Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nothing can satisfy the remoaner's request for a 'clear plan'.

This is a negotiation. Asking for a clear plan in advance is like asking a tennis player his/her plan for the match, or a poker player his/her plan for the poker game.

In both cases the player would say, 'My plan is to win, and I will do that by playing to the best of my ability'. The remoaners would doubtless want to know which corner of the court our player was going to aim all his/her serves, and what bets the poker player planned to place on hands 1, 2, 3, 4, ....

It's clearly ridiculous to ask for these plans in advance of the game. Even if the poker player were planning to bluff on his/her first hand and go all in regardless of the cards he held, (s)he could not reveal that information in advance without greatly increasing his/her chances of losing the game.

In some ways you are right. It's a shame that 52% of the country decided to vote to play poker with everyone's future based on no information of what that would entail however. It's almost as if they must be daft.

 

[ceptimus]

@3point14: Disingenuous. I admitted that it's not a realistic plan. But that's our aim. In just the same way that a tennis player, pressed for his plan would be, 'To win in straight sets without losing a single point.'

Give us an example of what you think would qualify as a clear plan. Then explain how revealing that plan in advance of the negotiations would not help those on the opposite side.

The EU's clear plan is that Britain should continue to pay full payments, continue to implement all EU rules and regulations, continue to allow free movement of people but lose all political representation within the EU. Yeah - that's a completely realistic plan too.

 

[3point14]

In some ways you are right. It's a shame that 52% of the country decided to vote to play poker with everyone's future based on no information of what that would entail however. It's almost as if they must be daft.

Just incredibly poorly informed and not motivated to inform themselves.

This was all confirmed when several papers ran "What we've given up" editorials the day after the referendum and the loudest cries from those that voted leave were "Why weren't we told this before".

 

[3point14]

@3point14: Disingenuous. I admitted that it's not a realistic plan

It's not a *********** plan!! Sod 'realistic' or 'viable', what you have there is a list of stated goals.

It's like turning on Match of the Day and having Gary say, "Yes, we've examined this game and our in-depth tactical analysis is that both teams are going to try to score more than the other side."

 

[3point14]

To continue:

Give us an example of what you think would qualify as a clear plan. Then explain how revealing that plan in advance of the negotiations would not help those on the opposite side.

No, I can't, because, after having studied the issue, I don't believe that there is a viable way iof the UK leaving the EU without tanking the economy to such an extent that we end up in a recession or a depression. I do not think there is a viable plan. It is not my responsibility to come up with a plan, it is the responsibility of those who led the foolish charge to leave the EU.

Turns out they don't have a plan either. Probably because they put the future of my country at risk for their own, personal, political gains. **** the lot of them, they're scum.

 

[ceptimus]

It is not my responsibility to come up with a plan, it is the responsibility of those who led the foolish charge to leave the EU.

And they do have a plan. The point I'm making, which is clearly correct, is that they cannot reveal their plan in advance of the negotiations without further harming Britain's prospects.

So we need to let them get on with it. Even if their plan is poor and they are poor negotiators it won't help us to reveal the plan to the opposition. In the event that they have a reasonably good plan and good negotiators it's still in our country's best interests for them not to reveal it.

If you're honest with us, you'll admit that there can be no advantage for Britain by revealing any plan in advance of negotiations. Like I said, asking for a 'clear plan' is just a dishonest way of saying 'we should ignore the referendum result and cancel leaving the EU'.

If that's the remoaner's position they should have the moral courage to state it that way. Instead they act in a sneaky cowardly manner that can only further harm Britain's prospects.

 

[Tolls]

And they do have a plan.

No they don't.
If they did they wouldn't spend their time contradicting each other and looking like the Keystone *********** Kops!

 

[3point14]

And they do have a plan. The point I'm making, which is clearly correct, is that they cannot reveal their plan in advance of the negotiations without further harming Britain's prospects.

So we need to let them get on with it. Even if their plan is poor and they are poor negotiators it won't help us to reveal the plan to the opposition. In the event that they have a reasonably good plan and good negotiators it's still in our country's best interests for them not to reveal it.

If you're honest with us, you'll admit that there can be no advantage for Britain by revealing any plan in advance of negotiations. Like I said, asking for a 'clear plan' is just a dishonest way of saying 'we should ignore the referendum result and cancel leaving the EU'.

If that's the remoaner's position they should have the moral courage to state it that way. Instead they act in a sneaky cowardly manner that can only further harm Britain's prospects.

You think the bolded strengthens your argument, do you?


The leave side told the UK that the experts didn't know what they were on about when the experts said it wasn't viable without tanking the economy.

After a leave vote came through, those self same leavers turned to the previously mentioned experts and asked how we were going to do this.

The experts reiterated that it wasn't possible without tanking the economy.


You see the problem? The winning side simply aren't in touch with reality. They have eschewed reality, in the form of expert opinion and gone with "I reject your reality and substitute my own" as a political slogan.


The closest thing to a plan is 'Have cake, eat cake'.


The world knows we've made a lunatic decision.

I'm willing to bet at least 75% of the UK now knows we've made a lunatic, poorly informed decision.


There is no plan. The plan is a myth. The PM is an angry, unitelligent woman who simply wanted to be PM.

We're all **********. those of us that are poor are ********** harder.

 

[ceptimus]

You think the bolded strengthens your argument, do you?

Yes. I did it quite deliberately expecting to draw such a response from one of the remoaners.

If you don't like it, I suggest you count the number of occurrences of the word 'Brexitards' in this thread and compare that to the number of occurrences of 'Remoaners'.

I would consider 'Brexitard' to be a more egregious insult than 'Remoaner' - perhaps I should have coined the word, 'Remainitard' instead.

 

[3point14]

Yes. I did it quite deliberately expecting to draw such a response from one of the remoaners.

If you don't like it, I suggest you count the number of occurrences of the word 'Brexitards' in this thread and compare that to the number of occurrences of 'Remoaners'.

I would consider 'Brexitard' to be a more egregious insult than 'Remoaner' - perhaps I should have coined the word, 'Remainitard' instead.

I think both are extremely childish and have no place here. I think anyone, from either side using such language (and in any of the other political discussions where similar tactics are employed) is demonstrating paucity of argument and lack of maturity.


"He started it" is such a grown up defence.

 

[abaddon]

And they do have a plan. The point I'm making, which is clearly correct, is that they cannot reveal their plan in advance of the negotiations without further harming Britain's prospects.

How do you know about it? Or what it is? Or what it entails? Or if it even exists?

 

[ceptimus]

How do you know about it? Or what it is? Or what it entails? Or if it even exists?

I assume they must have made some sort of plan. It may be a pathetic plan sorely lacking in detail - I don't know.

My point is that no matter how good or bad the plan is there can be no possible advantage for Britain in revealing that plan to our negotiating opponents in advance of the negotiations.

So the fact that right now I don't know what the plan is and neither do you, nor (I hope) anyone who doesn't need to know - is just as it should be.

Not revealing the plan in advance is the responsible thing to do.

Now I accept that critics of the government will say, "I don't think they have much of a plan - and what they do have is rubbish!" That's as it should be - robust political opinion. But asking for the government to reveal their plan is irresponsible.

Given that we're now committed to entering into negotiations with the EU on leaving, all people who want the best for the UK should agree that revealing the plan can have no positive outcome. If the opposition want to contribute in a positive way, they could suggest possible negotiation positions and tactics and hope that if they come up with any good ideas then the actual negotiators will build those suggestions into their own plans. They still shouldn't reveal that in advance of the negotiations though.

It would be nice to think that once the negotiations are complete the negotiators will give credit to those who came up with good negotiating ideas - even when those ideas came from the opposition. That's too much to expect of politicians of course - but we can dream.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

And they do have a plan. The point I'm making, which is clearly correct, is that they cannot reveal their plan in advance of the negotiations without further harming Britain's prospects.

Clearly wrong. What the UK will need is to project its clear intention at establishing a good-faith partnership of some kind which, sadly, it has failed at before, and can now offer few attractive alternatives. Absolutely no one will be wowed to hear no more roast beef unless the EU bends over. Granted, elect enough mayfly visionaries to power in Europe, and all bets are off in a ****-thy-neighbor frenzy. But if the EU remains more or less intact, there will be no easy rewards for those who gave it a one-finger salute, replete with shouted insults.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I assume they must have made some sort of plan. It may be a pathetic plan sorely lacking in detail - I don't know.

My point is that no matter how good or bad the plan is there can be no possible advantage for Britain in revealing that plan to our negotiating opponents in advance of the negotiations.

So the fact that right now I don't know what the plan is and neither do you, nor (I hope) anyone who doesn't need to know - is just as it should be.

Not revealing the plan in advance is the responsible thing to do.

Now I accept that critics of the government will say, "I don't think they have much of a plan - and what they do have is rubbish!" That's as it should be - robust political opinion. But asking for the government to reveal their plan is irresponsible.

Given that we're now committed to entering into negotiations with the EU on leaving, all people who want the best for the UK should agree that revealing the plan can have no positive outcome. If the opposition want to contribute in a positive way, they could suggest possible negotiation positions and tactics and hope that if they come up with any good ideas then the actual negotiators will build those suggestions into their own plans. They still shouldn't reveal that in advance of the negotiations though.

It would be nice to think that once the negotiations are complete the negotiators will give credit to those who came up with good negotiating ideas - even when those ideas came from the opposition. That's too much to expect of politicians of course - but we can dream.

If they have a rubbish plan then making it public would greatky benefit the uk. It would expose the crapness of the plan offer an opportunity to rework it and if no better plan can be found then rethink the entire exercise.

Far better than executing a crap plan. That you will no doubt disagree is worrying.

 

[Aepervius]

@3point14: Disingenuous. I admitted that it's not a realistic plan. But that's our aim. In just the same way that a tennis player, pressed for his plan would be, 'To win in straight sets without losing a single point.'

Give us an example of what you think would qualify as a clear plan. Then explain how revealing that plan in advance of the negotiations would not help those on the opposite side.

The EU's clear plan is that Britain should continue to pay full payments, continue to implement all EU rules and regulations, continue to allow free movement of people but lose all political representation within the EU. Yeah - that's a completely realistic plan too.

Again you have no clue what a plan is. The EU has no such plan as you described. The EU politician said over and over that they will wait art 50 from UK before doing any statement. Therefore there is no plan from EU unless you read mind (million dollar price is dead unfortunately).

In fact for all we know maybe the EU politician are fed up with UK , and plan to give UK the boot and form an economic front. Who knows. I don't.

What you cited as EU plan, is the consequence of having UK leave a with art 50, but staying with all requirement as freedom of movement and EEA. So it is NOT a plan.


ETA: clear plan :
* rise tax by 0.5% for this group
* set up frontier control at X,Y,Z in order to....
* prepare a new department for...

See ? That is a plan. A set of action done in order to achieve an aim/goal. You keep citing goal and give nothing whatsoever as actions.

That is not sophistry but a clear different definition.

 

[Aepervius]

Yes. I did it quite deliberately expecting to draw such a response from one of the remoaners.

If you don't like it, I suggest you count the number of occurrences of the word 'Brexitards' in this thread and compare that to the number of occurrences of 'Remoaners'.

I would consider 'Brexitard' to be a more egregious insult than 'Remoaner' - perhaps I should have coined the word, 'Remainitard' instead.

I prefer myself brexitus. As it could be the state of the UK economy afterward.

 

[Darat]

Why is this being cast as a hostile negotiation, it isn't and it should be two sides trying to get the best deal from and for each other. This isn't a business negotiation. The best thing for the UK would be to have a definite proposal of what we want, publish it and then get people to vote for it. If the vote passes then you go into the negotiation with a strong mandate that it is understood by all parties.

 

[Craig B]

Yep, blame the "others".


No starting, that was the day after Brexit.
And not just Paris. Leases have been signed for four buildings in Dublin that I know of. That's a committment of tens of millions.

This from IBT today.

Leading banks are in advanced stages of planning to shift some of their operations from London to Paris amid fears over Brexit, France's top stock market regulator has said.
Benoit de Juvigny, secretary general of Autorite des Marches Financiers (AMF), told the BBC that "large international banks" based in London have conducted due diligence to move operations to the French capital."​

My bold.

 

[abaddon]

I assume they must have made some sort of plan. It may be a pathetic plan sorely lacking in detail - I don't know.

Wow. You simply assume that to be the case.

 

[Garrison]

I assume they must have made some sort of plan. It may be a pathetic plan sorely lacking in detail - I don't know.

So you simply assume there's a plan, despite all evidence to the contrary. Let's make this simple for you. Any plan that fails to meet the promises made by the leave campaign during the campaign should be classed as unacceptable, the government cannot be allowed to simply point to the leave vote as an excuse to renege on the promises made to obtain that vote, however badly David Davies wants to.
If May and co. want to whine about that limiting their room for manoeuvre then they should have been more honest during the campaign instead of promising more money for public services and that there would be no negative economic consequences. Of course if they had been honest they would probably have lost.

Clearly wrong. What the UK will need is to project its clear intention at establishing a good-faith partnership of some kind which, sadly, it has failed at before, and can now offer few attractive alternatives.

Exactly, this isn't some 'gotcha' bidding war it's supposed to be an attempt to get the best deal possible for the UK. The UK should be clear and once article 50 is activated the EU should be equally clear. If it transpires that a deal that protects the long term interests of the UK is impossible to achieve while leaving the EU then the government should go back to the people and offer them a fresh vote.