Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Lionator said:

And this is why this decision should never have been given to the public in the first place (that's not a dig at you by the way). At no point was it outlined how we would leave if leave won and what the consequences would be, people assumed there would be one simple pathway, well turns out there isn't and we're heading the economic abyss. I think Philip Hammond may resign before the Primeminister as the only credible member of the Tory front bench.

It would have been much easier if we had of had referendums on treaties/constitutions in the past and it would most likely never have gotten this far. 

[davieG]

I don't understand the EU's stance on the 'divorce' payment. Surely as they are running the thing they should be able to come up with a logically worked out sum that would then be negotiated on based on their reasoned calculations of what we owe. This sum would then fluctuate up or down depending on which bits of the EU that both sides agree.we should continue to be part of e.g European Space Agency  

 

Why are they expecting us to second guess and pull out of thin air a figure that all 27 will be satisfied with?

[Innovindil]

43 minutes ago, davieG said:

I don't understand the EU's stance on the 'divorce' payment. Surely as they are running the thing they should be able to come up with a logically worked out sum that would then be negotiated on based on their reasoned calculations of what we owe. This sum would then fluctuate up or down depending on which bits of the EU that both sides agree.we should continue to be part of e.g European Space Agency  

 

Why are they expecting us to second guess and pull out of thin air a figure that all 27 will be satisfied with?

Because why set an amount when you can just let us keep guessing. Higher... Higher.... Higher... Little higher... Bit more... 

 

Til we eventually get fed up and tell them to go **** themselves. 

[Vacamion]

 

I'm a remainer and europhile. 

 

However, I've come to believe:

 

- Analogies like club memberships, marital divorce, tenants in houses etc are not as useful as Twitter and Facebook would have you believe. It's more complex than that.

 

- Calling all leavers racists, or deluded by a bus, or Tory Etonians,  or whatever is divisive and wrong.  They had their reasons.

 

- Labour and Conservatives both have divisions but they are both committed to Brexit.  The Lib Dems aren't going to ride in and rescue our membership of the EU.

 

- Scotland and Northern Ireland may leave the UK after Brexit, but they were subject to some centripetal forces anyway.

 

Interesting times...

 

Edited 13 October 2017 by Vacamion
Etonians autocorrected to Estonians!

[Bellend Sebastian]

I think Theresa May needs to come out and make reference to the 'red, white and blue Brexit' again.

 

It doesn't seem to be going that well and this would be bound to raise everyone's spirits

[Guest]

It seems that the UK government's tactic in the negotiations is to try to put its message direct to the EU governments via papers and speeches in an effort to go over Barnier's head and splinter the EU position. 

 

We clearly aren't trying very hard to reach agreement with Barnier's team as after months of talks we're still refusing to set out our position regarding debts. I don't really understand leave voters claiming this is the EU's fault when it is pretty clearly something we've done intentionally.

 

It's a dangerous tactic if it goes wrong so they'd better hope individual member states become nervous with the lack of progress forwards Christmas. 

[Webbo]

22 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It seems that the UK government's tactic in the negotiations is to try to put its message direct to the EU governments via papers and speeches in an effort to go over Barnier's head and splinter the EU position. 

 

We clearly aren't trying very hard to reach agreement with Barnier's team as after months of talks we're still refusing to set out our position regarding debts. I don't really understand leave voters claiming this is the EU's fault when it is pretty clearly something we've done intentionally.

 

It's a dangerous tactic if it goes wrong so they'd better hope individual member states become nervous with the lack of progress forwards Christmas. 

Its obvious the EU is dragging this out, hoping we panic at the end and agree to anything they want. There's no reason why trade talks cannot be concurrent with other negotiations.

 

Whatever offer we make its not good enough, they won't even use our offers as a start for negotiations. Most countries in the EU have a trade surplus with us. If the leaders of those countries want to risk all that money and jobs for a principle that most of their voters don't care about that's up to them. They'll pay the price at the ballot box. They'll still be trapped in a shrinking single market while we can expand our horizons.

[Guest MattP]

Looks like it might be starting to work, let's hope so. (I've highlighted the important bit)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41598453

 

Quote

 

"Deadlock!". "L'impasse". "Quelle Horreur". You can hear the cries from across the Channel, and the cages of the City rattling in fear, as Michel Barnier's language took a dramatic turn at this morning's press conference, painting the Brexit talks as at a brick wall.

True, not even Brexit's biggest cheerleader could claim the discussions in Brussels have been going well. And there are visible frustrations on both sides.

But before claiming this morning's drama means the whole thing is doomed there are a few things worth remembering.

At the very start of this whole process, the hope was that in October, the EU would agree to move on to the next phase of the talks, to talk about our future relationship. But for months it has been clear that the chances of that were essentially zero.

It is not, therefore, a surprise to hear Mr Barnier saying right now, he doesn't feel able to press the button on phase 2, however much he enjoyed the drama of saying so today.

Second, behind the scenes, although it has been slow, there has been some progress in the talks but officials in some areas have reached the end of the line until their political masters give them permission to move on.

Forgive what comes next as nerdy detail, but it hopefully helps make this clear.

For example, the UK side is unwilling to move on to talking in more detail about the money, until the EU side is willing to talk about transition (the idea is, until we know what we might get in future, whether access to certain agencies, or EU programmes, how can we assess what we might be prepared to pay).

Mr Barnier is understood to have asked the EU 27 last Friday if he can start exploring transition for that reason, but Germany is resisting. So in this area, it is a possible, and would be a positive outcome for the UK, if at next week's political summit, Barnier asks the 27 for formal permission to talk transition.

It would not be as big a step as moving on to phase 2, but it is the next political decision that could ease the deadlock in this area. And there was a clue from Mr Barnier in his remarks this morning that this is what he will continue to pursue.

And third, if you had been writing the script of these negotiations before they even began, there's no question that at some point in the plot, there would have been a declaration of digging in, a cry that it's all impossible, it is almost the end of the road, all is lost!

Then, at the last moment in a late night summit, emerges the one side of A4 in the clammy hand of an official. On it, not many details, but a few lines that sketch out agreement, show some progress. Finally, the heroic politicians have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat! (Leaving officials in a quiet way to work out the boring details for the next ten years)

That is not to say for a second that all is well or indeed to minimise the real and possibly very serious consequences of the talks genuinely breaking down.

And whether it is all pantomime or real politics, the remarks will of course stir the pot in Westminster too, likely adding to the drum beat among some Brexiteers that a swifter exit with no deal is better than this drawn out agony - and Remainers' deep anxiety and uncertainty for business about whether a deal can really be done.

But both on the UK side and the EU side, to translate this morning's remarks into certain Armageddon for the deal would be to misunderstand.

 

 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

Looks like it might be starting to work, let's hope so. (I've highlighted the important bit)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41598453

 

 

That sounds a bit more promising. Seeking to tie greater UK flexibility over the 3 initial issues (divorce bill, EU/UK citizens, Irish border) to greater EU flexibility over the transition period seems a better strategy than trying to jump directly to the negotiation of a future trade deal. If the EU offers a bit over the transition and the UK offers a bit over the 3 initial issues, that might create the climate in which future relations and trade could come into play.

[Buce]

 

David Davis faces legal threat over secret reports on Brexit impact

Lawyers say they will issue judicial review proceedings if Brexit secretary fails to release 50 studies of effect on industry

 

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has been threatened with legal action over his refusal to publish 50 secret studies commissioned on the impact of Brexit.

Lawyers acting for the Good Law Project, which is bringing the action jointly with the Green party MEP Molly Scott Cato, wrote to the Brexit department and Treasury on Thursday demanding the release of the documents. They said that failure to do so within 14 days would result in the issue of judicial review proceedings before the high court in an attempt to force their release.

The 50 studies into the impact of Brexit on different industries were commissioned earlier this year but the government has argued that publishing them could damage the UK’s negotiating position with Brussels.

 

The 50 studies into the impact of Brexit on different industries were commissioned earlier this year but the government has argued that publishing them could damage the UK’s negotiating position with Brussels.

 

Jolyon Maugham QC, who runs the GLP, said he would not bring the case without believing it had “good, serious prospects” of succeeding. He said he had received legal advice that the government may have a duty under common law to publish the studies into the potential impact on jobs and living standards.

“It seems to me the government’s reluctance to release these studies is born not of its ability to damage our negotiating position but what’s politically expedient,” he said.

The GLP has launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover the costs of the judicial review proceedings. Maugham previously raised more than £300,000 to challenge the government’s position that article 50 could be triggered by royal prerogative, and £70,000 to launch the Dublin case to establish whether the article 50 notification could be revoked.

Scott Cato, who has made several unsuccessful attempts to force the government to release the studies, including freedom of information requests, said the rule of law required that MPs know “what Brexit really means before they formally vote for our withdrawal”.

 

“The European referendum was all about taking back control but how can our democratic representatives make decisions in our interests when the government is withholding vital information?” she said. “It has been clear for some time that the attempt to keep the Brexit impact studies secret is more to cover the government’s blushes than to enable efficient lawmaking.”

More than 120 MPs have signed a letter demanding that Davis publish the findings.

The letter, coordinated by Labour’s David Lammy and Seema Malhotra, accused the government of keeping “not only parliament but the public in the dark” and said failure to disclose the advice was preventing MPs from holding ministers to account.

The Department for Exiting the EU has refused even to confirm which sectors are covered by the impact assessments, but said the list of those industries would be published “shortly”.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/13/david-davis-faces-legal-threat-over-secret-reports-on-brexit-impact

[Guest]

Just now, Buce said:

 

David Davis faces legal threat over secret reports on Brexit impact

Lawyers say they will issue judicial review proceedings if Brexit secretary fails to release 50 studies of effect on industry

 

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has been threatened with legal action over his refusal to publish 50 secret studies commissioned on the impact of Brexit.

Lawyers acting for the Good Law Project, which is bringing the action jointly with the Green party MEP Molly Scott Cato, wrote to the Brexit department and Treasury on Thursday demanding the release of the documents. They said that failure to do so within 14 days would result in the issue of judicial review proceedings before the high court in an attempt to force their release.

The 50 studies into the impact of Brexit on different industries were commissioned earlier this year but the government has argued that publishing them could damage the UK’s negotiating position with Brussels.

 

The 50 studies into the impact of Brexit on different industries were commissioned earlier this year but the government has argued that publishing them could damage the UK’s negotiating position with Brussels.

 

Jolyon Maugham QC, who runs the GLP, said he would not bring the case without believing it had “good, serious prospects” of succeeding. He said he had received legal advice that the government may have a duty under common law to publish the studies into the potential impact on jobs and living standards.

“It seems to me the government’s reluctance to release these studies is born not of its ability to damage our negotiating position but what’s politically expedient,” he said.

The GLP has launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover the costs of the judicial review proceedings. Maugham previously raised more than £300,000 to challenge the government’s position that article 50 could be triggered by royal prerogative, and £70,000 to launch the Dublin case to establish whether the article 50 notification could be revoked.

Scott Cato, who has made several unsuccessful attempts to force the government to release the studies, including freedom of information requests, said the rule of law required that MPs know “what Brexit really means before they formally vote for our withdrawal”.

 

“The European referendum was all about taking back control but how can our democratic representatives make decisions in our interests when the government is withholding vital information?” she said. “It has been clear for some time that the attempt to keep the Brexit impact studies secret is more to cover the government’s blushes than to enable efficient lawmaking.”

More than 120 MPs have signed a letter demanding that Davis publish the findings.

The letter, coordinated by Labour’s David Lammy and Seema Malhotra, accused the government of keeping “not only parliament but the public in the dark” and said failure to disclose the advice was preventing MPs from holding ministers to account.

The Department for Exiting the EU has refused even to confirm which sectors are covered by the impact assessments, but said the list of those industries would be published “shortly”.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/13/david-davis-faces-legal-threat-over-secret-reports-on-brexit-impact

So it's clear that this needs to be released publicly at some point. But I would expect the government to win any court battle as it is probably in the national interest not to release it now. Personally think that it could be released prior to MPs having their final vote and the option to remain in.The EU has to be available to them at that point. They should be looking to leave based on the referendum but if the final deal combined with the government's own impact assessments mean they cannot accept the deal then that is precisely the role of parliamentarians. 

[Fox Ulike]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Its obvious the EU is dragging this out, hoping we panic at the end and agree to anything they want. There's no reason why trade talks cannot be concurrent with other negotiations.

 

Whatever offer we make its not good enough, they won't even use our offers as a start for negotiations. Most countries in the EU have a trade surplus with us. If the leaders of those countries want to risk all that money and jobs for a principle that most of their voters don't care about that's up to them. They'll pay the price at the ballot box. They'll still be trapped in a shrinking single market while we can expand our horizons.

 

I think you over-estimate the extent to which the EU are bothered about Brexit.

 

The EU seem to have simply asked the UK to honour any financial commitments that we have already made, regardless of when we will leave the EU. They're not actually asking us for a 'Divorce Bill' - This is a Daily Mailism.

 

In some instances I imagine this is totally fair and reasonable. On other occasions, probably not so.

 

So surely it's up to the UK to identify exactly where we feel this principle is unfair?

[Guest MattP]

45 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

That sounds a bit more promising. Seeking to tie greater UK flexibility over the 3 initial issues (divorce bill, EU/UK citizens, Irish border) to greater EU flexibility over the transition period seems a better strategy than trying to jump directly to the negotiation of a future trade deal. If the EU offers a bit over the transition and the UK offers a bit over the 3 initial issues, that might create the climate in which future relations and trade could come into play.

It does, if we can get to the second stage then I'm sure we can probably start to think about commiting to a proper figure, we need to come to some sort of arrangement on the transition to be able to come to a concensus on the divorce bill.

 

If it is Germany holding that up then it's disappointing, you would think Merkel would be more focused on trying to form a government herself than getting in the way of trying to advance negotiations.

 

18 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So it's clear that this needs to be released publicly at some point. But I would expect the government to win any court battle as it is probably in the national interest not to release it now. Personally think that it could be released prior to MPs having their final vote and the option to remain in.The EU has to be available to them at that point. They should be looking to leave based on the referendum but if the final deal combined with the government's own impact assessments mean they cannot accept the deal then that is precisely the role of parliamentarians. 

It would be absolutely insane for us to release our own external reports to the World, I do have my doubts about the people bringing these cases and what their reasoning really is, it looks like sabotage and all the names mentioned in it are people who are quite open about overturning the referendum result.

 

The final vote for parliament is to either accept the deal or leave with no deal, the option to just stay in won't be up for a vote as it's now enshrined into law through the EU withdrawl bill that passed my a majority that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on March 31st 2019.

[Fox Ulike]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

It does, if we can get to the second stage then I'm sure we can probably start to think about commiting to a proper figure, we need to come to some sort of arrangement on the transition to be able to come to a concensus on the divorce bill.

 

If it is Germany holding that up then it's disappointing, you would think Merkel would be more focused on trying to form a government herself than getting in the way of trying to advance negotiations.

 

It would be absolutely insane for us to release our own external reports to the World, I do have my doubts about the people bringing these cases and what their reasoning really is, it looks like sabotage and all the names mentioned in it are people who are quite open about overturning the referendum result.

 

The final vote for parliament is to either accept the deal or leave with no deal, the option to just stay in won't be up for a vote as it's now enshrined into law through the EU withdrawl bill that passed my a majority that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on March 31st 2019.

 

Sabotage? This is the language of Stalinist USSR. Is Trotsky behind this counter-revolutionary anti-Government wrecking? ;D

 

You’re just worried about what these assessments will reveal because people might change their minds about Brexit.

 

But here’s the thing: Democracies are allowed to change their minds!!

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

Sabotage? This is the language of Stalinist USSR. Is Trotsky behind this counter-revolutionary anti-Government wrecking? ;D

 

You’re just worried about what these assessments will reveal because people might change their minds about Brexit.

 

But here’s the thing: Democracies are allowed to change their minds!!

Molly Scott Cato, David Lammy and Joylon Maughan are all very open about how they want to overturn the referendum result. Before anyway says it I'm not saying all remainers are quislings/not patriotic/ saboteurs but just a quick google on these three people and it's quite clear they will resort to absolutely anything to try and stop us exiting in the European Union and if that means weakening the position of their own government they will do so, that's as deleterious as political behaviour can be in my opinion.

 

Of course democracies can change their mind, in the future no one is going to be stopped from campaigning to take Britain back into the European Union in exactly the same way those who didn't want to join the common market were allowed to campaign against it 40 odd years ago.

[Innovindil]

17 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Sabotage? This is the language of Stalinist USSR. Is Trotsky behind this counter-revolutionary anti-Government wrecking? ;D

 

You’re just worried about what these assessments will reveal because people might change their minds about Brexit.

 

But here’s the thing: Democracies are allowed to change their minds!!

If you think there are no people actively trying to sabotage brexit, then you're a complete mug. Whether you like the word "sabotage" or not, there are people with vested interests in this doing everything they can to undermine the referendum result. 

 

It sounds an awful lot like sabotage to me. Releasing these documents pretty much destroys any negotiating power we have, as the eu will know exactly what to do to hurt the biggest businesses. 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, MattP said:

It does, if we can get to the second stage then I'm sure we can probably start to think about commiting to a proper figure, we need to come to some sort of arrangement on the transition to be able to come to a concensus on the divorce bill.

 

If it is Germany holding that up then it's disappointing, you would think Merkel would be more focused on trying to form a government herself than getting in the way of trying to advance negotiations.

 

It would be absolutely insane for us to release our own external reports to the World, I do have my doubts about the people bringing these cases and what their reasoning really is, it looks like sabotage and all the names mentioned in it are people who are quite open about overturning the referendum result.

 

The final vote for parliament is to either accept the deal or leave with no deal, the option to just stay in won't be up for a vote as it's now enshrined into law through the EU withdrawl bill that passed my a majority that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on March 31st 2019.

The European Union (withdrawal) bill is still going through parliament. In fact the next debate is next week I think. So far 54 amendments have been proposed and this could absolutely be one of them given that the government's own legal advice is that article 50 can be rescinded (as confirmed by TM the other day).

[Guest]

Theresa May needs a ‘coalition of the sane’ to stave off Brexit calamity

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/13/theresa-may-coalition-of-the-sane-brexit-tories?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Fox Ulike]

37 minutes ago, MattP said:

Molly Scott Cato, David Lammy and Joylon Maughan are all very open about how they want to overturn the referendum result. Before anyway says it I'm not saying all remainers are quislings/not patriotic/ saboteurs but just a quick google on these three people and it's quite clear they will resort to absolutely anything to try and stop us exiting in the European Union and if that means weakening the position of their own government they will do so, that's as deleterious as political behaviour can be in my opinion.

 

Of course democracies can change their mind, in the future no one is going to be stopped from campaigning to take Britain back into the European Union in exactly the same way those who didn't want to join the common market were allowed to campaign against it 40 odd years ago.

 

Nobody who who opposes Brexit is either a quisling, unpatriotic or a saboteur.

 

Again, you’re adopting the language of the Authoritarian regime to describe those who oppose Government policy. Why?

 

21 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

If you think there are no people actively trying to sabotage brexit, then you're a complete mug. Whether you like the word "sabotage" or not, there are people with vested interests in this doing everything they can to undermine the referendum result. 

 

It sounds an awful lot like sabotage to me. Releasing these documents pretty much destroys any negotiating power we have, as the eu will know exactly what to do to hurt the biggest businesses. 

Who? Where? When?

 

There are lots of people who are opposed to Brexit and who are trying to stop it because they can see few benefits and lots of costs.

 

That's democracy. People who oppose Brexit should be allowed to do so without being labelled as saboteurs.

 

 

Edited 13 October 2017 by Fox Ulike

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

Nobody who who opposes Brexit is either a quisling, unpatriotic or a saboteur.

 

Again, you’re adopting the language of the Authoritarian regime to describe those who oppose Government policy. Why?

 

Who? Where? When?

 

There are lots of people who are opposed to Brexit and who are trying to stop it because they can see few benefits and lots of costs.

 

That's democracy. People who oppose Brexit should be allowed to do so without being labelled as saboteurs.

 

 

Tbf I'm quite happy to see hard Brexiters denoted as deranged and masochistic so let them call us what they want....

[Guest]

Hard to disagree with him.

 

Brexit wrangle over citizens’ rights is nonsense, says Juncker

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/13/brexit-wrangle-over-citizens-rights-is-nonsense-says-juncker?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Fox Ulike]

19 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Tbf I'm quite happy to see hard Brexiters denoted as deranged and masochistic so let them call us what they want....

 

I think we can all agree that there are deranged people at the extremes on both sides! I think the difference is that the extremists on the right are now in the mainstream. What is worrying is that the rise of the far right seems to be energising the far left too.

 

In the middle of all this crap though are probably around 80% or 90% of people who just want what’s best for themselves and their families.  If the Government have information suggesting that Brexit will work, then they should release it! If they have information suggesting that Brexit will be a disaster, then they should release it! That’s their job.

 

In days past, phrases like ‘enemies of the state’, ‘saboteurs’ and ‘will of the people’ would have been consigned to the weird and wonderful press that exists at both extremes of the political spectrum. The Socialist Worker and Breitbart are just two sides of the same crazy coin.  Now though, these phrases appear in the biggest selling newspapers, and filter down to the minds of everyday folk. So that people come onto a chat site like this and start throwing around phrases like “Sabotage”. It’s brainwashing.

 

I don’t actually care that much about Brexit. Soverignity is just a word with no actual substance to it. I don’t care either way. Immigration doesn’t really bother me. If the poor are peed off that immigrants are moving into their neighbourhoods then that’s unfortunate, but ultimately: So what? The poor will always be there. They just have to put up with it or stop being poor. That's their job! Always has been, always will be.

 

What I do care about though is economic prosperity. The thing that worries me is that, over a year on from the referendum, there is still no sound economic model for Brexit that convinces me that it’s even remotely a good idea. Every day there are reports like the Rabobank report saying that a hard Brexit will cost us 18% of GDP.  But this is dismissed as conspiracy by those with vested interests in stopping Brexit. 

 

There are no equivalent reports that I have seen, from recognised and authoritative sources, saying why and how Brexit will increase our prosperity. And believe me, if I actually saw proper, authoritative research explaining why and how Brexit will increase British prosperity, then I will be all for it.

 

Final bit of my rant:

 

What those who profess to believe in the will of the people should look at this:

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-brexit-support-new-low-2017-10?r=US&IR=T

 

But they won’t. They'll just ignore it and get their noses back in the Daily Mail.

[Alf Bentley]

42 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The European Union (withdrawal) bill is still going through parliament. In fact the next debate is next week I think. So far 54 amendments have been proposed and this could absolutely be one of them given that the government's own legal advice is that article 50 can be rescinded (as confirmed by TM the other day).

 

Did TM confirm that? I wrote to my MP (Jon Ashworth) about the option to rescind about 9 months ago. He referred the question on to David Davis, who avoided answering the question in his reply, just banging on about the will of the people at the referendum.

 

The balance of legal opinion did always seem to be that the UK did have an option to rescind its notice to leave, provided that happened before March 2019. If there was the political will, I'm sure that a means would be found. The problem for Remainers is that there will NOT be any political will to rescind unless there's a major shift in public opinion against Brexit - something that certainly hasn't happened yet.

 

Given that most people only have a superficial interest in politics, public opinion will only shift against Brexit if things look truly disastrous: no deal on the table, major economic problems such as mass job losses or the prospect of flights being grounded, lots of people dying in hospitals/care homes etc. Even if such a dramatically adverse situation arises, the public might turn on the EU rather than on Brexit. If any damage is more minor (poorish deal on table, a few firms relocating abroad, a bit of a slide in sterling), most people will maintain the current British "fair play" attitude of accepting the referendum result, even if they voted Remain or voted Leave and now think they might have made a mistake.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Did TM confirm that? I wrote to my MP (Jon Ashworth) about the option to rescind about 9 months ago. He referred the question on to David Davis, who avoided answering the question in his reply, just banging on about the will of the people at the referendum.

 

The balance of legal opinion did always seem to be that the UK did have an option to rescind its notice to leave, provided that happened before March 2019. If there was the political will, I'm sure that a means would be found. The problem for Remainers is that there will NOT be any political will to rescind unless there's a major shift in public opinion against Brexit - something that certainly hasn't happened yet.

 

Given that most people only have a superficial interest in politics, public opinion will only shift against Brexit if things look truly disastrous: no deal on the table, major economic problems such as mass job losses or the prospect of flights being grounded, lots of people dying in hospitals/care homes etc. Even if such a dramatically adverse situation arises, the public might turn on the EU rather than on Brexit. If any damage is more minor (poorish deal on table, a few firms relocating abroad, a bit of a slide in sterling), most people will maintain the current British "fair play" attitude of accepting the referendum result, even if they voted Remain or voted Leave and now think they might have made a mistake.

Yes she did in that terrible radio interview that she had earlier in the week.

[davieG]

The EU is to begin preparing for its post-Brexit trade negotiations with the UK, while refusing to discuss the matter with the British government.

An internal draft document suggests the 27 EU countries should discuss trade among themselves while officials in Brussels prepare the details.

The draft text could yet be revised.