The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[StefanAVFC]

It simply wasn't as simple as remain/leave. 

James O'Brien put it well here. Leave wasn't a united banner. Remain was, as it was a vote to maintain our membership. 

Quote

Sovereignty. Immigration. Trade. These are the three main strands that will change when the UK leaves the EU. But as James points out, there’s no agreement between Leave supporters which of these need to just be altered and which should be cut altogether. This is the main obstacle to Brexit.

“So you’ve got the bloke who doesn’t care about immigration, but is really strong on sovereignty.

“Then you have bloke who doesn’t care about sovereignty but really, really cares about immigration.

“Then you’ve got someone who thinks we need immigration, but not a lot… and then you’ve got the bloke on the end who doesn’t really know anything but hates foreigners and knows the sooner we kick them out the better.

“They all voted leave - from the intellectual wing to the knuckle dragging wing - they all voted to go through the same door, but they completely disagree about what’s on the other side.”

James believes that this is also the real reason why the Government does not want Brexit debated in Parliament and why some who voted to Leave don’t want to talk about what comes next.

“They can’t even agree with the people on the same side of the argument as them about what’s on the other side of the door. So God knows how they feel about people who didn’t vote to go through the door pointing out that most of them don’t even seem to know what day it is.”

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-pinpoints-brexit-obstacle-not-remain/

Cameron didn't plan for a Leave win. Not even a little.

Edited December 6, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[mjmooney]

4 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Saw that yesterday.

What a shrieking, awful woman. There's a reason we've moved on from the "olden days". They were shit.

Not for Tories they weren't; they were great. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, villa4europe said:

any declaration they make weakens their negotiation stance and leaves them open to criticism if they deviate 

its common sense that they arent saying anything

That's utter horse. It would not weaken her negotiating position at all. I mean basically the numpties have said "we want to have our cake and eat it" - translated as we want to have control over immigration and we want to have the best level of trade access we can get.

How's that weakened any negotiating position?

It's nothing to do with common sense, and everything to do with "managing" the Conservative party and their loony MPs and with not actually knowing what they want.

It would be quite easy to say now (as an example), "we propose that when we leave the EU that the rights of all EU citizens in the UK will be protected, and that those of Brits in the EU will be protected, furthermore we will continue to allow all EU mports into the UK to remain tariff free, we will continue to allow people to visit the UK from the EU for holidays with no Visa requirements...and we will do this so long as the EU responds in kind, only if the EU decides not to do those things, will we reconsider this proposal....

We will cease paying towards the EU budget and we will re-assert the Primacy of the UK parliament over EU law in the UK. Immigration arrangements for EU citizens will be dealt with in exactly the same way as we deal with citizens from other friendly nations such as the USA, Australia so long as this is reciprocated by the EU....."

Basically if we lay out that we will be nice and keep stuff cheap and let people stay and so on as long as they do the same for us, then where's the problem in terms of giving away negotiation positions? It would have the opposite effect to say, "look, we're entering all this in the right spirit, and if you guys do too, then there's not going to be much where we have a problem..." and we can concentrate then on issues that cause each other real difficulty and try and resolve them satisfactorily. It would also flag up that we're playing nice, and any loss of rights to stay or imposition of tariffs would be seen to be down to the EU, not the UK.

 

 

[darrenm]

All this stuff about secrecy and not showing our hand at the poker table. What can we possibly hide? That we may or may not leave unless you give us what we want? All of the other members know exactly what's happening in our country. Even better than our own side apparently.

There's no hand to show. Our hand is well and truly on the table.

When you're buying a car, you have the negotiating tool that is you may not buy the car. If you can't reach a compromise with the seller, you decide not to buy. We have no such position, we've already decided to buy. The EU knows this and we're completely at their mercy. We can't gain anything from keeping secret what we want, as it's all set in stone. We either leave the EU or we don't. And we've said we're leaving, so there's nothing to negotiate. Cameron went to buy the car, got the lowest price he could negotiate with the seller and then asked the country if they wanted to buy at that price. 52% said yes. We can't now whisper between ourselves to decide how we're going to get them to throw in the mats.

It's all a bit farcical really. There's absolutely no reason for there to be no scrutiny over the exit plan.

[Xann]

 

Quote

 

Very quietly, Liam Fox admits the Brexit lie

Liam Fox released a very revealing written statement yesterday. His department has started to do the preliminary work at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) required for when Britain leaves the EU.

Members of the WTO have things called schedules, these are basically a description of your trading relationship with the world. They list things like your tariffs and your services commitments. Britain's are currently held under an EU umbrella and they'll need to be extracted ahead of leaving.

This should be the chance to create that confident, independent, global trading nation Fox and the other Brexiters are always talking about. Finally Britain can construct a trading arrangement which suits it, not the continent.

For instance, we can get rid of the special rule on oranges, which we don't grow but have to labour under because of the Mediterranean states in the EU which do. We can prioritise the sugar cane that Tate & Lyle uses in their sugar, rather than the sugar beet which is used in Europe. We can finally create a customised trading arrangement for this country, rather than one for a continent with which we sometimes share very few economic interests. This is exactly what Brexit was all about.

Except Fox isn't going to do any of that.

"In order to minimise disruption to global trade as we leave the EU, over the coming period the government will prepare the necessary draft schedules which replicate as far as possible our current obligations." [italics added]

It is a startling admission. The UK's extracted WTO schedules will "replicate as far as possible" it's current status. So we'll keep the special rule for oranges, even though we don't grow them. We will continue to protect a sugar process designed for Europe and continue failing to protect one used by one of our major companies, despite its years of lobbying to change the system.

In short, despite all the sound and the fury, despite all the attacks against immigrants and the threats against EU citizens in the UK, despite all the Brexit votes and the Richmond rebellions and the sudden change in this country's political dynamic, the government is not aiming to change anything of any substance. Britain will keep the exact EU tariff system which Brexiters for so long said was strangling it.

Why? Because to do otherwise would be suicide. The WTO has been presented by Brexiters as a safety net, a place to go if no deal is possible with the EU. They keep on saying that they have no concern about falling back on their rules. This is because they don't know what they are.

 

politics.co.uk

[StefanAVFC]

And while May isn't saying anything, backbenchers are getting pissed at her, Davis admits we may have to pay for access to the single market anyway and Fox is saying that the "UK's WTO schedules will "replicate as far as possible" its current status" meaning trade deals won't change in the short term anyway.

So in the end, we will be paying multi-millions to "take back control" of our borders with a large amount of other things staying exactly the same. And people's reactions to that will show what the real agenda behind this referendum really was.

Edited December 6, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

I didn't say they called people enemies. They're implying it though and saying if you don't back the plan, you're anti-British. You don't need to inherently call people something specific to imply it and stir up anger against them. It's textbook nationalism.

But the nature of article 50 means we can't negotiate until it's enacted so we need some sort of idea what any negotiations look like before invoking it. 

Maybe I misread but you said they labelled those who voted against as the enemy and referred to it a couple of other times too.  I don't really see where that implication comes from, other than from the papers which are predictably unsavoury in their coverage, but that's not really the government's fault.  I don't see the link to nationalism from quoting red, white and blue, surely that's just another way of saying they want to get the best deal for Britain.

I can see the thought process behind why people want to know what our red lines are before we enter negotiations so we have a better idea as to what to expect, but I still find it incredibly impractical to do it and possibly hugely costly.  I suspect we will end up paying for access to the market in order to keep trade whilst gaining full border control, and that will largely be down to careful negotiation that just cannot be done in the open or predicted right now.

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, sharkyvilla said:

Maybe I misread but you said they labelled those who voted against as the enemy and referred to it a couple of other times too.  I don't really see where that implication comes from, other than from the papers which are predictably unsavoury in their coverage, but that's not really the government's fault.  

Posted only a couple of pages back.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-backing-the-uk-team-brexit-article-50-labour-liberal-democrats-a7456726.html

It's pretty clear what the implication is.

1 minute ago, sharkyvilla said:

 I don't see the link to nationalism from quoting red, white and blue, surely that's just another way of saying they want to get the best deal for Britain.

Really?

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, darrenm said:

When you're buying a car, you have the negotiating tool that is you may not buy the car. If you can't reach a compromise with the seller, you decide not to buy. We have no such position, we've already decided to buy.

Exactly, the only negotiating is in essence about how much we each hurt the other.

[StefanAVFC]

And following on from the Indy article I posted...

This is wonderful

http://newsthump.com/2016/12/06/you-must-unconditionally-support-the-brexit-plan-were-not-going-to-tell-you-about-insists-government/

Quote

The government has claimed that anyone not voicing full-throated support for a Brexit plan that doesn’t exist does not want Britain to succeed, according to an official spokesperson.

Theresa May’s personal spokesperson said that any party, group or individual not backing the government’s plan for Brexit is a traitor to the nation.

They explained, “People need to get behind the Brexit plan. Nothing bad ever came from vocally backing something 100% before you even knew what it was. Nothing.

“So not having the tiniest of clues what the government’s Brexit plan actually is, should be no impediment to offering it your unconditional support.”

Remain voter Simon Williams told us, “I’m not backing the government’s Brexit plan because I think it will go too far in extricating us from the EU.”

However, his Brexit-voting brother Dave, told us, “I’m not backing the government’s Brexit plan because I think it won’t go far enough in extricating us from the EU.”

A government spokesperson told them that he understood their concerns, but reiterated that both of them will be delighted with the Brexit outcome, and that if they don’t start voicing their support very soon indeed they will be classified as traitors who want the nation to fail.

It is a sad period in time when a satirical article makes more sense than reality.

[sharkyvilla]

It's ambiguous at best, you can look into it in whichever way you want.  I just find it hard to see why May and Hammond who neither campaigned to leave would be that disrespectful or inflammatory.  I think they'd rather just quietly get on with an already almost impossible task but can't.

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

I think they'd rather just quietly get on with an already almost impossible task but can't.

Hard when you're very publicly spouting off shite such as 'Brexit means Brexit" and "red, white and blue Brexit" to appease certain groups.

Edited December 6, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[PieFacE]

Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I really don't see the issue with "Red, white and blue Brexit"... it's just a comment coming from a context of unity, isn't it? 

[sharkyvilla]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Hard when you're very publicly spouting off shite such as 'Brexit means Brexit" and "red, white and blue Brexit" to appease certain groups.

Brexit means Brexit is just a way of saying that they intend to honour the result of the referendum.  Who are they appeasing?

[peterms]

So they are going to publish a Brexit strategy before serving article 50.

Quote

May accepts Labour's call to publish Brexit plan before triggering article 50

The government has tabled an amendment to the Labour motion being debated tomorrow. It accepts what the Labour motion says about the need for the government to publish a plan for leaving the EU before triggering article 50. But it also says the Commons should accept the outcome of the referendum, and it says the government should trigger article 50 by the end of March.

Updated at 4.13pm GMT

So either they have decided to undermine their own negotiating strategy, or else they accept what they previously said was nonsense.

Are there any other possibilities?

[StefanAVFC]

it's empty rhetoric designed to whip up certain groups. Especially nationalists. Much like make America great again with Trump. It means absolutely nothing.

It adds nothing to the conversation and is enough for some people for blind support.

[Davkaus]

Let me get this straight, they are willing to 'undermine' their negotiating position by 'revealing their hand', but they'll only do so once parliament votes to allow the government to invoke article 50...Are they **** insane? 

"We'll tell you what we're going to do, but only after you tell us we can definitely do it". 

[StefanAVFC]

Unbelievably cynical by the Tories. We'll publish the plan but you have to go along with it or we don't publish at all

[Davkaus]

 

 

[peterms]

So, the approach is nothing to do with seeking constructive discussions with the EU with a view to the best possible deal, and instead is all about first preventing up to 40 tories voting against the government, and second trying to propose a position which gets the opposition parties to support the motion and which can be presented as a victory in the tory press tomorrow.

It's like some sort of parlour game for imbeciles.