May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[sandyf]

It would appear for many that the brexit concept hinges on a collapse of the EU. This wishful thinking is obviously necessary to validate an irresponsible vote.

What would be the outcome of such a collapse, almost certain to lead to chaos and conflict.

Maybe one outcome, the UK prospers on selling arms to a ready made market on their doorstep. People should be a little bit careful about what they wish for.

 

The EU is far from perfect but there has been European peace in my lifetime, how can people want to put that in jeopardy. Fortunately there is every chance I will not be around to see the end result.

[AlexRich]

9 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I think you will find that a few posters have also mentioned that the man was mentally ill. If you go back and read it you will see. It would seem that you won't admit the fact even when every newspaper from all sides of the political spectrum also state it.  The only embarrassment is your own denial.

 

I've constantly referred to Mair as an 'unhinged' man ... what denial are you referring to? An unhinged man pushed to commit a violent act when the nastiness and xenophobia of the referendum had hit its peak. That's the problem with dangerous rhetoric, you don't know who might be influenced enough to act on it ... Mair thought he was striking a blow for "Britain First" ... a deluded lunatic pushed over the edge by a nasty xenophobic campaign.

 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

If my memory serves me right the memo was commenting on the business world's realisation that the government are concerned only about their own political futures and had no strategy in place for Brexit? It never claimed to be a statement from Government ... they are not likely to admit that.

 

Your memory plays you false; it was a memo putting forward one person's views and opinions on the task facing the government with no input or authorisation from any government department.. As Deloitte have subsequently admitted.

Quote

Tonight Deloitte issued a statement admitting its report was not done at the behest of ministers and represents its personal view.

“This was a note intended primarily for internal audiences,” said a spokesperson for the firm, which is frequently contracted to undertake government work.

“It was not commissioned by the Cabinet Office, nor any other government department, and represents a view of the task facing Whitehall. (7by7 emphasis)

“This work was conducted without access to No10 or input from any other government departments.”

(source)

 

This is not what was originally claimed when the memo was leaked: the claim at that time being that a consultant working for the Cabinet Office produced the memo, which is titled Brexit Update and dated 7 November (source); that was a lie.

 

19 hours ago, AlexRich said:

As for negotiating, I don't think parliament are looking for what concessions they are planning to make ... merely what is their aim with these negotiations ... because it pretty much looks like they are going for the most extreme version of Brexit, and they want to force that through without any scrutiny of what the possible implications are. So let's hope the Supreme Court forces their hand. 

 

Of course the Cabinet, not Parliament at this stage, is looking at what their aim is with these negotiations; that aim being what is the best possible deal for the UK and how to achieve it! Parliament will have a role to play once a deal has been struck as that deal will require their approval. 

 

But any deal will also need the approval of the other 27, and if they don't agree to a deal then the 'hard Brexit' option is all we will be left with!

 

As for the Supreme Court; they will rule on whether the decision of the High Court was correct or not. That decision was that Parliament must approve the triggering of Article 50. It made no ruling on what terms the government should or should not accept nor that the government should reveal it's negotiating position in advance.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, sandyf said:

Quite. There is a huge difference between.

Leave the EU, and remain with the single market/customs union.  and

Leave the EU, and also separate from the single market/customs union.

 

A percentage of the people voted to leave and trusted the government to arrange the 'best' outcome. Obviously that trust was misplaced as the government has now damaged the UK beyond repair.

It is really now a question of damage limitation.

 

The government are, I believe, trying to arrange the best outcome for the UK. Why do you believe otherwise?

 

Don't say it's because May wont state her negotiating position; as stated earlier, only a fool would do that in advance of the actual negotiations.

 

Many of those who voted to leave believed that we could retain all the advantages of membership and merely ditch the disadvantages; they were fools. There is no way that the other 27 would ever agree to that; as evidenced by the terms of the deals with the other EEA states and Switzerland.

[SheungWan]

58 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It would appear for many that the brexit concept hinges on a collapse of the EU. This wishful thinking is obviously necessary to validate an irresponsible vote.

What would be the outcome of such a collapse, almost certain to lead to chaos and conflict.

Maybe one outcome, the UK prospers on selling arms to a ready made market on their doorstep. People should be a little bit careful about what they wish for.

 

The EU is far from perfect but there has been European peace in my lifetime, how can people want to put that in jeopardy. Fortunately there is every chance I will not be around to see the end result.

 

The hard Brexit position is primarily one of expectation not wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is, well, wishful thinking, but expectation is a political and economic perspective which requires addressing. If one does then the Brexiteer expectation of imminent EU collapse dictates to Theresa May that there is no need to cut any (soft brexit) deals with the EU but rather merely sign Article 50 asap and run for the hills. Apocalyptic? Sure. But that is the argument to have with them, not mislabeling their position as one of 'wishing'.

 

 

[SheungWan]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The government are, I believe, trying to arrange the best outcome for the UK. Why do you believe otherwise?

 

Don't say it's because May wont state her negotiating position; as stated earlier, only a fool would do that in advance of the actual negotiations.

 

Many of those who voted to leave believed that we could retain all the advantages of membership and merely ditch the disadvantages; they were fools. There is no way that the other 27 would ever agree to that; as evidenced by the terms of the deals with the other EEA states and Switzerland.

 

The Brexiteers on this thread have remarkably chameleon type qualities. One minutes they will argue that the EU is dead and no deals are required and then the next minute Theresa May is negotiating the best deal she can and it is all going to end in smiles. Shallow? Yes they are, but one needs to appreciate that economics is not their first and primary objective. Actually it is a sacrificial lamb to throw under the train in pursuit of a nationalist objective. The confusion arises from their need to hide the larger objective with whatever tools are at hand.

[Johnyo]

Wouldn't be surprised if Brexit eventually became irrelevant as the U.K. becomes a deserted Island. I mean who with any sense would want to live where the below is happening.

Now that is what I call taking back control... but not by the people.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[SheungWan]

3 hours ago, Johnyo said:

Wouldn't be surprised if Brexit eventually became irrelevant as the U.K. becomes a deserted Island. I mean who with any sense would want to live where the below is happening.

Now that is what I call taking back control... but not by the people.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

It would appear that the anti-Brexit side are just as capable as the pro-Brexit side of introducing their pet irrelevancies into the discussion.

[Johnyo]

 
It would appear that the anti-Brexit side are just as capable as the pro-Brexit side of introducing their pet irrelevancies into the discussion.

Brexit has monopolised the media to such an extent that such an important violation to basic human rights has gone completely unnoticed. It won't be the only one. Expect big decisions to be buried under the Brexit noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[SheungWan]

1 minute ago, Johnyo said:

 

Brexit has monopolised the media to such an extent that such an important violation to basic human rights has gone completely unnoticed. It won't be the only one. Expect big decisions to be buried under the Brexit noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Give me a break.

[AlexRich]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Your memory plays you false; it was a memo putting forward one person's views and opinions on the task facing the government with no input or authorisation from any government department.. As Deloitte have subsequently admitted.

 

This is not what was originally claimed when the memo was leaked: the claim at that time being that a consultant working for the Cabinet Office produced the memo, which is titled Brexit Update and dated 7 November (source); that was a lie.

 

 

Of course the Cabinet, not Parliament at this stage, is looking at what their aim is with these negotiations; that aim being what is the best possible deal for the UK and how to achieve it! Parliament will have a role to play once a deal has been struck as that deal will require their approval. 

 

But any deal will also need the approval of the other 27, and if they don't agree to a deal then the 'hard Brexit' option is all we will be left with!

 

As for the Supreme Court; they will rule on whether the decision of the High Court was correct or not. That decision was that Parliament must approve the triggering of Article 50. It made no ruling on what terms the government should or should not accept nor that the government should reveal it's negotiating position in advance.

 

The Deloite's view is a corporate view based on their understanding of Government thinking and their knowledge of business opinions in the face of Brexit. It is not the view of an unnamed individual. Given they are insiders to government and business it is a credible document. As stated earlier, they are not some random guy in the street. And what is important is the opinion expressed .... no Brexit plan and a government more interested in its own survival. The best deal for Britain may well be one that would not resonate well with the organisations that backed May for Prime Minister, for example the Daily Mail, who ran denigrating stories on her rival and no doubt had a hand in the Johnson sabotage. May is a hostage to her new "friends", so we have no guarantee that a government looking to stay in power will actually negotiate a deal that is best for Britain, the fear is that they will negotiate a deal that harms the UK's business interests but keeps them in power. If May compromises on controlled immigration for better market access that may well be the best deal for the U.K., but not for her Government. And that's why the Government should be open to parliamentary scrutiny. Otherwise it's just "trust me, I'm a politician". And given the rogues and chancers on her Brexit team that is simply not good enough. 

[AlexRich]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The government are, I believe, trying to arrange the best outcome for the UK. Why do you believe otherwise?

 

Don't say it's because May wont state her negotiating position; as stated earlier, only a fool would do that in advance of the actual negotiations.

 

Many of those who voted to leave believed that we could retain all the advantages of membership and merely ditch the disadvantages; they were fools. There is no way that the other 27 would ever agree to that; as evidenced by the terms of the deals with the other EEA states and Switzerland.

 

You fail to acknowledge that the Government may just look for a deal that keeps them in power, irrespective of whether it harms the economic interests of the country or not? We should put our trust in the serial liar Boris Johnson, mediocre David Davis and the ludicrous zealot Liam Fox. As for May, she'll argue any point of view that keeps her in power. The best deal for that lot is not necessarily the best deal for the U.K., and that's why we need to put them under parliamentary scrutiny.

[Johnyo]

 
Give me a break.

A Kit Kat I will give you.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Grouse]

All this "not showing your hand" business is nonsense. It's not 3 card brag or even contract bridge. We're not negotiating the sale of a second hand car.

 

Best policy is candour. It's not a zero sum game. We should discuss the situation openly, firstly in parliament and then with our EU friends. Going on like this makes us look foolish and gets people's backs up.

[7by7]

43 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

You fail to acknowledge that the Government may just look for a deal that keeps them in power, irrespective of whether it harms the economic interests of the country or not? We should put our trust in the serial liar Boris Johnson, mediocre David Davis and the ludicrous zealot Liam Fox. As for May, she'll argue any point of view that keeps her in power. The best deal for that lot is not necessarily the best deal for the U.K., and that's why we need to put them under parliamentary scrutiny.

 

The more you post the more obvious it becomes that you are using a now completely discredited memo to expound a view which is based more upon your hatred of the present government in general and Mrs. May in particular than upon the realities of negotiating a post Brexit deal between the UK and EU.

 

What you are failing to acknowledge is that the final deal achieved between the government and the EU will come under Parliamentary scrutiny in the so called "Great Reform Bill" which will be required to repeal all the relevant Acts of Parliament and other legislation relating to the UK's EU membership from the European Communities Act 1972 onwards.

 

Try a new tactic; everyone knows that by continuing to concentrate on this memo you are merely

 

 

[7by7]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

All this "not showing your hand" business is nonsense. It's not 3 card brag or even contract bridge. We're not negotiating the sale of a second hand car.

 

Best policy is candour. It's not a zero sum game. We should discuss the situation openly, firstly in parliament and then with our EU friends. Going on like this makes us look foolish and gets people's backs up.

 

The only way of obtaining the best possible deal in any negotiation is to keep your cards close to your chest, if you'll forgive the analogy; not to reveal beforehand what you are prepared to accept.

 

You can bet your life, if you'll forgive the gambling analogy, that the other 27 will not be revealing beforehand the concessions they are prepared to make in order to achieve a deal.

[AlexRich]

56 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The more you post the more obvious it becomes that you are using a now completely discredited memo to expound a view which is based more upon your hatred of the present government in general and Mrs. May in particular than upon the realities of negotiating a post Brexit deal between the UK and EU.

 

What you are failing to acknowledge is that the final deal achieved between the government and the EU will come under Parliamentary scrutiny in the so called "Great Reform Bill" which will be required to repeal all the relevant Acts of Parliament and other legislation relating to the UK's EU membership from the European Communities Act 1972 onwards.

 

Try a new tactic; everyone knows that by continuing to concentrate on this memo you are merely

 

 

 

The 'content' of the Deloitte memo ... no Brexit plan and a government more concerned about it's own political future than the future of the country ... is in no way discredited. You are merely using a 'smoke and mirrors' argument, namely that it was not a Cabinet memo, as originally stated, to distract attention away from the point made by Deloitte's. Deloitte's are one of the biggest audit and consultancy practices in the world, with direct access to Government and big business, so they are certainly a 'credible' outfit ... and if that is their thoughts on where we are with Brexit we should sit up and take notice of it.

 

The fact that it was not a 'Cabinet memo' is a 'red herring' and completely irrelevant ... when a firm of their standing make those sort of comments, whether for internal or external consumption, those comments have credibility. You can't simply dismiss them because The Times got their story wrong on the original source of the document. 

 

 

[nontabury]

8 hours ago, Johnyo said:

 

Brexit has monopolised the media to such an extent that such an important violation to basic human rights has gone completely unnoticed. It won't be the only one. Expect big decisions to be buried under the Brexit noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

  Are you referring to the Corporate Media?

[nontabury]

6 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The only way of obtaining the best possible deal in any negotiation is to keep your cards close to your chest, if you'll forgive the analogy; not to reveal beforehand what you are prepared to accept.

 

You can bet your life, if you'll forgive the gambling analogy, that the other 27 will not be revealing beforehand the concessions they are prepared to make in order to achieve a deal.

 

  Correct. It just shows those who have never been in business. 

[SgtRock]

Apparently it is all academic. The EU and Europe's so called leaders are so sh!t scared of what is happening across the EU that they have now declared:

 

Quote

Europe’s leaders to force Britain into hard Brexit

 

Quote

European leaders have come to a 27-nation consensus that a “hard Brexit” is likely to be the only way to see off future populist insurgencies, which could lead to the break-up of the European Union.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/19/europes-leaders-force-uk-hard-brexit-farage-le-pen

 

Their collective heads are jammed so far up their collective @sses that they cannot see, or admit that by then it will be too late. 

 

Whatever your thoughts on May are, she has played a blinder by delaying the triggering of A50. 

 

By October 2017 the political landscape of the EU will be a totally different animal.

 

Let me remind you.

 

Brexit will never happen. It did and will.

 

Trump will never be POTUS. Barring an unfortunate accident he will be in January.

[jimmybkk]

11 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

Give me a break.

 

Did you even look at that Guardian article?

 

"The Investigatory Powers Act, passed on Thursday, legalises a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services unmatched by any other country in western Europe or even the US."

 

Does that not concern you at all?

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, jimmybkk said:

 

Did you even look at that Guardian article?

 

"The Investigatory Powers Act, passed on Thursday, legalises a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services unmatched by any other country in western Europe or even the US."

 

Does that not concern you at all?

 

It concerns me ... and when the internet of things extends to toilets, we'll have the government monitoring you every time you go for a dump!

 

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, jimmybkk said:

 

Did you even look at that Guardian article?

 

"The Investigatory Powers Act, passed on Thursday, legalizes a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services unmatched by any other country in western Europe or even the US."

 

Does that not concern you at all?

 

Nah !! ...... It's always been available there just making it legal.  

[AlexRich]

3 hours ago, SgtRock said:

Apparently it is all academic. The EU and Europe's so called leaders are so sh!t scared of what is happening across the EU that they have now declared:

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/19/europes-leaders-force-uk-hard-brexit-farage-le-pen

 

Their collective heads are jammed so far up their collective @sses that they cannot see, or admit that by then it will be too late. 

 

Whatever your thoughts on May are, she has played a blinder by delaying the triggering of A50. 

 

By October 2017 the political landscape of the EU will be a totally different animal.

 

Let me remind you.

 

Brexit will never happen. It did and will.

 

Trump will never be POTUS. Barring an unfortunate accident he will be in January.

 

One of the central Remain arguments used on another thread (now closed) was that the UK would not get a good deal because it was not in the interests of the Europeans to do so ... as it would encourage other countries to seek to "have their cake and eat it" ... pretty much as detailed above.

 

So we have a bit of 'revisionist history' from our 'post-truth' interlocutors on the Brexit side ... many of whom previously stated that the EU would not dare take this approach ... because of German cars, prosecco ... and other such nonsense that was shoved down the throats of the electorate. 

 

One argument that is proving to be wrong, many more to come!

 

 

 

 

[SgtRock]

58 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

One of the central Remain arguments used on another thread (now closed) was that the UK would not get a good deal because it was not in the interests of the Europeans to do so ... as it would encourage other countries to seek to "have their cake and eat it" ... pretty much as detailed above.

 

So we have a bit of 'revisionist history' from our 'post-truth' interlocutors on the Brexit side ... many of whom previously stated that the EU would not dare take this approach ... because of German cars, prosecco ... and other such nonsense that was shoved down the throats of the electorate. 

 

One argument that is proving to be wrong, many more to come!

 

 

 

 

 

You should have tried reading the article.

 

It is not about others wanting to '' have their cake and eat it '' this goes much further and is talking about the demise of the EU.

 

Specifically referring to the rise of '' Populist movements''

 

Quote

The hardening line in EU capitals comes as Nigel Farage warns European leaders that Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, could deliver a political sensation bigger than Brexit and win France’s presidential election next spring – a result that would mean it was “game over” for 60 years of EU integration.

 

Quote

Le Pen has made clear she wants to take France out of the euro and the EU.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/19/europes-leaders-force-uk-hard-brexit-farage-le-pen

 

Now, I can fully understand the Eurocrats of the EU being desperado's in trying to maintain their feeding trough.

 

Sadly, they are so blind to what is actually happening within the EU it just reinforces my thoughts that not one of them is capable of holding whichever office they happen to be holding.

 

The article is not about trade deals, who will get what, who will get shafted. This is, as I have stated many times, the death throes of the EU as we currently know it.

 

One more Jihadi spectacular in either France or Germany, prior to their upcoming elections and it is game over. Politicians will stay well clear of mentioning this for obvious reasons. I am willing to wager somewhere during the Christmas period there will be a single, or a series of booms.

 

One last point.

 

Any organisation, including the EU, that allows up to euro 120,000 expenses PA, without as much as a receipt, is corrupt to the core. Even more so when it is public funds that it is being handed out in expenses.

Edited November 20, 2016 by SgtRock

[AlexRich]

3 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

You should have tried reading the article.

 

It is not about others wanting to '' have their cake and eat it '' this goes much further and is talking about the demise of the EU.

 

Specifically referring to the rise of '' Populist movements''

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/19/europes-leaders-force-uk-hard-brexit-farage-le-pen

 

Now, I can fully understand the Eurocrats of the EU being desperado's in trying to maintain their feeding trough.

 

Sadly, they are so blind to what is actually happening within the EU it just reinforces my thoughts that not one of them is capable of holding whichever office they happen to be holding.

 

The article is not about trade deals, who will get what, who will get shafted. This is, as I have stated many times, the death throes of the EU as we currently know it.

 

One more Jihadi spectacular in either France or Germany, prior to their upcoming elections and it is game over. Politicians will stay well clear of mentioning this for obvious reasons. I am willing to wager somewhere during the Christmas period there will be a single, or a series of booms.

 

One last point.

 

Any organisation, including the EU, that allows up to euro 120,000 expenses PA, without as much as a receipt, is corrupt to the core. Even more so when it is public funds that it is being handed out in expenses.

 

My point was that the future of the EU is much more important to the EU politicians than the loss of a few car or prosecco sales to the UK. They will sacrifice economic interests for their own political interests. Why? Because they do not want other countries to leave the EU. The economic impact of that scenario would be far greater and more damaging.

 

On the other thread, many Brexit supporters seemed to believe that economic interests would force the EU to compromise ... if you like ... the "they need us more than we need them". That argument looks to have fallen flat on its face.

 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, SgtRock said:

Apparently it is all academic. The EU and Europe's so called leaders are so sh!t scared of what is happening across the EU that they have now declared:

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/19/europes-leaders-force-uk-hard-brexit-farage-le-pen

 

Their collective heads are jammed so far up their collective @sses that they cannot see, or admit that by then it will be too late. 

 

Whatever your thoughts on May are, she has played a blinder by delaying the triggering of A50. 

 

By October 2017 the political landscape of the EU will be a totally different animal.

 

Let me remind you.

 

Brexit will never happen. It did and will.

 

Trump will never be POTUS. Barring an unfortunate accident he will be in January.

Not sure May "played a blinder" - it was common sense to let the markets calm down before activating Article 50.

 

Consequently it became obvious that the population of other EU countries felt emboldened by Brexit, and that other anti-EU parties may come to power in the near future.

 

IMO this may be a 'good' thing - if the EU elite finally accept that the EU needs to drastically reform.  But I'd bet money that any reforms don't change their overpaid salaries/pensions etc. etc.  

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, jimmybkk said:

 

Did you even look at that Guardian article?

 

"The Investigatory Powers Act, passed on Thursday, legalises a whole range of tools for snooping and hacking by the security services unmatched by any other country in western Europe or even the US."

 

Does that not concern you at all?

Would it be possible to start a thread about this in the 'Home Country' forum?

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The government are, I believe, trying to arrange the best outcome for the UK. Why do you believe otherwise?

 

Don't say it's because May wont state her negotiating position; as stated earlier, only a fool would do that in advance of the actual negotiations.

 

Many of those who voted to leave believed that we could retain all the advantages of membership and merely ditch the disadvantages; they were fools. There is no way that the other 27 would ever agree to that; as evidenced by the terms of the deals with the other EEA states and Switzerland.

Your maths are obviously weak, you only seem to understand tangents.

I made no comment on what the government are trying to arrange or what I believe in that respect.

Do not make things up in order to push your own theories.

[SgtRock]

9 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

My point was that the future of the EU is much more important to the EU politicians than the loss of a few car or prosecco sales to the UK. They will sacrifice economic interests for their own political interests. Why? Because they do not want other countries to leave the EU. The economic impact of that scenario would be far greater and more damaging.

 

On the other thread, many Brexit supporters seemed to believe that economic interests would force the EU to compromise ... if you like ... the "they need us more than we need them". That argument looks to have fallen flat on its face.

 

 

 

 

Your point is missing the whole point of the article.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/19/europes-leaders-force-uk-hard-brexit-farage-le-pen

 

If those EUrocrats do not extract their craniums from their posteriors there is not going to be an EU for them to worry about their own political interests. The economic impact will be the least of their worries.

 

If you cannot, or are unwilling to see that. Good luck to you.