Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[catsmate]

It didn't have to. Vote leave said, not surprisingly, that we would LEAVE. If the EU and the UK parliament are unable to agree a deal, then it follows inexorably that 'no deal' becomes the only option.

And of course lied hyperbolicly and frequently about the benefits that would accrue from Brexit.
“Nor is there any prospect of security checks returning to the border. The common travel area between the UK and Ireland pre-dates our EU membership and will outlast it. The unique status Irish citizens are accorded in the UK predates EU membership and will outlast it. There is no reason why the UK’s only land border should be any less open after Brexit than it is today.”
“The free trade agreement we will have to do should be one of the easiest in human history.”
“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”
“There will continue to be free trade and access to the single market”
“Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”
“After we vote Leave, we would immediately be able to start negotiating new trade deals with emerging economies and the world’s biggest economies (the US, China and Japan, as well as Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and so on), which could enter into force immediately after the UK leaves the EU.”
“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.”
“Britain will have access to the single market after we vote Leave.”
“The idea that our trade will suffer... is silly.”
“If you are still wondering what it will look like if we came out, think about this... Lower taxes as a result of no longer having to pay into the EU budget.”

 

[The Don]

Oh sweet jeebus. Someone is stupid enough to think you can turn a just-adult with no tertiary education, no skills and no experience into a negotiator of major trade deals in two years.?
Oh it's the idiot Fox...

Well they will be British and therefore exude the sort of innate authority that Johnny Foreigner recognises and appreciates. That, combined with the fact that they will be holding all the cards in the negotiations will mean that their success is assured.



tbh, the scheme is looking at building up expertise for future decades but it's likely that the newly trained negotiators will be pressed into service in some capacity in the immediate future. The types of candidates they are targeting don't look like the usual recruitment pool for steely-eyed businessmen, senior civil servants and diplomats - presumably the types of people you'd want to be conducting your key negotiations.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh sweet jeebus. Someone is stupid enough to think you can turn a just-adult with no tertiary education, no skills and no experience into a negotiator of major trade deals in two years.?
Oh it's the idiot Fox...

People who were too young to vote on dropping us into this hole are now old enough to take responsibility for digging us out of it (or for digging even deeper, if you prefer).

It's heading toward some dystopian Dr Who episode where a culture is set on trying to achieve some self-destructive goal long after anyone still alive can remember why they were doing it in the first place.

 

[Hellbound]

<<Dupe>>

Dude, that's not a nice thing to call people here. Even if they voted Leave.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

And of course lied hyperbolicly and frequently about the benefits that would accrue from Brexit.
“Nor is there any prospect of security checks returning to the border. The common travel area between the UK and Ireland pre-dates our EU membership and will outlast it. The unique status Irish citizens are accorded in the UK predates EU membership and will outlast it. There is no reason why the UK’s only land border should be any less open after Brexit than it is today.”
“The free trade agreement we will have to do should be one of the easiest in human history.”
“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”
“There will continue to be free trade and access to the single market”
“Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”
“After we vote Leave, we would immediately be able to start negotiating new trade deals with emerging economies and the world’s biggest economies (the US, China and Japan, as well as Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and so on), which could enter into force immediately after the UK leaves the EU.”
“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.”
“Britain will have access to the single market after we vote Leave.”
“The idea that our trade will suffer... is silly.”
“If you are still wondering what it will look like if we came out, think about this... Lower taxes as a result of no longer having to pay into the EU budget.”

So we're not actually going to get that stuff the winners promised but the shafting we are going to get is definitely what we voted for so it's absolutely fine and there's definitely no reason to ask the voters if this bait-and-switch is anything like what they wanted because that would be anti-democratic and is definitely not because they would vote No.

 

[Vixen]

It is indicative of how little planning there was prior to the EU referendum, that the real debate over how to leave and the implications of "hard" or "soft" were only discussed in detail then.

Those terms make it seem like there is a relatively simple choice between two options. But within each option there are numerous versions.

One option that was suggested prior to the referendum, was the "Norway" one and its looser membership. But it included membership that allows free movement, so that was quickly sidelined by the Brexiters.

Probably because the establishment never dreamt the British public would disobey 'strong suggestions' and vote 'Leave'.

 

[Vixen]

Hard Brexit still isn't part of the leave plan: virtually every Leave supporter, including Boris, Rees Mogg, and such continue to maintain that they would much prefer to leave with a deal.
The problem is that the only deal currently on the table has been rejected by MPs multiple times. It's no good saying that this is down to the ERG - the plan would still have been rejected by opposition and DUP MPs, even if the ERG had voted for it.

The EU maintain that no change to the plan, and certainly no changes to the backstop, will be made - so the only way we CAN now leave, unless either or both sides change their red lines, is 'no deal'.

Note that 'no deal' is something of a misnomer - there are already several 'mini-deals' that have been agreed that will address such matters as allowing planes to keep flying, even in the event of a 'no deal.'

Please pay attention. 'Hard Brexit' is not synonymous with 'no deal'.

Or the Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...liam-fox-live/

"She rejected the argument Britain must choose between "hard Brexit" - in which the nation regains control over immigration but loses full access to the European single market - and "soft Brexit", under which access to the single market comes with a requirement to allow free movement of EU workers."

 

[Vixen]

There were always numerous options for Leave (staying in or leaving the Customs Union, giving up some or all of the four freedoms and so on); I'm not sure when those various options got grouped into 'soft Brexit' and 'hard Brexit' but the fact that there were many possibilities, and that the Leave campaigners mostly promised what are now categorised as 'soft' ones, was certainly clear to me before the referendum. I don't think the 'hard Brexit' options originally included No Deal, as even the most ardent Brexiteers insisted an acceptable deal could be negotiated up until quite recently, so the move to using 'hard Brexit' as a synonym for 'No Deal' is sneaky: it's basically recategorizing anything that isn't No Deal as a 'soft Brexit', including those variations which would have been regarded as 'hard Brexit' ones less than a year ago.

Yep. Ninja-ed.

 

[Vixen]

It didn't have to. Vote leave said, not surprisingly, that we would LEAVE. If the EU and the UK parliament are unable to agree a deal, then it follows inexorably that 'no deal' becomes the only option.

No, no, no. A vote to leave was ADVISING the government of the country's opinion. It was never legally enforcible, as a normal election would be.

 

[Vixen]

We voted to move house because the "Vote Move" campaign promised us a much nicer, much larger, house in a better part of town for lower monthly payments.

Unfortunately this was a complete lie and fabrication on the part of the "Vote Move" campaign so now it looks like we'll be sleeping rough instead.

It's obvious that we voted to sleep rough

Or...

'We voted to move house and were promised a much nicer, much larger, house in a better part of town for lower monthly payments.

Unfortunately this was a complete lie and fabrication on the part of the "Vote Move" campaign so now it looks like we will be staying where we are for now.

 

[Vixen]

Using an analogy that I think accurate - we had a vote whether to move from our three-bedroomed semi-detached house in a decent suburb with a good-sized garden.

Vote Move claimed that we could absolutely have a newly refurbished period six bedroom detached home in the best part of town with pool and tennis court for less money than we were currently paying for our current house - and that we wouldn't put our house on the market until the (very easy) negotiations for the new house were complete.

Vote Stay pointed out that this was impossible and that we'd either be renting a very similar house (Norway Plus) for the same money, a smaller house in a worse part of town (Theresa May's deal) for a little less money and that unless we were flexible, there was a very real risk that we might be sleeping rough (no-deal). All of this as pooh-poohed by Vote Move as Project Fear.

Vote Move won, Mum immediately put our house on the market and the exchange date is rapidly approaching again (thankfully the new vendor was happy to postpone once - but maybe never again). There was a lot of argument over Mum's choice of new house. Stayers said we could pull out of the sale any time and don't want to move to a damp two-bed flat across town. Dad has taken over the process and says that he'll definitely get us a better deal (but looking at the local estate agents, that isn't going to happen) but if he can't we'll be sleeping rough come November. WE'LL BE STAYING WHERE WE ARE FOR NOW.

Apparently those who voted Move should have known that sleeping rough STAYING WHERE WE ARE FOR NOW.
was always the a likely outcome and that we should embrace the opportunity to get so much more fresh air

FIFY

 

[Vixen]

Dude, that's not a nice thing to call people here. Even if they voted Leave.

Some would say it's accurate. We were duped.

 

[The Don]

Or...

'We voted to move house and were promised a much nicer, much larger, house in a better part of town for lower monthly payments.

Unfortunately this was a complete lie and fabrication on the part of the "Vote Move" campaign so now it looks like we will be staying where we are for now.

FIFY

Unless mum and dad can agree to take steps to take the house off the market, or the buyers agree to yet another temporary extension to the exchange of contracts, we won't be able to stay put.

 

[Vixen]

Unless mum and dad can agree to take steps to take the house off the market, or the buyers agree to yet another temporary extension to the exchange of contracts, we won't be able to stay put.

Tear up the contract! Bin it!

Might need to bribe Mum with a steak and chips dinner to agree. Just tell her, 'We can try again next year'.

 

[Information Analyst]

Brexit party is definitely party of great brains:
Brexit Party MEP says Royal Navy should attack EU fishing boats

I wonder if they also want them to "protect" British boats fishing in EU waters? Cod Wars Ver 2.0....

 

[Mr Fied]

Oh Nige!
"Nigel Farage is facing mockery after he claimed the new European Commission president lacked "legitimacy" because she won just 52 per cent of the vote.

Mr Farage said Ursula von der Leyen had "power but no legitimacy" after she scraped in by nine votes in a ballot in the European Parliament on Tuesday.

Critics were quick to point out that the incoming head of the EU executive won by the same margin as the Leave campaign during the 2016 EU referendum - when the result was 52 per cent to 48 per cent."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-ursula-von-der-leyen-brexit-party-vote-eu-commission-juncker-a9008501.html

 

[Information Analyst]

It looks like, to my surprise, that my claim so far hasn't been disproved. As to who invented it, I still claim it was a remainer. Remember, I include people such as Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt as remainers. They voted remain in the referendum, and campaigned for remain before it.

Even if that's true, so what? As others have pointed out, the options of a Norway or Switzerland type deal, or staying in the single market and/or customs union, were positions - which would now be defined as "soft Brexit" in one form or another - that were actively championed by prominent Leave campaigners before the referendum. The option of Leaving without a deal - i.e. a "hard Brexit" - was denied by all of them at the same time. These are things Leave was saying, not Remain.

Even if Remain supporters came up with the terms (which you haven't proved), they were only putting a labels on concepts that already existed and were being discussed before the referendum. Remain supports are not responsible for Leave supporters being unable to agree amongst themselves.

 

[abaddon]

So we're not actually going to get that stuff the winners promised but the shafting we are going to get is definitely what we voted for so it's absolutely fine and there's definitely no reason to ask the voters if this bait-and-switch is anything like what they wanted because that would be anti-democratic and is definitely not because they would vote No.

I struggle with the very notion that it would be undemocratic to hold a vote. Wait, wut?

 

[abaddon]

Tear up the contract! Bin it!

Might need to bribe Mum with a steak and chips dinner to agree. Just tell her, 'We can try again next year'.

No use. The other party has a copy and both parties legal eagles have copies all signed by you. Therefore you are evicted even if you tear up your copy.

 

[Vixen]

No use. The other party has a copy and both parties legal eagles have copies all signed by you. Therefore you are evicted even if you tear up your copy.

But that nice judge said we could revoke it change our mind without having to liaise with the other party.