RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
No not just wishful thinking. Everyone who matters including Macron has said that we can abandon brexit. We'll be in a weaker position in the EU but at least we'd still be in the game.

have Juncker and Trusk? But ok. There is a difference between saying/implying and happening too; I don't trust those fckrs

I'm pretty sure both have. And no I don't trust thm but forcing us into a humiliating climb down whilst keeping us in the fold is the best for all concerned. They'll probably try to strip away at least of our opt outs as well.

Thats the daft thing, we likely already had the best deal in Europe as it stood, even DC got a teeny bit more. Had he got something better to spin, we wouldn't be here now.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

i'm going to call bullshit on this. We'll end up in a rubbish place because we have no hand to play. The fate of our ex pats is politically sensitive but not very important in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand the fate of the EU citizens in the country is massively important to us economically but only politically interesting to the EU. They can use it as a proxy to see just how shite we are at negotiation and the answer is very.

I refuse to accept that this is happening and see no reason why I or anyone else shouldn't throw as many fucking rocks as they can to bring the whole aedifice of Brexit down.

I'm going g to call wakey wakey on this. Unless there is another referendum, it's happening. Dry your eyes and look for the best possible solution.

As a remainder, I'd rather try to work towards as soft an exit as possible rather that chuck my toys out of the prom.

The Conservatives don't have a majority in parliament, and barely a majority amongst MPs for Brexit. No other party has anywhere near a majority in favour of Brexit and most are officially set against every single part of the Brexit that the Conservatives are negotiating for. Further the Brexit vote was won by less and the reality of our weak negotiating position is set to reveal itself. Yet despite all that's happened politically in the past couple of years, you think it's definitely happening? Catch a grip.

So you think that one of our current political leadership has the balls to tell the country that it's all too difficult? What would be the result if, after securing a genuine democratic mandate, Brexit in some format didn't happen?

I predict confusion and difficulty ahead, I also think that most MPs will respect the referendum result. I'd remind you that the money party to put remaining in the eu front and centre was the lib dems, who came now where (yes the SNP as well but different circumstances in Scotland anyway). Neither can influence the direction of the two main parties unless both fragment.

Corbyn wants to leave the EU. Will all of his MPs back him? I think most will. He now has a huge mandate in the party and none of the oderate labour MPs seem to be that brave at the moment.

I think you are deploying wishful thinking.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
No not just wishful thinking. Everyone who matters including Macron has said that we can abandon brexit. We'll be in a weaker position in the EU but at least we'd still be in the game.

have Juncker and Trusk? But ok. There is a difference between saying/implying and happening too; I don't trust those fckrs

I'm pretty sure both have. And no I don't trust thm but forcing us into a humiliating climb down whilst keeping us in the fold is the best for all concerned. They'll probably try to strip away at least of our opt outs as well.

Doesn't being humiliated by Europe strengthen or weaken the leave campaigns hand? Your focusing on whether European leaders would be prepared to keep us in the club, but not on whether the uk population would accept that or whether MPs would vote to accept that. How many MPs of any colour would vote to abandon the referendum result if their constituency had voted to leave?

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote: yep lots of mileage, I was just establishing what the article 50 options were, and its not black and white from what I've heard so far.

No not just wishful thinking. Everyone who matters including Macron has said that we can abandon brexit. We'll be in a weaker position in the EU but at least we'd still be in the game.

have Juncker and Trusk? But ok. There is a difference between saying/implying and happening too; I don't trust those fckrs

If there is one thing you can trust them on its to not respect the result of a referendum

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote: have Juncker and Trusk? But ok. There is a difference between saying/implying and happening too; I don't trust those fckrs

I'm pretty sure both have. And no I don't trust thm but forcing us into a humiliating climb down whilst keeping us in the fold is the best for all concerned. They'll probably try to strip away at least of our opt outs as well.

Doesn't being humiliated by Europe strengthen or weaken the leave campaigns hand? Your focusing on whether European leaders would be prepared to keep us in the club, but not on whether the uk population would accept that or whether MPs would vote to accept that. How many MPs of any colour would vote to abandon the referendum result if their constituency had voted to leave?

That's not really what's beig proposed though.
The oproposal is that IF after 2 (most likely 3) years of negotiating, there is no deal on the table, so we're due to leave the EU on WTO terms with no treaties at all. All with a minority government remember.

The proposal would then be that a second referrendum takes place - Leave with no deal, or Stay on previous deal (if this were to happen I'd expect the EU to offer us to stay as we had been, they wouldn't want want to give the leave campaign any more ammunition than they had to).

I don't think anyone is suggesting that parliament simply decides that we're not leaving after all; regardless of the results of negotiation.

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I'm pretty sure both have. And no I don't trust thm but forcing us into a humiliating climb down whilst keeping us in the fold is the best for all concerned. They'll probably try to strip away at least of our opt outs as well.

Doesn't being humiliated by Europe strengthen or weaken the leave campaigns hand? Your focusing on whether European leaders would be prepared to keep us in the club, but not on whether the uk population would accept that or whether MPs would vote to accept that. How many MPs of any colour would vote to abandon the referendum result if their constituency had voted to leave?

That's not really what's beig proposed though.
The oproposal is that IF after 2 (most likely 3) years of negotiating, there is no deal on the table, so we're due to leave the EU on WTO terms with no treaties at all. All with a minority government remember.

The proposal would then be that a second referrendum takes place - Leave with no deal, or Stay on previous deal (if this were to happen I'd expect the EU to offer us to stay as we had been, they wouldn't want want to give the leave campaign any more ammunition than they had to).

I don't think anyone is suggesting that parliament simply decides that we're not leaving after all; regardless of the results of negotiation.

How do people think having a 2nd referendum on the table would effect the negotiations? I think it might encourage the Europeans to be tougher, but we could offset that by stating any 2nd referendum required a 2/3rds majority to overturn leave.

canta_brian wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Doesn't being humiliated by Europe strengthen or weaken the leave campaigns hand? Your focusing on whether European leaders would be prepared to keep us in the club, but not on whether the uk population would accept that or whether MPs would vote to accept that. How many MPs of any colour would vote to abandon the referendum result if their constituency had voted to leave?

That's not really what's beig proposed though.
The oproposal is that IF after 2 (most likely 3) years of negotiating, there is no deal on the table, so we're due to leave the EU on WTO terms with no treaties at all. All with a minority government remember.

The proposal would then be that a second referrendum takes place - Leave with no deal, or Stay on previous deal (if this were to happen I'd expect the EU to offer us to stay as we had been, they wouldn't want want to give the leave campaign any more ammunition than they had to).

I don't think anyone is suggesting that parliament simply decides that we're not leaving after all; regardless of the results of negotiation.

How do people think having a 2nd referendum on the table would effect the negotiations? I think it might encourage the Europeans to be tougher, but we could offset that by stating any 2nd referendum required a 2/3rds majority to overturn leave.

If we had employed that requirement in the first place, we would be in this mess. We would also be better off if the leave campaign were made to spell out exactly what they meant by leave.

If we assume that there is no deal on the table then basically it's a refere enum between withdrawing article 50 or hard Brexit. If there is a deal, then could it be a three way vote (which seems messy) with the deal, or hard Brexit or remain in? On reflection that doesn't work too well, so arguably the referendum is take the deal or walk away.

I'm not sure that havin such a referendum would affect the negotiations, other than further reduce the time available. On the one hand, if the eu plays hardball that could encourage mor people the vote out. On the other hand, there is a hope I suspect that people sober up and think that hard Brexit is too difficult and dangerous. The uk parliament is more eu friendly than the uk population so he eu might be concerned at such a referendum, but there are lots of moving parts so quite difficult to call.

It's easy to suggest that a referendum in a few years would result in a stay victory, with older voter passing away and the youth vote now active. But I'd be a bit wary of that. Just how fickle is the youth vote? Further more, how many remainers voted that way because they didn't want the upset but aren't that fond eu? A two year diplomatic dickdance and perceived eu bullying might tip,a few of those over to the other side. Not a foregone conclusion.

The danger is that our negotiators could end up with something half decent which is then lost in the noise of the referendum and we end up in a worse place. Our hand is now weaker, but equally, us tanking economically doesn't help the eu either. We won't have what we have now, but we may still get so,etching better that WTO terms, but if a risk to put a compromise deal in the table which can be slaughtered by Farage et al and screw us all over.

canta_brian wrote: How do people think having a 2nd referendum on the table would effect the negotiations? I think it might encourage the Europeans to be tougher, but we could offset that by stating any 2nd referendum required a 2/3rds majority to overturn leave.

a potential second referendum wouldn't be on the table until negotiations have already broken down.

Sandy; the potential referendum only comes into play if there is no deal on the table, so no option of a 3-way question. It would be out with nothing, or in with everything.

Aye. I was thinking through the implications of an offer that seemed to fall short of what the public were perceived to want. However a three way referendum would be a nightmare situation.

Playing devils advocate, it could be argued that fen if negotiations do breakdown, there is no requirement to have another referendum given that the leave vote wasn't cast against a specific type of Brexit, just for Brexit in general. Do I see legal challenges ahead under the premise that such a second referendum was only trying to undermine the result of the first?

Sandydragon wrote:Aye. I was thinking through the implications of an offer that seemed to fall short of what the public were perceived to want. However a three way referendum would be a nightmare situation.

Playing devils advocate, it could be argued that fen if negotiations do breakdown, there is no requirement to have another referendum given that the leave vote wasn't cast against a specific type of Brexit, just for Brexit in general. Do I see legal challenges ahead under the premise that such a second referendum was only trying to undermine the result of the first?

No.

How many tonnes of wood chips do you get for a £billion?

Stones of granite wrote:How many tonnes of wood chips do you get for a £billion?

On the DUP scheme I think it was 2

Liam Fox in the USA laying the groundwork for lower standards/consumer rights post Brexit. And it might be one thing to bend over for the land of the obese and the chance to import the food that keeps them all so healthy, but god knows what China and India will ask for.

Digby wrote:Liam Fox in the USA laying the groundwork for lower standards/consumer rights post Brexit. And it might be one thing to bend over for the land of the obese and the chance to import the food that keeps them all so healthy, but god knows what China and India will ask for.

Yup. It will also price many British farmers out of business, unless the government is going to subsidise them.

Hopefully the return from our perspective will be worth it.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Liam Fox in the USA laying the groundwork for lower standards/consumer rights post Brexit. And it might be one thing to bend over for the land of the obese and the chance to import the food that keeps them all so healthy, but god knows what China and India will ask for.

Yup. It will also price many British farmers out of business, unless the government is going to subsidise them.

Hopefully the return from our perspective will be worth it.

Depends what form our new support for the countryside takes, and how it stacks up against the amount currently received via CAP. I've been of the opinion for a long time we can't possibly compete on price in a global market so what's the point trying to, and that farming assistance should shift in no small measure to custodial aims rather than food production.

Outstanding to see James Dyson who campaigned for Brexit, and even a hardline version, and has stated no deal is better than a bad deal is now commenting that farming subsidies should be maintained post Brexit, and further whilst he's noted the UK will on the back of no deal have to live with WTO rules (something he's commented as likely) when it comes to his farm business he's now saying having to trade with tariffs would be a bit of a kick in the teeth.

As probably the UK's biggest farmer, by size of land owned, James is entirely neutral in his new positions other than he seems to at least in part now disagree with himself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

These sort of things do happen from time to time anyway, and too such work is funded out of EU contributions and in future we can simply spend that chunk of money we used to send to the EU on similar in the UK, if we want. So it's not a good news story for us, but this isn't perhaps much of anything either.

The bureaucracy required for Britain post Brexit will probably compensate for the individual loss of work/ services provided.

However, will our economy manage the shock and will it be worth it in the end? I voted Remain as I didn't think the eventual sunny upland was all that sunny and would be worth the pain in getting there. Looking at the complete disagreement within both main parties on how to handle this, and with the clock ticking, my confidence in Brexit being managed in the least painful way possible is much reduced.

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

woo cheaper trips to London

Zhivago wrote:

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

woo cheaper trips to London

Anyone not earning pounds is already on a win from that point if view

canta_brian wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40772332

Today is the deadline for European cities to it forward their proposals to host the 2 Eu agencies hosted by London.

Apparently, along with the 1000ish jobs in London the European banking and medicine authorities currently command, there are 40,000 hotel nights in London each year associated with their work.

woo cheaper trips to London

Anyone not earning pounds is already on a win from that point if view

Unless they have savings in pounds too...

UK Government is already moving to confirm that to take on work previously handled within the EU there'll be many, many new quangos set up, hardly a surprise. Though it'll end the supposed cull on quangos, indeed it'll make the cull look a waste of time as spending in this area explodes once more.

(and there is a need for quangos in our current system, even if some are run badly/jobs for the boys)

In what looks a rather bonkers last minute rush job we're asking for a temporary customs union that allows business as usual, whilst also allowing Britain to be free of many of the requirements of the union. I just can't see how that gets a yes, even if it gets a yes from the EU you'd have to doubt it'll get all 27 nations to vote yes.

And really the Brexiters either need to be happy to leave, or perhaps admit there actually is a problem here

It's almost as if they have just noticed that there may be some downsides in leaving the EU.

Have the brexit negotiators achieved anything as yet? Has anything at all been agreed? The clock is ticking.