Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Fox Ulike]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

As I've said, what has changed from the Lancaster house speech? 

 

The position is FOM ends, we leave the SM, we leave the customs union and seek a new arrangement that is bespoke. 

 

That has been consistent, the only change in policy has been the transition period.

Fine. See I told you it was straight-forward!

 

So it's the new arrangement that appears to be the sticking point.  Will we have to pay tarrifs to import/export to Europe? I thought you had said before that we would still have free trade with the EU - or have I got you confused with a different poster?

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

I’m really not.

 

I voted Remain, but to be honest it was touch-and-go. My view is that if the Leavers actually showed any vision about how the promises that they made were going to be delivered, then I would be fine with that.

 

But now I don’t know who to believe. MattP is telling me it’s all been worked out by Boris and in a book he’s read – but you’re contradicting him and telling me it’s wooly and obviously so.

 

Who’s right?

 

Ive not read the book but any economic plan will have ambiguity, as it relies on information not yet known and not completely in our hands. Any brexit deal requires both sides to agree.

[Fox Ulike]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Ive not read the book but any economic plan will have ambiguity, as it relies on information not yet known and not completely in our hands. Any brexit deal requires both sides to agree.

True. However, a lot of Leavers are of the opinion that they knew "exactly what they were voting for". What would you say to those people?

 

Also, Since Brexit was decided by a referendum, do you think it makes sense for the Brexit Deal to be approved by the same method?

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

True. However, a lot of Leavers are of the opinion that they knew "exactly what they were voting for". What would you say to those people?

 

Also, Since Brexit was decided by a referendum, do you think it makes sense for the Brexit Deal to be approved by the same method?

Well you can know what you were voting for, if a) the economic model is of no concern to you or b) you want a no deal.

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

True. However, a lot of Leavers are of the opinion that they knew "exactly what they were voting for". What would you say to those people?

 

Also, Since Brexit was decided by a referendum, do you think it makes sense for the Brexit Deal to be approved by the same method?

Sorry on your last point, im happy for parliament to vote on it but wouldnt be against a referendum. The options would be, take the deal or leave on WTO terms i would imagine and i already know which way i would vote.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

If the German press is to be believe they have demanded upward of 70 billion without even providing a remit of what it's for.

 

We've made an offer, the EU has done nothing yet you are so obsessed with criticising our own government you are still siding with them.

 

I'll ask again, would you just pay what they ask with no guarantee on trade?

Maybe I need to write slower for you. The. EU. Has. Not. Asked. For. A. Specific. Amount. Or. A. figure. From. Us.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

And you do realise that capital flight will take hold before we leave the EU if no deal looks likely don't you? Multinationals won't be waiting to see if we can make it work after we've left - they'll have plans to move before March 2019 if we aren't moving towards a deal by next Spring. Johnson, Gove, Farage and every single Brexit voter should be getting extremely nervous. 

 

Maybe the govt should prepare for a run on the pound... 

 

..you know, just in case. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Maybe the govt should prepare for a run on the pound... 

 

..you know, just in case. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Maybe I need to write slower for you. The. EU. Has. Not. Asked. For. A. Specific. Amount. Or. A. figure. From. Us.

Not officially, but they have leaked figures, that's what they do, they don't officially ask for things, they use shady methods to do it through the press so they can impress people like you across the continent and try to make it appear they are being reasonable, we have made an offer of 20 billion, they have turned it down, we have then asked for a remit of what they want, they respond to that with more intransigence and claiming the ball is in our court.

 

The government is at some fault, they have already made too many concessions and we have looked weak, hopefully the talk now of planning for "no deal" will give some urgency to the other side as well as ours, we have to show this is a serious option for us even if we privately don't believe it.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Not officially, but they have leaked figures, that's what they do, they don't officially ask for things, they use shady methods to do it through the press so they can impress people like you across the continent and try to make it appear they are being reasonable, we have made an offer of 20 billion, they have turned it down, we have then asked for a remit of what they want, they respond to that with more intransigence and claiming the ball is in our court.

 

The government is at some fault, they have already made too many concessions and we have looked weak, hopefully the talk now of planning for "no deal" will give some urgency to the other side as well as ours, we have to show this is a serious option for us even if we privately don't believe it.

The EU paper dealing with 'the divorce bill' (or as anyone sensible would see it 'our liabilities')

 

What we need to tell them is where we disagree. So where do you disagree?

 

 

financial-settlement-essential-principles-draft-position-paper_en (1).pdf

[Guest MattP]

36 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The EU paper dealing with 'the divorce bill' (or as anyone sensible would see it 'our liabilities')

 

What we need to tell them is where we disagree. So where do you disagree?

 

 

financial-settlement-essential-principles-draft-position-paper_en (1).pdf

I'm not a lawyer, but that's the exact document that was supposedly shredded by our negotiation team in front of Barnier - our obligations are only there to adhere to if the EU adheres to their commitments to us as well.

 

I'll ask one last time, what would you offer and would you offer it before any trade guarantee was given?

[Vacamion]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

We've made an offer, the EU has done nothing yet you are so obsessed with criticising our own government you are still siding with them.

 

I see this tactic deployed a lot recently by hardcore brexiteers.

 

If you question the direction of travel (even when the destination is over the cliff edge) you are somehow “unpatriotic”.

 

It reminds me of the Scottish Nats.

 

It is deeply divisive and morally wrong.  As if the country wasn’t divided enough, I would hope that the argument doesn’t descend into flag waving and face painting.

 

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Six questions from Corbyn today at PMQ's and not one on Brexit. 

 

It's painful to see a bigger Brexiteer on the Labour front bench than the Tory one, go now May. 

 

We would be in a far stronger position if both parties were led by leavers instead of one.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Vacamion said:

I see this tactic deployed a lot recently by hardcore brexiteers.

 

If you question the direction of travel (even when the destination is over the cliff edge) you are somehow “unpatriotic”.

 

It reminds me of the Scottish Nats.

 

It is deeply divisive and morally wrong.  As if the country wasn’t divided enough, I would hope that the argument doesn’t descend into flag waving and face painting.

I didn't say anyone was unpatriotic, you can be patriotic and vote leave, you can be patriotic and vote remain. 

 

There are a small minority though that side with the EU on every single part of this negotiation no matter his unreasonable, people like Nick Clegg and they need to be called out for what they are doing, trying to sabotage their own government.

[Guest Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Six questions from Corbyn today at PMQ's and not one on Brexit. 

 

It's painful to see a bigger Brexiteer on the Labour front bench than the Tory one, go now May. 

 

We would be in a far stronger position if both parties were led by leavers instead of one.

 

Oh leave off it. Ignoring the fact its a nonsense assertion that both parties need to be led by a leaver, which leaver could possibly step up to become prime minister?

 

I enjoyed PMQs today, May knocked Corbyn for six after the last question, it was Cameron-like without the slimy charisma.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

Oh leave off it. Ignoring the fact its a nonsense assertion that both parties need to be led by a leaver, which leaver could possibly step up to become prime minister?

 

I enjoyed PMQs today, May knocked Corbyn for six after the last question, it was Cameron-like without the slimy charisma.

I said it would put us in a stronger position. 

 

Rees-Mogg, Gove, Raab, Cleverly are all potential leaders, whether they are electable is up for debate but they are all more competent than the opposition leader.

 

I don't think May even wants to do this anymore.

[Guest Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I said it would put us in a stronger position. 

 

Rees-Mogg, Gove, Raab, Cleverly are all potential leaders, whether they are electable is up for debate but they are all more competent than the opposition leader.

 

I don't think May even wants to do this anymore.

 

The idea that Cleverly, an MP of just over two years with no ministerial experience, would put us in a stronger position as prime minister is borderline insanity. I'm unsure what JRM has actually done to convince that he is a potential leader, his potential comes from some kids on Facebook making memes. The other two, particularly the former, might well be decent options but similarly Gove can't take you into an election. 

 

May is probably the best person for Brexit because, as I saw LK mention, she is an administrator. The problem for the Conservatives is she won't just administrate Brexit and they can't get rid of her because a)time is ticking and b)there isn't anyone suitable to take over. They need to stop her doing anything major that isn't Brexit and swiftly dispose of her at the back end of 2019. 

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

The idea that Cleverly, an MP of just over two years with no ministerial experience, would put us in a stronger position as prime minister is borderline insanity. I'm unsure what JRM has actually done to convince that he is a potential leader, his potential comes from some kids on Facebook making memes. The other two, particularly the former, might well be decent options but similarly Gove can't take you into an election. 

 

May is probably the best person for Brexit because, as I saw LK mention, she is an administrator. The problem for the Conservatives is she won't just administrate Brexit and they can't get rid of her because a)time is ticking and b)there isn't anyone suitable to take over. They need to stop her doing anything major that isn't Brexit and swiftly dispose of her at the back end of 2019. 

We live in quite a different time now, Corbyn is a possible next Prime Minister and he's never held a cabinet or shadow position before elected. 

 

Cameron came to parliament in 2001 and was opposition leader in 2005 just a year or so after being promoted to the front bench.

 

I understand the point of view to hold out on May but it feels like the party is dying in the same way Labour were under Brown. Two years of speculation which we'll get could do irreversible damage.

[Captain...]

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I'll ask one last time, what would you offer and would you offer it before any trade guarantee was given?

Nobody can answer that we do not know the intricacies and neither do you, it is very doubtful if one single person knows all the ins and outs of the EU and the consequences.

 

With regard trade guarantees, I see your point, but it's a chicken and egg situation. We don't want to commit to giving them X amount of cash before knowing the full terms and what benefits we will see of honouring our commitments. Likewise they do not want to concede anything on trade until the money is secured up front. The other option is negotiate each point and the financial settlement with caveats on every other point, which would be time consuming. Rightly or wrongly these negotiations would have progressed much quicker if we had agreed to the divorce bill in principle then argued it down in each subsequent negotiation on the specifics.

 

The other approach would be to say where do our current  financial commitments take us up to? Lets say 2022 for example. Then we enter a transitional period until then. Any further financial obligations we pay our proportionate amount until 2022 then we can leave, for example a 4 year financial commitment in 2020 we would only pay half to take us to 2022.

 

What is most frustrating about all of this is we could have probably  figured a lot this out before we triggered article 50 so we could go into the negotiations prepared, rather than looking clueless. We could have worked out our divorce bill and then compared it to theirs and seen where there was common ground and where there was disagreement.

[Izzy]

E I E I E I O

 

Everybody wants TM to go

 

But she is strong and stable, and says she will not quit,

 

She’s going nowhere, she’s going nowhere 

 

So you’d better get used to it!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I'm not a lawyer, but that's the exact document that was supposedly shredded by our negotiation team in front of Barnier - our obligations are only there to adhere to if the EU adheres to their commitments to us as well.

 

I'll ask one last time, what would you offer and would you offer it before any trade guarantee was given?

I'd determine what I thought was a fair method of calculating our liability and set it out. This would include some of the EU expectations, not others, and bits of some. We don't need to agree it just be getting close to an agreed methodology. The fact is you've claimed that the EU are refusing to set out what they want when they did just that! It is the UK playing games. You can't even go one day without government minister's taking different positions or trying to threaten the EU. 

 

Your head is most firmly in the sand if you believe that the EU should start offering us trade deals without us even being prepared to say we'll stick to out financial commitments. We've got legal advice papers in the Lord's saying we can walk away without paying (though the matter would be arbitrated in the Hague) and keep threatening no deal but you expect the EU to take us seriously and trust us? We're behaving like Donald Trump with the US's various trade deals. This isn't about siding with the EU over the UK, it's about being totally embarrassed by the pig's ear the government are making of this negotiation. 

 

Shout all you like about putting the ball in the EU's court but if we end up with no deal expecting Trump's America to give us a fair deal we are truly ****ed as a country.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Not officially, but they have leaked figures, that's what they do, they don't officially ask for things, they use shady methods to do it through the press so they can impress people like you across the continent and try to make it appear they are being reasonable, we have made an offer of 20 billion, they have turned it down, we have then asked for a remit of what they want, they respond to that with more intransigence and claiming the ball is in our court.

 

The government is at some fault, they have already made too many concessions and we have looked weak, hopefully the talk now of planning for "no deal" will give some urgency to the other side as well as ours, we have to show this is a serious option for us even if we privately don't believe it.

I doubt the talks of no deal will do anything.  She started from that position, ran an election on that position and it got nowhere.

 

We have to face the reality that the EU are not interested in doing a deal with us.  As far as they're concerned, no deal and us in turmoil is a pretty good position for them and to be honest from a purely objective point of view, I cant blame them.  We're leaving so why would they make any concessions to us at all.

 

Farage is probably right on this.  Leaving immediately, not paying anything and taking our chances is the best way to go now.  The longer it goes on just weakens our position when it comes to trying to do trade deals when we do finally leave.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

35 minutes ago, Captain... said:

What is most frustrating about all of this is we could have probably  figured a lot this out before we triggered article 50 so we could go into the negotiations prepared, rather than looking clueless. We could have worked out our divorce bill and then compared it to theirs and seen where there was common ground and where there was disagreement.

Pretty sure the position of virtually everyone was that nothing could be negotiated at all until Article 50 was triggered.

 

We couldn't even talk about reciprocal migrants rights until we had done so sadly so I think it was optimistic for us to imagine a situation where we could compare a divorce bill.

 

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'd determine what I thought was a fair method of calculating our liability and set it out. This would include some of the EU expectations, not others, and bits of some. We don't need to agree it just be getting close to an agreed methodology. The fact is you've claimed that the EU are refusing to set out what they want when they did just that! It is the UK playing games. You can't even go one day without government minister's taking different positions or trying to threaten the EU. 

 

Your head is most firmly in the sand if you believe that the EU should start offering us trade deals without us even being prepared to say we'll stick to out financial commitments. We've got legal advice papers in the Lord's saying we can walk away without paying (though the matter would be arbitrated in the Hague) and keep threatening no deal but you expect the EU to take us seriously and trust us? We're behaving like Donald Trump with the US's various trade deals. This isn't about siding with the EU over the UK, it's about being totally embarrassed by the pig's ear the government are making of this negotiation. 

 

Shout all you like about putting the ball in the EU's court but if we end up with no deal expecting Trump's America to give us a fair deal we are truly ****ed as a country.

I'm not being so ridiculous I think that a trade deal should be on the table before we agree a settlement, but I also don't think a settlement should be on the table before we have spoken about trade, I think it would be far more sensible for all sides if all the negotiations ran concurrent with each other, I see no reason why an open and shut case should be needed for each stage to progress to the next, it should be allowed to develop as it goes on.

 

I don't think that's an unreasonable position at all. I was negotiating last week about a sponsorship payment with a company and naturally they wanted guarantees about how many customers I would provide before they released funds - they wouldn't have tolerated me demanding money up front with no guarantee, no business would, it's leaving yourself open to being shafted.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Pretty sure the position of virtually everyone was that nothing could be negotiated at all until Article 50 was triggered.

 

We couldn't even talk about reciprocal migrants rights until we had done so sadly so I think it was optimistic for us to imagine a situation where we could compare a divorce bill.

 

I'm not being so ridiculous I think that a trade deal should be on the table before we agree a settlement, but I also don't think a settlement should be on the table before we have spoken about trade, I think it would be far more sensible for all sides if all the negotiations ran concurrent with each other, I see no reason why an open and shut case should be needed for each stage to progress to the next, it should be allowed to develop as it goes on.

 

I don't think that's an unreasonable position at all. I was negotiating last week about a sponsorship payment with a company and naturally they wanted guarantees about how many customers I would provide before they released funds - they wouldn't have tolerated me demanding money up front with no guarantee, no business would, it's leaving yourself open to being shafted.

Your business dealings have precisely **** all similarity to supra-national trade deals and the unpicking of 40 years of political union. 

[Captain...]

Just now, MattP said:

Pretty sure the position of virtually everyone was that nothing could be negotiated at all until Article 50 was triggered.

I'm talking about negotiating anything, I'm talking about getting our house in order, deciding where we thought we had financial commitments, both owed and owing and what we would do with them. Which ones we would honour and what benefit we would expect to receive for honouring them and which ones we would dispute and why. Basically planning thoroughly for this negotiation, instead of posturing about "no deal" and "bloody difficult woman" and dicking about with a pointless general election.

 

It is basic negotiating practice, decide the best case scenario, settlement position, fall back position and no go position and decide your top priorities, what you will negotiate on and what you won't and prioritise certain points and what you are willing to trade off with. The EU are in some way scuppering this by refusing to discuss anything other than the divorce settlement, but nobody said this would be easy when we voted for it. We just seem woefully unprepapred.