Put your cards on the table, EU makes last Brexit call to Britain

[The Renegade]

43 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You are putting this forward as factual, so can you please provide some facts and figures as evidence to support this claim; or did you just make it up ?

Can I answer Sir, that is an easy one ??

 

Every single article that appears in the Media with the words '' Might '' '' Could '' or '' Is forecast '' are all trotted out by remainers as fact.

 

I wonder if they would recognise a real fact if it smacked them right between the eyes ??

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

Putting aside any government, present or future can legitimately overturn or ignore the promises of the past ‘Cameron’ Government, the subject of this discussion  is precisely the point that this ‘Thersa May’ Government is failing miserably to manage Brexit.

 

At this late hour she still has not agreed the UK’s negotiating position with her own cabinet.

 

As StephenTerry points out, this is not an accident, the failure to have a plan or negotiating position in place before rushing to sign Article 50 has lead directly to the utter shambles that Brexit has turned into.

 

This next week is going to be extremely interesting.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Can I answer Sir, that is an easy one ??

 

Every single article that appears in the Media with the words '' Might '' '' Could '' or '' Is forecast '' are all trotted out by remainers as fact.

 

I wonder if they would recognise a real fact if it smacked them right between the eyes ??

Here’s a real fact:

 

The PM has not agreed the UK’s negotiating position with her own cabinet.

 

[The Renegade]

Here is another fantastic piece on the openness and transparency that is rampant throughout the EU Institutions.

 

This time it is the EU Parliament.

 

Quote

A decision by members of the European Parliament to reject even modest scrutiny of their expenses — worth over €50,000 a year — caused outrage among some of their colleagues in the assembly.

https://www.politico.eu/article/parliaments-rejection-of-expense-scrutiny-sparks-outrage/

 

That is taxpayers money and every penny of it should be accounted for.

[tebee]

So the course we are on is taking us over a looming cliff edge .....

 

 

But that was the course the people decided on, though no one at the time pointed out the cliff edge lay in that direction. 

 

People are shouting warnings at us as we drive past, but the drivers seem to want to ignore these.

 

So is it more patriotic to accept the will of the people and just drive off it, no matter what harm it does to people, or is it better to try and warn as many people as possible about what will happen and try to change that will so the drivers need to take notice of them?  

Edited July 5, 2018 by tebee

[candide]

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

So the course we are on is taking us over a looming cliff edge .....

 

 

But that was the course the people decided on, though no one at the time pointed out the cliff edge lay in that direction. 

 

People are shouting warnings at us as we drive past, but the drivers seem to want to ignore these.

 

So is it more patriotic to accept the will of the people and just drive off it, no matter what harm it does to people, or is it better to try and warn as many people as possible about what will happen and try to change that will so the drivers need to take notice of them?  

Time for the great leap forward! ?

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, tebee said:

So the course we are on is taking us over a looming cliff edge .....

 

 

 

But that was the course the people decided on, though no one at the time pointed out the cliff edge lay in that direction. 

 

People are shouting warnings at us as we drive past, but the drivers seem to want to ignore these.

 

So is it more patriotic to accept the will of the people and just drive off it, no matter what harm it does to people, or is it better to try and warn as many people as possible about what will happen and try to change that will so the drivers need to take notice of them?  

 

Not everyone is shouting warnings - apparently only the selfish ones are; the selfless are clutching their kool-aid and singing kumbaya as they put their faith in deus ex machina.

[tebee]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

Time for the great leap forward! ?

I suspect with the current dislike for intellectuals and experts it's more likely to be like Year Zero - auspiciously,  that is Cambodia in the photo....

[nauseus]

59 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside any government, present or future can legitimately overturn or ignore the promises of the past ‘Cameron’ Government, the subject of this discussion  is precisely the point that this ‘Thersa May’ Government is failing miserably to manage Brexit.

 

At this late hour she still has not agreed the UK’s negotiating position with her own cabinet.

 

As StephenTerry points out, this is not an accident, the failure to have a plan or negotiating position in place before rushing to sign Article 50 has lead directly to the utter shambles that Brexit has turned into.

 

This next week is going to be extremely interesting.

I suppose that a pledge given by a government before a once in a lifetime people's vote on the most serious issue for three generations can put aside but even the thickest lot realise that would be instant political suicide. Nine months was not exactly a rush. These are not negotiations in the true sense of the word and never have been.  

[RuamRudy]

41 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I suppose that a pledge given by a government before a once in a lifetime people's vote on the most serious issue for three generations can put aside but even the thickest lot realise that would be instant political suicide. Nine months was not exactly a rush. These are not negotiations in the true sense of the word and never have been.  

You have a point there about political suicide - this is all about saving the face / careers of individual politicians, and of saving the Tory party itself. And who are, according to some, the selfish ones?

Edited July 5, 2018 by RuamRudy

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I suppose that a pledge given by a government before a once in a lifetime people's vote on the most serious issue for three generations can put aside but even the thickest lot realise that would be instant political suicide. Nine months was not exactly a rush. These are not negotiations in the true sense of the word and never have been.  

Perhaps openly declaring the abandonment of Brexit would be political suicide but then again so might destroying the economy by heading into Brexit without a plan.

 

But that’s all supposition, the bare facts are the PM does not at this late stage have a negotiating position agreed with her own cabinet.

 

The PM and her cabinet are to blame for that.

 

If as you say, declaring the abandonment of Brexit is political suicide, the question arises: what then of failing to deliver Brexit through mismanagement (or for any conspiracy theory people can dream up)?

 

My personal view:

 

I doubt many people are so wedded to Brexit that they’d support the utter shambles this government is making of it - especially if their own job/prosperity is on the line.

 

Theresa May has admitted she hasn’t got a negotiating position agreed with her cabinet, she’s promised to deliver this in the coming weeks.

 

Time for the stories to stop staring at each other and settle their internal disputes.

 

Time for the government to come up with the goods.

 

July is promising to be a fascinating month.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

You have a point there about political suicide - this is all about saving the face / careers of individual politicians, and of saving the Tory party itself. And who are, according to some, the serfish ones?

That was the whole point of the referendum - Tory party internal strife foist on the whole nation.

[Grouse]

On July 6th Mrs May will call her cabinet to Chequers, the prime minister’s country house, to thrash out the final details of a Brexit white paper due to be published on July 9th. Drafts are circulating around Whitehall. Insiders say its main proposal is likely to be in effect to remain in the EU’s single market for goods, but not for services. Combined with a customs union, this is sometimes known as the “Jersey” or “Isle of Man” option, as it is broadly the position of these islands today.

 

says The Economist

 

Probably the best (or least bad) compromise possible?

[CG1 Blue]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/04/jaguar-land-rovers-80bn-uk-investment-plan-at-risk-after-hard-brexit

 

But then what did Alexander Boris (man of the people) de Pfeffel Johnson have to say about ‘Business’?!

Sorry, but this is just bluster from JLR. 65% of Jaguar Land Rover sales are to China, the US and the UK combined. The UK is about 20% of their sales.  That's about the same as their sales to the rest of Europe.

Imagine how the British people would feel if JLR moved operations away from the UK and cost us thousands of jobs. I for one wouldn't be swapping my JLR for another one.

 

This is all part of the continuing saga of Project Fear. Either that or it's just an attempt by JLR to get the PM to get the hell on with Brexit. If it's the latter, I'm all for it.

 

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You obviously think that Brexit is undemocratic, which I assume means that you think the referendum was undemocratic. You are of course free to think so, but I am interested to know why ?

 

 

***The UK is a parliamentary democracy and a free vote in parliament would put the matter to bed once

and for all ***

 

Parliament had a free vote and voted overwhelmingly with a majority of 384 to trigger article 50, that did put the matter to bed, once and for all

There is nothing democratic or undemocratic about a referendum, they have no legal standing in the UK democratic system. There has only been 3 national referendums in the UK democratic history.

The brexit process had an extremely undemocratic start when the PM thought she could invoke Article 50 on the back of the referendum result. Does not say a great deal for her understanding of the UK democratic system, even arrogant enough to challenge the original court decision.

 

Yes, parliament did vote to trigger Article 50 with a result that was not in keeping with the referendum results. Only 114 votes against Article 50 which means that over 120 MPs voted against the will of the people in their constituency, collateral damage, it was the result the PM wanted.

The vote to trigger Article 50 was just that, and certainly did not put the matter to bed as we have seen from the continual arguments among cabinet ministers. This weekend the PM will beat their heads together until she gets the result she wants, a bit like the Withdrawal Bill. This is UK democracy in action, additional votes do not come into it when you can wield a stick.

Following the vote on Article 50 there should have been a vote in parliament over the SM and CU, then the hole wouldn't have got so deep.

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

Sorry, but this is just bluster from JLR. 65% of Jaguar Land Rover sales are to China, the US and the UK combined. The UK is about 20% of their sales.  That's about the same as their sales to the rest of Europe.

Imagine how the British people would feel if JLR moved operations away from the UK and cost us thousands of jobs. I for one wouldn't be swapping my JLR for another one.

 

This is all part of the continuing saga of Project Fear. Either that or it's just an attempt by JLR to get the PM to get the hell on with Brexit. If it's the latter, I'm all for it.

 

I'll always have Land Rovers because they're the best. Much production is already moving elsewhere in Europe to avoid supply chain problems. I'm sure R&D will remain. BUT whether or not Range Rover production remains IS at risk. Seriously.

[sandyf]

17 minutes ago, Grouse said:

On July 6th Mrs May will call her cabinet to Chequers, the prime minister’s country house, to thrash out the final details of a Brexit white paper due to be published on July 9th. Drafts are circulating around Whitehall. Insiders say its main proposal is likely to be in effect to remain in the EU’s single market for goods, but not for services. Combined with a customs union, this is sometimes known as the “Jersey” or “Isle of Man” option, as it is broadly the position of these islands today.

 

says The Economist

 

Probably the best (or least bad) compromise possible?

Quite, saves them having to teach the cows to read "No Trespassing" notices.

Just hope the cleaner remembers to leave the broomstick out.

[CG1 Blue]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I'll always have Land Rovers because they're the best. Much production is already moving elsewhere in Europe to avoid supply chain problems. I'm sure R&D will remain. BUT whether or not Range Rover production remains IS at risk. Seriously.

But supply chains would only be affected for less than 20% of their market. And that's in a worst case 'no deal' scenario.

The moves to other places in Europe are for other reasons. The Slovakia plant was simply to increase production I believe. And that decision was made in 2015 - pre referendum.

 

China is the growth market for JLR sales. But it's convenient to paint their strategy as an anti-Brexit one.

 

 

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Sorry, but this is just bluster from JLR. 65% of Jaguar Land Rover sales are to China, the US and the UK combined. The UK is about 20% of their sales.  That's about the same as their sales to the rest of Europe.

Imagine how the British people would feel if JLR moved operations away from the UK and cost us thousands of jobs. I for one wouldn't be swapping my JLR for another one.

 

This is all part of the continuing saga of Project Fear. Either that or it's just an attempt by JLR to get the PM to get the hell on with Brexit. If it's the latter, I'm all for it.

 

How do the British feel about the fact that Jaguar/Land Rover has already set up plants abroad instead of expanding in UK?

"Manufacturing is centred in the UK, with additional plants in China, Brazil, Austria and Slovakia."

https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2018/01/jaguar-land-rover-remains-leading-uk-car-and-engine-maker

And you don't seem to understand about supply chains. Parts can go back and forth crossing national boundaries several times. But you can be sure Jaguar/Land Rover understands:

" If the UK automotive industry is to remain globally competitive and protect 300,000 jobs in Jaguar Land Rover and our supply chain, we must retain tariff and customs-free access to trade and talent with no change to current EU regulations.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/04/jaguar-land-rovers-80bn-uk-investment-plan-at-risk-after-hard-brexit

[sandyf]

Brexiteers only want MPs to do what they are told when it suits them.

 

A group of more than 40 Eurosceptic MPs held a stormy meeting with Julian Smith, the chief whip, to warn they would not accept a deal that keeps Britain in the EU in all but name.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-customs-plan-angela-merkel-eu-talks-deal-uk-smuggling-germany-meeting-a8432251.html

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

But supply chains would only be affected for less than 20% of their market. And that's in a worst case 'no deal' scenario.

The moves to other places in Europe are for other reasons. The Slovakia plant was simply to increase production I believe. And that decision was made in 2015 - pre referendum.

 

China is the growth market for JLR sales. But it's convenient to paint their strategy as an anti-Brexit one.

 

 

That's not how supply chains work. Parts that UK factories need may be made in Slovakia. 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

There is nothing democratic or undemocratic about a referendum, they have no legal standing in the UK democratic system. There has only been 3 national referendums in the UK democratic history.

The brexit process had an extremely undemocratic start when the PM thought she could invoke Article 50 on the back of the referendum result. Does not say a great deal for her understanding of the UK democratic system, even arrogant enough to challenge the original court decision.

 

Yes, parliament did vote to trigger Article 50 with a result that was not in keeping with the referendum results. Only 114 votes against Article 50 which means that over 120 MPs voted against the will of the people in their constituency, collateral damage, it was the result the PM wanted.

The vote to trigger Article 50 was just that, and certainly did not put the matter to bed as we have seen from the continual arguments among cabinet ministers. This weekend the PM will beat their heads together until she gets the result she wants, a bit like the Withdrawal Bill. This is UK democracy in action, additional votes do not come into it when you can wield a stick.

Following the vote on Article 50 there should have been a vote in parliament over the SM and CU, then the hole wouldn't have got so deep.

 

I don’t know what you’re waffling on about, I’m not sure if you know yourself

 

*** There is nothing democratic or undemocratic about a referendum ***

Wrong, it is a democratic process, if you think it is not, please say why.

 

Everyone and his grandmother’s cat knows that a UK referendum is not legally binding.

 

Everyone knows that the government said in the advisory leaflet they sent to every household “ This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”

 

Everyone knows that pressure was put on the government not to trigger article 50 without putting it to a parliamentary vote; they did this, after a high court ruling, which is democracy working perfectly, and everyone knows the result of that vote.

 

This is how democratic process works in the UK, I fail to see why you cannot understand that; you just keep claiming that anything you disagree with suddenly becomes undemocratic, without any logical reason why. This continually recycled wailing from remainers has become very tiresome.

[Grouse]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That's not how supply chains work. Parts that UK factories need may be made in Slovakia. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/03/07/jaguar-land-rover-dependent-on-free-trade-with-eu-single-market.html

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I don’t know what you’re waffling on about, I’m not sure if you know yourself

 

*** There is nothing democratic or undemocratic about a referendum ***

Wrong, it is a democratic process, if you think it is not, please say why.

 

 

 

Although, to be truly democratic, the leaders of the respective parties must conform to the law with respect to spending; that seems to be a little bit of a sticky issue at the moment. Those laws are there for the very purpose of ensuring fairness and an uncompromised democratic process. If it is found that they have broken those laws, it throws into question the entire process - and the result.

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

On July 6th Mrs May will call her cabinet to Chequers, the prime minister’s country house, to thrash out the final details of a Brexit white paper due to be published on July 9th. Drafts are circulating around Whitehall. Insiders say its main proposal is likely to be in effect to remain in the EU’s single market for goods, but not for services. Combined with a customs union, this is sometimes known as the “Jersey” or “Isle of Man” option, as it is broadly the position of these islands today.

 

says The Economist

 

Probably the best (or least bad) compromise possible?

 

I agree. The Jersey option is the best deal, outside remaining in the EU, and it resolves the Irish problem. What the negotiating team have to do is to persuade the EU to accept the UK's compliance with single market and custom's union participation in respect of goods only, not services. That move has already been dismissed by the EU, however as cherry-picking.

 

But the retort should be, well it's the Jersey and IOM deal with the EU. 

 

  

[Eloquent pilgrim]

15 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Although, to be truly democratic, the leaders of the respective parties must conform to the law with respect to spending; that seems to be a little bit of a sticky issue at the moment. Those laws are there for the very purpose of ensuring fairness and an uncompromised democratic process. If it is found that they have broken those laws, it throws into question the entire process - and the result.

Well, the government at the time spent £9 million of taxpayers money, advising everyone in the country to vote remain, so you may well have a point 

[RuamRudy]

9 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Well, the government at the time spent £9 million of taxpayers money, advising everyone in the country to vote remain, so you may well have a point 

Maybe we recognise that the result was badly tainted by both sides and call it off?

[CG1 Blue]

Going back to the original headline:

 

"Put your cards on the table, EU makes last Brexit call to Britain"

 

The EU commission and negotiators reject out of hand every proposal put to them. They will continue to do this until the last knockings. 

They do this in the hope we will just give up and fall back into line.

They do this with confidence, knowing that Westminster is stuffed full of Remainers and that there is a concerted effort from MSM and billionaire globalists to scare the UK public.

 

Asking the UK to put it's cards on the table is a joke, and they are laughing into their expensive EU funded lunches.

 

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

 

I agree. The Jersey option is the best deal, outside remaining in the EU, and it resolves the Irish problem. What the negotiating team have to do is to persuade the EU to accept the UK's compliance with single market and custom's union participation in respect of goods only, not services. That move has already been dismissed by the EU, however as cherry-picking.

 

But the retort should be, well it's the Jersey and IOM deal with the EU. 

 

  

I don’t know much about the Jersey option to be honest.  Which of these things would the Jersey option deliver if any?

 

- We leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ

- We no longer have to contribute billions to the EU budget

- No more freedom of movement

- We no longer have to follow EU regulations

- We can strike trade deals independently with other nations

- We leave the Common Agricultural Policy

- We leave the Common Fisheries Policy

 

If it delivers all / most of them, then it might be the right compromise.

If it delivers none / few of them, then it's not leaving the EU is it?

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by CG1 Blue

[tebee]

But this is in fact the whole problem with the leave movement. They arguments are superficially sound but without a plan it's all just a pipe-dream. The problem is that they never managed to agree on a destination or what they planned to achieve by leaving the EU. Leaving the EU has become the end in itself.

 

Why Brexiters have the most to fear from a no deal Brexit

 

http://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/2018/07/why-brexiters-have-most-to-fear-from-no.html

 

He has some good points I think - even if he is a leaver.

 

TL:DR

 

He's saying that a botched forced hard brexit won't stick - we will rejoin or accept EEA soon after with worse terms than we have now.

 

He also thinks this is exactly what will happen.

 

And UK politics is broken, but brexit won't fix it.

 

'Tis worth reading