Looks like there will be no 'hard Brexit'

[Hubble]

That's an impressive analysis Hal.

[Hubble]

A Tory MP (who voted leave) has just resigned over his own government's stance on Brexit - makes very interesting reading and has me thinking maybe a general election might be on the cards?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/04/stephen-phillips-resigns-over-undemocratic-brexit-process

[brightonr]

A Tory MP (who voted leave) has just resigned over his own government's stance on Brexit - makes very interesting reading and has me thinking maybe a general election might be on the cards?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...brexit-process

Hubs,

It's all very well these people whining about needing to scrutinise and debate etc., but they seem to be missing the point.

The reason we cannot debate these things properly, is because of the intransigent attitude of the circus that we democratically voted to say goodbye to. They have point blank refused to enter into any negotiations until such time as article 50 has been invoked. Just as they refused to negotiate a decent deal for the UK to remain.

It is their stance that is causing all the uncertainty. If they came to the negotiating table straight away instead of acting like spoilt children, then we could have pretty much sorted things out already. Then we could have discussed the outcome of these negotiations and moved on accordingly, be that acceptance or the need to change things.

Lets face it, it is the EU that want tariffs, not the UK. It is the EU that have this ridiculous insistence on free movement. It is the EU that want a European army, despite them trying to tell us that they aren't looking for closer politcal union.

Answer me honestly mate, is this the type of organisation we should be so desperate to be a part of?

How much better off would we be financially remaining in it? As good as Greece? As good as Italy?

I'm genuinely utterly astonished that people cannot see it. Particularly now.

[Hubble]

Hubs,

It's all very well these people whining about needing to scrutinise and debate etc., but they seem to be missing the point.

The reason we cannot debate these things properly, is because of the intransigent attitude of the circus that we democratically voted to say goodbye to. They have point blank refused to enter into any negotiations until such time as article 50 has been invoked. Just as they refused to negotiate a decent deal for the UK to remain.

It is their stance that is causing all the uncertainty. If they came to the negotiating table straight away instead of acting like spoilt children, then we could have pretty much sorted things out already. Then we could have discussed the outcome of these negotiations and moved on accordingly, be that acceptance or the need to change things.

Lets face it, it is the EU that want tariffs, not the UK. It is the EU that have this ridiculous insistence on free movement. It is the EU that want a European army, despite them trying to tell us that they aren't looking for closer politcal union.

Answer me honestly mate, is this the type of organisation we should be so desperate to be a part of?

How much better off would we be financially remaining in it? As good as Greece? As good as Italy?

I'm genuinely utterly astonished that people cannot see it. Particularly now.

Oh I agree with you mate, but I do think it should be discussed openly in parliament too, and allow due process (and diligence) to take place. I think that's the best way of ensuring what is negotiated is right for Britain as a whole. I didn't like the idea that it was being done behind closed doors, so to speak. And also, whilst I like and respect David
Davis who is secretary of state for Brexit, I do not like, or trust the judgement of Liam Fox or Boris Johnson. I want this to be a proper, transparent process that has the sovereign will of parliament behind it.

[Johnnykc]

The problem was that both sides were incredibly uninformed and imo very few people really understood the implications of the massive choice before them. Ironically, part of that was down to the poor quality of UK based politicians whom Brexiteers are so keen to return power to. In or out completely ignored the fact that there are degrees of in or out depending on the way the deal is carved. Someone forget to mention that bit.....

Financially, I voted to stay in for reasons of self interest - I think you'll find self interest a motivating factor in most voting. Places like Wales and Cornwall which received massive EU subsidy inexplicably chose to ignore that fact and poorer rural areas will be hit hard, but I respect their choice. I find British bureaucrats and indeed governance just as incompetent as the European variety, so voting purely on medium term economic grounds kind of made sense to an old cynic like me.

We will of course remain co-signatories to European Human Rights legislation (which we drafted) in the event of Brexit, we will remain subject to rulings of the court in Strasbourg, and the vast majority of immigrants will continue to come from outside the EU, meaning that the two issues which seemed to upset people the most will continue exactly as they did pre Brexit.

Nicola Sturgeon has played a very clever hand in all of this. I have no problem whatsoever with the break up of the UK, good luck to Scotland but the fact is the existence of the UK is subsidised by English tax payers. There is a very strong argument that we on this side of the border would be better off without other parts of the UK. The UK is in any case a relatively recent historical innovation. It is another irony that Engish people who are pro Brexit may ignore the fact that Brexit itself arguably provides the same justification for Scotland to leave us. Like I say though, that could work out OK......

Yet another irony is that an English parliament could get a hard Brexit vote through. That wont happen at Westminster if the Supreme Court rubber stamps the High Court decision. Never mind UKIP, what Brexiteers really needed was an EIP and a referendum on the establishment of an English parliament. After that would have been the time for Brexit, but UKIP made the mistake of assuming that England and the UK were indivisible concepts. For many people on both sides of the argument and border, they are not.

In my view the Courts must remain above political intervention, unlike in the USA. It is not the fault of the Court that the legal ramifications of Brexit (never mind the financial ones) were insufficiently articulated pre referendum. Which is where I came in.

EDIT: after all that I forgot to answer the question! Choosing to abide by the court's ruling isn't going against anyones wishes, because the court isn't ruling on Brexit per se. It's simply saying that the terms of Brexit - ie the thing everyone forgot to mention beforehand - must be put before parliament.

Excellent post Hal, and I totally agree with you.

The eventual political landscape will not be what everyone who made that vote had in their own mind but it was never going to be a case of just saying 'see ya later EU'.....if you really believed that then you are either unbelievably stupid or naive.

Leaving the EU was voted for and will happen but it is appropriate for the terms to be discussed by parliament.

[lymehoop]

Excellent post Hal, and I totally agree with you.

The eventual political landscape will not be what everyone who made that vote had in their own mind but it was never going to be a case of just saying 'see ya later EU'.....if you really believed that then you are either unbelievably stupid or naive.

Leaving the EU was voted for and will happen but it is appropriate for the terms to be discussed by parliament.

17.5m people unbelievably stupid or naive. You forgot to throw in racist too pal

[Johnnykc]

17.5m people unbelievably stupid or naive. You forgot to throw in racist too pal

I think you may have missed the point entirely..

I'm sure you don't really believe that 17.5m people all had a common goal in the obvious finer details of negotiating leaving the EU and would accept that it is right that such a huge subject is discussed by parliament as to the best course.

On the plus side..it's nice to see you acknowledge the large racist section of the leave camp...there's hope for you yet Lymes!

[brightonr]

What a good day !!

Looks like at last we have a prime minister and a government intent on doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for the EU.

In a nutshell, it would seem that the government's policy exactly mirrors that of the leave campaign. Just as it should.

[Kevin Mcleod]

What a good day !!

Looks like at last we have a prime minister and a government intent on doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for the EU.

In a nutshell, it would seem that the government's policy exactly mirrors that of the leave campaign. Just as it should.

[Hubble]

It's a risky negotiating tactic is brinkmanship. It's just as likely to backfire as succeed. As I understand it, the threat is that if we don't get what we want, we will immediately convert to a super low corporation tax tax haven in an attempt to suck in loads of global companies, but with the side-effect of ####ing the working rights and conditions of millions and gawd knows what else. It appears May has become a convert to (or is paying lip service to) a hard right economic plan that, as far as I know whenever anything similar has existed, has always been to the detriment of the poorest in society - ironically, many of those who voted for Brexit. The poorhouse /workhouse scenario is back on. The much-lauded (by the Thatcherites and their ilk) 'trickle-down effect ' has never actually worked; in fact the opposite seems true.

What's interesting to me is that all of this seems counter to the deeper shifts that are taking place right now, as if there were two concurrent realities that occasionally touch.... A friend of mine who has long been ahead of the game on this (he was the first person to tell me about bitcoin), expressed very concisely how he thinks this will pan out:

"You don't need politicians in a world where direct action can drive society over a connected Internet. In a capitalist system where money is power, intermediating politics will always become corrupt unless absolute transparency and accountability is built into the core of the system.

The quicker Society ejects the present idea of 'government as management' and replaces it with an IT team building an open source public auditable social network that handles societal organization and decision making, the less painful it will be to end up there. Only other option on the table is totalitarianism." I know which option I'd prefer!

[Hubble]

However, having said that, maybe it is a good negotiating tactic! The idea might work!

[Hove Ranger]

It is purely a negotiating tactic Hubs mate and as someone who doesnt really identify with the conservatives nor Theresa May, I thought it was a pretty good speech

[Hubble]

I took a negative view in my earlier post - I am always suspicious of the threat of unfettered capitalism when nearly all the advantages and privileges lie in the hands of a minority - but there is of course the possibility - faint though it seems to me - for some kind of socially responsible capitalism... at least, that seems to be what May was talking about in Davos today.

[Stanley]

What a good day !!

Looks like at last we have a prime minister and a government intent on doing what's best for the country as opposed to what's best for the EU.

In a nutshell, it would seem that the government's policy exactly mirrors that of the leave campaign. Just as it should.

I'm not her biggest fan but yes, thought it was an excellent speech and very reassuring. Agreed with every word of it.

[brightonr]

So, a couple of months on and things appear to be proceeding according to the expected timescale. How are we all feeling about this?

Personally, I find it encouraging. I also thought that the signals from both Juncker and Tusk are starting to sound far more conciliatory than we have been used to in the past, which can only be a good thing.

I thought that the PM's letter was well and sensibly worded, despite hearing complaints by some of the usual suspects about us possibly using the issue surrounding security as a threat. Funny how it was never seen as a threat by the Remain side when they were telling us how less safe we would all be once we are out of the EU. Slight case of double standards, but not the only one.

Still having trouble getting my head around those who still haven't grasped reality. Heard a German doctor on the radio yesterday evening suggesting that his future is now uncertain, despite him having lived and worked here for the last 27 years. I can't begin to imagine what goes on in the minds of some people.

The Great Repeal Bill is a fantastic opportunity for us to, over time, choose to keep many of the really good things the EU have been responsible for whilst at the same time losing those that don't really work well for us.

Hopefully the eventual outcome to this forty odd year farce is something along the lines of why we joined the common market in the first place, before us and many other countries were hoodwinked and lied to about the true agenda.