiations, even back channels, prior to triggering A50 then you're really just spending time pissing in the wind.
The committee can be as joint as endeavour as you like but whatever they recommend has to go through the house, which will still be divided as ever. There's also the problem that committees can lead to personal differences taking over the whole show. It's not the panacea you seem to think it is.



You may think the system absurd but you've thought there would at least be an increased % of the vote for the Lib Dems if the country were so disgusted by the Brexit situation. Instead the two Eurosceptic parties had their greatest share of the vote for goodness knows how long.