Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
In a nutshell the UK is trying to brew a Brexit deal that means that everything stays exactly as it was before, less the bits we didn't like.

Sounds logical - though perhaps optmistic.

And it may (if you are not an EU establishment dogmatist) actually not be an unreasonable position.

What's the alternative offered by the EU? In reality that is basically as much stays exactly as before including the bits we aparently "don't like".

That also sounds quite logical - and maybe didactic rather than optimistic.

Personally? I think 2 years have been wasted and more time will be wasted. The UK should have had the guts to just start on the premise of no-deal. Set a time line. Set about implementing it. And then if the EU chose to respond constructively adapt - and if it didn't then we'd be ready.

Instead the opposite approach was taken. I think this was a huge mistake. But the political situation in the UK has meant that parliament and our elected represenattives haven't come to terms with what was actually needed - and evaded their responsibilities to *everybody* in the UK while thinking (believing) they were doing the right thing by dragging their feet and not facing up to reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m80
Perhaps. But then as above .... perhaps not.

It's all down to presentation and interpretation.

Fair enough, but who's going to entrust their business and their livelihood on such uncertainty? Presentation and interpretation is how one buys a used Chrysler PT Cruiser. When it comes to doing business with a trading partner that's 5 times your size? Unfortunately this has more about what you can do for them. It's not your finest hour, Theresa May isn't Maggie Thatcher or Winston Churchill, It's just business. Doing nothing for them is a strategy, doing nothing for Britain is disaster.
 
...The UK should have had the guts to just start on the premise of no-deal. Set a time line. Set about implementing it. And then if the EU chose to respond constructively adapt - and if it didn't then we'd be ready...

That was not politically possible in the UK.

Keep in mind that of the half (give or take) that voted in favour of Brexit, not everyone was a hardliner.

Any talk of 'no deal' immediately brought up a wave of criticism not only from remainers, but also from soft Brexiters.

Theresa May can't just turn around and wink and whisper to the British public: "Shhhh... your spoiling my negotiations tactics".

So talk of no deal was only possible while reassuring the public that this is only a contingency plan for a worst case scenario.
 
When it comes to doing business with a trading partner that's 5 times your size? Unfortunately this has more about what you can do for them. It's not your finest hour,

It depends. You have a viewpoint that fits with Project Fear.

Even some of those backing Project Fear seem to have owned up to the rather blinkered view.

Finest hour? We have more of those than we realise. And even if we do have a Finest Hour somebody will come along to tell us that it wasn't really because we're rubbish and don't count - or it really wasn't significant in any way.

Theresa May isn't Maggie Thatcher or Winston Churchill
Very true.

(How bad or a good thing that is may depend on your view of these two ex Prime Ministers.)
 
That was not politically possible in the UK.

..... I think I covered that.

Keep in mind that of the half (give or take) that voted in favour of Brexit, not everyone was a hardliner.

Any talk of 'no deal' immediately brought up a wave of criticism not only from remainers, but also from soft Brexiters.

Well the negotiation was undermined right from the start.

And the issue isn't whether you are a hard liner or not - it's about judging your counterparty (ies) pragmatically and then setting about an approach that will protect you from a falure in the negotiation while you try and get somethig amenable to both sides.

What the UK did from the outset was undermine itself by not facing that reality.

Ironically - those in the establishent who want a 'soft' Brexit have probably ruined their own position by not allowing the negotiation to evolve properly and sending exactly the wrong signals to those on the other side.

Theresa May can't just turn around and wink and whisper to the British public: "Shhhh... your spoiling my negotiations tactics".

Maybe a stronger leader would have managed something along those lines.
 
The vote was clearly defined, in or out, not in but if or out but if, there can be no further referendum because that would be the end of them. Democracy is a complex system but it relies on the principle that the vote is final and abiding, moving away from this is the death of democracy.

Just to add so we have another vote what then a third, forth......where does it end.

There is a common misconception, both here and elsewhere, that a second referendum would ask the same question as the first and be along the lines of:

"You voted to leave the EU. Do you still want to leave, Yes / No ?"

In fact, those calling for a second referendum are not asking for a re-run of the first, they want the electorate to have the chance to approve our exit terms. So if it were to actually happen, any second referendum would be something like:

"You voted to leave the EU, we have acted upon your decision and have spent over two years negotiating our exit terms. These are the terms that we have been able to agree, do you approve and are you willing to accept them, Yes or No ?"

If the decision was another Yes then that would be the end of the matter. If it was a No, the Government would have to use the 20+ month transition period to re-negotiate the terms.

So whilst I can understand why some may not want a second referendum, it can not be described as undemocratic. Giving people the chance to vote on our EU membership and again on the terms on which we leave is actually double-democratic.
 
As an aside, where do forum members stand on a second referendum (or “People’s Vote” in Remainer parlance)?

Do you think there will be one? Do you want one? Do you think people understand the ramifications of another vote?
we've had a peoples vote and we voted as a nation, the result was out! what happens if we have another - best of three?? five?
 
There is a common misconception, both here and elsewhere, that a second referendum would ask the same question as the first and be along the lines of:

"You voted to leave the EU. Do you still want to leave, Yes / No ?"

In fact, those calling for a second referendum are not asking for a re-run of the first, they want the electorate to have the chance to approve our exit terms. So if it were to actually happen, any second referendum would be something like:

"You voted to leave the EU, we have acted upon your decision and have spent over two years negotiating our exit terms. These are the terms that we have been able to agree, do you approve and are you willing to accept them, Yes or No ?"

If the decision was another Yes then that would be the end of the matter. If it was a No, the Government would have to use the 20+ month transition period to re-negotiate the terms.

So whilst I can understand why some may not want a second referendum, it can not be described as undemocratic. Giving people the chance to vote on our EU membership and again on the terms on which we leave is actually double-democratic.
If the decision was no then surely we would leave on 29th March with no deal other than WTO? The issue with a blanket yes/no vote is that it only covers the deal struck regarding trade, what about all the other agreements already struck such as security, health, citizens rights, are they also included in the vote?
 
If the decision was no then surely we would leave on 29th March with no deal other than WTO? The issue with a blanket yes/no vote is that it only covers the deal struck regarding trade, what about all the other agreements already struck such as security, health, citizens rights, are they also included in the vote?

If the decision was No then the transition period allows time for re-negotiation until at least the end of 2020.

And those wanting a second referendum want one which will approve the entire exit terms.
 
If the decision was no then surely we would leave on 29th March with no deal other than WTO? The issue with a blanket yes/no vote is that it only covers the deal struck regarding trade, what about all the other agreements already struck such as security, health, citizens rights, are they also included in the vote?
I believe that very few people here in the UK actually want a no-deal solution.

Even hardline Brexiters want a deal (albeit possibly one that will have a strong bias towards UK's interests).

So it's OK to play the no-deal card as a negotiation tactics, but it's a completely different matter actually ending-up with a no-deal solution.

For a politician who's leadership is on the balance, there are only two options that provide a political survival chance post-Brexit:

- Deliver a deal that will be perceived by the British public as a victory over our foes, done from a position of strength.

- Deliver a no-deal solution, pretending that it was the UK's choice as an act of defiance against the bullying EU.

Either option may give Theresa May the chance of surviving the leadership challenge that will no doubt follow Brexit.

This is because Brexit is a highly emotive issue... which means that as long as a politician can channel these emotions in their favour, the actual 'good' or 'bad' in absolute terms is largely irrelevant.

The long-term interests of the UK are secondary... the real effect (good, bad, or nuetral) of Brexit will only be known in years to come anyway. And delivering a good long-term Brexit at the cost of losing your job now is not something any PM will readily do.
 
I believe that very few people here in the UK actually want a no-deal solution.

Even hardline Brexiters want a deal (albeit possibly one that will have a strong bias towards UK's interests).

So it's OK to play the no-deal card as a negotiation tactics, but it's a completely different matter actually ending-up with a no-deal solution.

It's not just tactics. It's contingency. You have to protect yourself because assuming you are reasonable then you cannot guarantee tht the other party will be.
  • The EU has a habit of going into tho early hours after midnight on any agreement.
  • The EU can be very didactic about what it sees as its core values
  • The referendum put the EU at odds with some of thiose core values.
So you're not just playing the 'no-deal' card as a game - you are doing it because it is a reasonably likely possibility.

And the sad part of this is that by not planning for a no-deal then chances are with the EU you make it more likely.

A more robust approach by the UK at the outset might have resulted in an outline agreement by now with fundamentals secured and some disproportionately bitter wrangling on details left to cause some more angst.
 
I checked a couple of the larger news papers in Europe a couple of days ago to see if Brexit is making their front pages, it does not appear to. While Brexit is dominating the news cycle here, it appears to me that No-deal is not a huge deal for them.

When looking at this negotiation, I like to apply my simple logic to it, here's an example: I had a Mercedes Benz 107 LSD rear end for sale a few months ago. A guy from Mississippi wanted to buy it and drove down about 400 miles to get it. When he arrived, he offered me 1/2 my asking price. I refused so he went up a few dollars, I told him the price was firm so he carried on ranting for a bit and acted like he was about to walk away but eventually backed down and bought it when I loaded the diff back into the truck and started to make my way.

  • Was I worried about not selling it? Not really, I was not desperate for the money and knew someone would come along to buy it eventually.
  • Was his attempt at negotiating effective? I knew that he just drove ~400 miles to pick up a diff. Knowing that he did not want to go home empty handed gave me the leverage

Unfortunately, it appears that the EU has a lot less to lose from a no deal brexit than the UK. I suspect that some EU members will have something to gain as they make up the short fall. As I said earlier, they can afford to watch the British government burn their own ship down and come in with a bail out that gives them all of their terms, or they can force the government to withdraw from leaving and lose all credibility. In either case, they're not under the same pressures as the UK is on this matter. Negotiations require some skills but unless you have leverage, then you're asking for charity.
 
Last edited:
There is a common misconception, both here and elsewhere, that a second referendum would ask the same question as the first and be along the lines of:

"You voted to leave the EU. Do you still want to leave, Yes / No ?"

In fact, those calling for a second referendum are not asking for a re-run of the first, they want the electorate to have the chance to approve our exit terms. So if it were to actually happen, any second referendum would be something like:

"You voted to leave the EU, we have acted upon your decision and have spent over two years negotiating our exit terms. These are the terms that we have been able to agree, do you approve and are you willing to accept them, Yes or No ?"

If the decision was another Yes then that would be the end of the matter. If it was a No, the Government would have to use the 20+ month transition period to re-negotiate the terms.

So whilst I can understand why some may not want a second referendum, it can not be described as undemocratic. Giving people the chance to vote on our EU membership and again on the terms on which we leave is actually double-democratic.

Whilst I understand where your coming from the fundamental issue here is we voted to leave not make a deal, we could have left on WTO terms irrespective if you believe that to be a good thing or bad and once out then negotiated a deal on trade. I know I keep repeating it but it appears to have been overlooked, once again, we voted to leave.
 
I checked a couple of the larger news papers in Europe a couple of days ago to see if Brexit is making their front pages, it does not appear to. While Brexit is dominating the news cycle here, it appears to me that No-deal is not a huge deal for them.

When looking at this negotiation, I like to apply my simple logic to it, here's an example: I had a Mercedes Benz 107 LSD rear end for sale a few months ago. A guy from Mississippi wanted to buy it and drove down about 400 miles to get it. When he arrived, he offered me 1/2 my asking price. I refused so he went up a few dollars, I told him the price was firm so he carried on ranting for a bit and acted like he was about to walk away but eventually backed down and bought it when I loaded the diff back into the truck and started to make my way.

  • Was I worried about not selling it? Not really, I was not desperate for the money and knew someone would come along to buy it eventually.
  • Was his attempt at negotiating effective? I knew that he just drove ~400 miles to pick up a diff. Knowing that he did not want to go home empty handed gave me the leverage

Unfortunately, it appears that the EU has a lot less to lose from a no deal brexit than the UK. I suspect that some EU members will have something to gain as they make up the short fall. As I said earlier, they can afford to watch the British government burn their own ship down and come in with a bail out that gives them all of their terms, or they can force the government to withdraw from leaving and lose all credibility. In either case, they're not under the same pressures as the UK is on this matter. Negotiations require some skills but unless you have leverage, then you're asking for charity.
Not actually the case. 23 of the 27 EU countries export more to us than we do to them giving us a £70billion trade deficit. We pay more into the EU budget than we take out, our contribution is 18% of the EU budget. If there's a no deal then £40billion will stay in our pockets and the EU will have a major funding crisis.
 
In either case, they're not under the same pressures as the UK is on this matter. Negotiations require some skills but unless you have leverage, then you're asking for charity.

The EU as an entity is rather more detached than national government. Which is perhas one of the reasons that we are where we are.

In the UK it is quite an emotive issue and the government is in a uniquely bad palce as regards pressure.

Meanwhile the EU political and bureacratic offices can get on with things without the same level of public and media ngst or oversight. It may actually suit them as it is a distraction from the issues surrounding the Euro, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Poland and what lies eastwards with Ukraine and Russia.

It's also ironic when you refer to bailouts and charity that early on the EU seemed rather more concerned about the UK's payment than even the UK.

If there is a Euro crisis precipitated by Italy or Greece then the UK may seem like a safe haven.

My reading of this is that the EU wants the UK to remain close - but can't reconcile that with it's own dogma and the UK's political needs. It is genuinely scared that if it loosens up a bit with the UK that it sends the wrong signal that sets a model exit that other members might aspire to. Then there is the issue of the UK version of a soft exit having its cake and eating it - still benefitting while not contributing- as opposed to the EU soft exit of it getting some benefits while having to pay and submit to EU oversight and jurisdiction.

People tend to focus on trade. The UK may have looked like a reluctant member of the EU at times but it was a relatively fair and solid participant - there will be member countries of the EU looking at the UK's political departure and wondering where they will be with the remaining dominant countries in 10 or 20 years.
 
Not actually the case. 23 of the 27 EU countries export more to us than we do to them giving us a £70billion trade deficit. We pay more into the EU budget than we take out, our contribution is 18% of the EU budget. If there's a no deal then £40billion will stay in our pockets and the EU will have a major funding crisis.

Then there are the tax jusisdiction based losses. Luxembourg is an example - contributing less per head to the EU while disproportionately drawing away corporate taxes.

It's also worth noting that numbers on trade with EU may be distorted by the inclusion of non-EU trade to/from UK that goes via Europe. This may increase apparent imports from EU depending on the source of the numbers.
 
The term 'no deal' is misleading. It just means negotiations will continue after March 29th as they would in any business where there needs to be an outcome and both parties have something to gain from the result.

Even if at some point each party can show they have gained something behind the scenes things will gradually creep back to pretty much where they were.

Now what's really going on while we're all distracted by this cr*p.
 
Not actually the case. 23 of the 27 EU countries export more to us than we do to them giving us a £70billion trade deficit. We pay more into the EU budget than we take out, our contribution is 18% of the EU budget. If there's a no deal then £40billion will stay in our pockets and the EU will have a major funding crisis.

And unless you can find products from other countries at lower landed costs , it will remain that way
 
The term 'no deal' is misleading. It just means negotiations will continue after March 29th as they would in any business where there needs to be an outcome and both parties have something to gain from the result.

It does NOT simply mean that negotiations will continue beyond March !!

If no deal had been agreed by then, amongst many other things the UK would have to start trading under WTO rules and that would have very serious ramifications indeed.
 
Whilst I understand where your coming from the fundamental issue here is we voted to leave not make a deal, we could have left on WTO terms irrespective if you believe that to be a good thing or bad and once out then negotiated a deal on trade. I know I keep repeating it but it appears to have been overlooked, once again, we voted to leave.

You don't need to repeat yourself since no one is saying that we shouldn't leave.

However, the terms of our exit must be negotiated and if a deal can be reached then that it is better for everyone than a no-deal outcome. But asking the electorate to endorse the terms of any deal is not undemocratic, it's quite the opposite.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom