Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Plastic]

Anybody checked out the official government advice on EU travel? It’s great fun.

 

Driving in the EU and EEA from 29 March 2019

In the event that there is no EU Exit deal, the government will seek to put in place new arrangements for EU and EEA countries to recognise UK driving licences when people are visiting, for example on holiday or business trips. Until such arrangements are in place, UK driving licence holders may need an IDP in addition to their UK driving licence to drive when visiting EU and EEA countries

 

Each EU and EEA country will decide if they require a foreign driver to have an IDP, in addition to a driving licence, to legally drive in their country.

 

In some circumstances you may need more than one IDP. For example, when driving through France (1968 IDP) to Spain (1949 IDP).

 

Rules for passports

you may need to renew your passport earlier than planned. Some passports with up to 15 months validity remaining may not be valid for travel.

The rules for travel to most countries in Europe change if the UK leaves the European Union (EU) with no deal.

 

After 29 March 2019:

If you renewed a passport before it expired, up to 9 extra months may have been added to your new passport’s expiry date. Any extra months on your passport over 10 years may not count towards the 6 months that should be remaining for travel to most countries in Europe.

Edited 7 February, 2019 by Plastic

[Wes Tender]

What David Cameron told us about our 'deal' with the EU:

LOL. £9 million of pro EU propaganda paid for out of our taxpayers money. And not even included in the Remain campaign budget. Nice one Dave.

 

And of course Dave told everybody during the actual Referendum Campaign on more than one occasion that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and leaving the customs union.

 

And despite all his best efforts to scare us, we still voted to leave.

[badgerx16]

LOL. £9 million of pro EU propaganda paid for out of our taxpayers money. And not even included in the Remain campaign budget. Nice one Dave.

 

And of course Dave told everybody during the actual Referendum Campaign on more than one occasion that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and leaving the customs union.

 

And despite all his best efforts to scare us, we still voted to leave.

Because most people voting leave didn't give two hoots about the SM or the CU, if they understood what they are. They mostly voted leave because of their personal views on immigration.

[doddisalegend]

That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship

I read the other day that a poll of English voters showed, that when asked, those who voted remain generally identify as British those who voted leave generally identified as English.

 

English leave voters are more likely to wave a St George cross than a Union Jack and probably aren't bothered if the Scots do one.

 

 

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

Because most people voting leave didn't give two hoots about the SM or the CU, if they understood what they are. They mostly voted leave because of their personal views on immigration.

 

People voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Whether it was one, or all of those things that persuaded somebody to vote to leave the EU, is up to them.

 

But nothing could be more pointless than arguing about the semantics of the debate which concluded well over two years ago with the referendum result, when we are now under 50 days away from leaving, with or without a deal.

[LGTL]

I read the other day that a poll of English voters showed, that when asked, those who voted remain generally identify as British those who voted leave generally identified as English.

 

English leave voters are more likely to wave a St George cross than a Union Jack and probably aren't bothered if the Scots do one.

 

 

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

 

 

I identify as English, follow England all over the world, and voted to remain. I agree I'm probably in the minority from that group.

[doddisalegend]

I identify as English, follow England all over the world, and voted to remain. I agree I'm probably in the minority from that group.

Of course there will be exceptions to the general rule. I voted Remain and always considered myself British rather than English. For me English, Welsh, Scottish was mostly just something you used for friendly sports banter. Personally I'd hate to see the UK break up.

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[OldNick]

Edited 8 February, 2019 by OldNick

[OldNick]

People voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Whether it was one, or all of those things that persuaded somebody to vote to leave the EU, is up to them.

But nothing could be more pointless than arguing about the semantics of the debate which concluded well over two years ago with the referendum result, when we are now under 50 days away from leaving, with or without a deal.Wes I dont think they did. I think that most didnt really have much knowledge of what it entailed. They were too interested in Celebrity Love island and EastEnders to research. The 350m to the NHS, the Africans being washed up on the beaches of Italy where it seemed it would never end (on BBC news every night leading up to the vote, then not at all after the referendum the reports stopped)

Taking back control of our borders means passport booths and the extra time getting to and from Europe, how can that be good? I remember when we had border control pre the open ones and we were getting loads of illegal immigrants then.

The leavers have done untol damage to our nation, which is the irony as they thought they were saving it.

[Wes Tender]

OldNick Wes I dont think they did. I think that most didnt really have much knowledge of what it entailed. They were too interested in Celebrity Love island and EastEnders to research. The 350m to the NHS, the Africans being washed up on the beaches of Italy where it seemed it would never end (on BBC news every night leading up to the vote, then not at all after the referendum the reports stopped)

Taking back control of our borders means passport booths and the extra time getting to and from Europe, how can that be good? I remember when we had border control pre the open ones and we were getting loads of illegal immigrants then.

The leavers have done untold damage to our nation, which is the irony as they thought they were saving it.

The damage that may or may not be caused by Brexit is totally unknown. Where many Remoaners are predicting Armageddon, there are substantial fears within the EU that we will make a resounding success of it. Apparently we have been quietly beavering away in the background planning our future policies to make us a really attractive destination for inward investment to boost our economy post-Brexit.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/07/britain-will-cut-taxes-slash-tariffs-secret-plan-kick-start/

[colehillsaint]

People voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Whether it was one, or all of those things that persuaded somebody to vote to leave the EU, is up to them.

 

But nothing could be more pointless than arguing about the semantics of the debate which concluded well over two years ago with the referendum result, when we are now under 50 days away from leaving, with or without a deal.

 

I kind of agree with you. I really agonised about my vote. I spent most of the election period considering the implications for trade and prosperity, and a week out from the vote, I realised that not only did I not have a clue, but neither did anyone else really either. So I thought, I’m just going to vote based on who I see myself as being. I’m proud that our island has defended itself from conquest for nearly a thousand years, and of our more recent tradition of democracy. But the more powerful thing in me is clinging to the common cause of humanity, and a curiosity and respect for other, particularly European, nationalities. Strangely this is despite great enthusiasm for American culture. I detest nationalism, and the politics of self interest. I have loved the European project. Always will. If you asked me to vote again a thousand times, I would vote the same way.

 

This is actually what separates the two sides; modern religions. On one side a coalition of greens and liberals as humanists. On the other, a coalition of nationalists, which is wholly unfair to generally label as racists. These sides are utterly irreconcilable. You might as well try to get humanity to coalesce around one monotheistic religion, or even a single sexuality.

 

The oddest thing is people not being able see the fundamental nature of this. The remainers who publicly still argue about the economic effect, or lorry queues ffs. Respect to their motives, and courage in the face of considerable hostility, but do they still think they can change even one mind? I don’t think so. This thread sums it all up so beautifully.

 

Your side “won”, so we will have to get on with it. Remainers shouldn’t despair. Nationalism will be a dying force, ultimately. Human history has repeatedly been about coalescence into larger and larger societies. It’s just in our make up as a natural force. But moreover I think, a mass of tiny variables will begin to act against the larger variable that is Brexit, to compensate, and render the destination pretty much unchanged anyway. I will speculate that shangri-la is probably not just around the next corner. People never want to blame themselves, so without the EU as scapegoat, something else will be found. Maybe Brexit itself. Thankfully not a committed remainers problem.

[Lord Duckhunter]

And of course Dave told everybody during the actual Referendum Campaign on more than one occasion that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and leaving the customs union.

 

And despite all his best efforts to scare us, we still voted to leave.

 

This pony about the leaders of Brexit having “no plan” is also wide of the mark. People really should read Tim Shipmans excellent book which is neutral but full of factual accounts by people who were there, of what actually happened in each camp.

 

During the debates the Leave campaign were attacked, not for having no plan, but for their plan. Angela Eagle in particular was tasked with attacking their plan during the big debate. Osborne & Cameron were sent onto Marr to attack their plan and the Remain campaign thought Leave had made a fundamental error that would cost them the vote. The error (in their eyes) , was setting out their plans for a post Brexit UK, out of the SM & CU. Shipman writes that Remain decided to go hard on this so everybody knew this was Leaves “plan”. They really thought by forcing Leave to reveal their plan, that would swing it. Of course the same people wanting this plan highlighted and attacked are now saying there was no plan.

 

Whether the plan they had was workable or acceptable is another question, as is whether the public paid any attention or based their vote on it. By as far as possible in a referendum, a plan was mapped out by Leave leaders. Admittedly it was grudgingly dragged out of them, as they really didn’t want to campaign on too many specifics, but the Remain camp have gone from congratulating themselves on forcing the plan out into the open , to denying the existence of one.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 8 February, 2019 by Lord Duckhunter

[moonraker]

People voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Whether it was one, or all of those things that persuaded somebody to vote to leave the EU, is up to them.

 

But nothing could be more pointless than arguing about the semantics of the debate which concluded well over two years ago with the referendum result, when we are now under 50 days away from leaving, with or without a deal.

 

So you now claim to speak for all leave voters. A number (6) of leave voting friends of mine who voted for a number of reasons but in the main they voted as a protest, 5 of the 6 would now change their vote as they acknowledge they did not fully appraise themselves fully of the facts, so the oft stated leaver slogan “we knew what we were voting for” is PONY

[moonraker]

I kind of agree with you. I really agonised about my vote. I spent most of the election period considering the implications for trade and prosperity, and a week out from the vote, I realised that not only did I not have a clue, but neither did anyone else really either. So I thought, I’m just going to vote based on who I see myself as being. I’m proud that our island has defended itself from conquest for nearly a thousand years, and of our more recent tradition of democracy. But the more powerful thing in me is clinging to the common cause of humanity, and a curiosity and respect for other, particularly European, nationalities. Strangely this is despite great enthusiasm for American culture. I detest nationalism, and the politics of self interest. I have loved the European project. Always will. If you asked me to vote again a thousand times, I would vote the same way.

 

This is actually what separates the two sides; modern religions. On one side a coalition of greens and liberals as humanists. On the other, a coalition of nationalists, which is wholly unfair to generally label as racists. These sides are utterly irreconcilable. You might as well try to get humanity to coalesce around one monotheistic religion, or even a single sexuality.

 

The oddest thing is people not being able see the fundamental nature of this. The remainers who publicly still argue about the economic effect, or lorry queues ffs. Respect to their motives, and courage in the face of considerable hostility, but do they still think they can change even one mind? I don’t think so. This thread sums it all up so beautifully.

 

Your side “won”, so we will have to get on with it. Remainers shouldn’t despair. Nationalism will be a dying force, ultimately. Human history has repeatedly been about coalescence into larger and larger societies. It’s just in our make up as a natural force. But moreover I think, a mass of tiny variables will begin to act against the larger variable that is Brexit, to compensate, and render the destination pretty much unchanged anyway. I will speculate that shangri-la is probably not just around the next corner. People never want to blame themselves, so without the EU as scapegoat, something else will be found. Maybe Brexit itself. Thankfully not a committed remainers problem.

 

Excellent post, thoughtful and insightful

[Wes Tender]

So you now claim to speak for all leave voters. A number (6) of leave voting friends of mine who voted for a number of reasons but in the main they voted as a protest, 5 of the 6 would now change their vote as they acknowledge they did not fully appraise themselves fully of the facts, so the oft stated leaver slogan “we knew what we were voting for” is PONY

 

I refer you to my second sentence which you quoted above.

[Guided Missile]

I refer you to my second sentence which you quoted above.

I was asked whether or not I wanted to leave the EU and I voted to leave. I must have forgotten to fill in the answer to the question of why and there wasn't enough space of the ballot paper anyway.

[saint1977]

I kind of agree with you. I really agonised about my vote. I spent most of the election period considering the implications for trade and prosperity, and a week out from the vote, I realised that not only did I not have a clue, but neither did anyone else really either. So I thought, I’m just going to vote based on who I see myself as being. I’m proud that our island has defended itself from conquest for nearly a thousand years, and of our more recent tradition of democracy. But the more powerful thing in me is clinging to the common cause of humanity, and a curiosity and respect for other, particularly European, nationalities. Strangely this is despite great enthusiasm for American culture. I detest nationalism, and the politics of self interest. I have loved the European project. Always will. If you asked me to vote again a thousand times, I would vote the same way.

 

This is actually what separates the two sides; modern religions. On one side a coalition of greens and liberals as humanists. On the other, a coalition of nationalists, which is wholly unfair to generally label as racists. These sides are utterly irreconcilable. You might as well try to get humanity to coalesce around one monotheistic religion, or even a single sexuality.

 

The oddest thing is people not being able see the fundamental nature of this. The remainers who publicly still argue about the economic effect, or lorry queues ffs. Respect to their motives, and courage in the face of considerable hostility, but do they still think they can change even one mind? I don’t think so. This thread sums it all up so beautifully.

 

Your side “won”, so we will have to get on with it. Remainers shouldn’t despair. Nationalism will be a dying force, ultimately. Human history has repeatedly been about coalescence into larger and larger societies. It’s just in our make up as a natural force. But moreover I think, a mass of tiny variables will begin to act against the larger variable that is Brexit, to compensate, and render the destination pretty much unchanged anyway. I will speculate that shangri-la is probably not just around the next corner. People never want to blame themselves, so without the EU as scapegoat, something else will be found. Maybe Brexit itself. Thankfully not a committed remainers problem.

 

That's way too well considered, balanced and articulated to possibly have a place on this thread.

 

Or to appear in the hysterical press and HoC as well in the discourse.

 

Well done though, and if more people thought like this I'd be more confident of people acting like adults and compromising so the vote is respected but economic damage is limited.

 

Healing the geographical and demongraphic schisms Cameron has opened up will take generations however, if ever at all.

[trousers]

This pony about the leaders of Brexit having “no plan” is also wide of the mark. People really should read Tim Shipmans excellent book which is neutral but full of factual accounts by people who were there, of what actually happened in each camp.

 

During the debates the Leave campaign were attacked, not for having no plan, but for their plan. Angela Eagle in particular was tasked with attacking their plan during the big debate. Osborne & Cameron were sent onto Marr to attack their plan and the Remain campaign thought Leave had made a fundamental error that would cost them the vote. The error (in their eyes) , was setting out their plans for a post Brexit UK, out of the SM & CU. Shipman writes that Remain decided to go hard on this so everybody knew this was Leaves “plan”. They really thought by forcing Leave to reveal their plan, that would swing it. Of course the same people wanting this plan highlighted and attacked are now saying there was no plan.

 

Whether the plan they had was workable or acceptable is another question, as is whether the public paid any attention or based their vote on it. By as far as possible in a referendum, a plan was mapped out by Leave leaders. Admittedly it was grudgingly dragged out of them, as they really didn’t want to campaign on too many specifics, but the Remain camp have gone from congratulating themselves on forcing the plan out into the open , to denying the existence of one.

 

 

Well, Mr Fawkes agrees with you at least...

 

https://order-order.com/2019/02/07/tusk-vs-vote-leaves-mincing-machine/

 

The predictable response from Remainers to Tusk’s hell comments yesterday was naturally to agree with him, while again peddling the myth that Brexit campaigners didn’t have a plan. They did…While it is correct to say that Vote Leave made the strategic decision not to publish a full-on white paper-style plan to avoid getting it filleted Salmond-style, Vote Leave did nonetheless publish considerable detail on what Brexit should look like*, including leaving the single market, regaining an independent trade policy and immediately guaranteeing EU citizens’ rights unilaterally. Also central to their plan was a three-phase framework for how to approach the negotiations, including multiple warnings against triggering Article 50.

*Not to mention the thousand-page magnum opus Change or Go published by Vote Leave’s predecessor Business for Britain…

[shurlock]

Oh dear Les and LD managing to rewrite history and dish up the usual pony.

 

A few points on how leaving the SM and CU is tantamount to a plan.

 

1.Not all people knew they were voting to leave the CM and SM. That point has been demolished on here before and is well-summarised here

I've posted this thread before and each time its been met with tumbleweed which suggests that you lads are a bit stumped

 

2. The small number of people who claimed we would leave the CM and SM also critically claimed that the UK would retain all the benefits of the SM and CU -that is the best of all possible worlds. A plan isn't a plan if it doesn't satisfy all the conditions set out by its proponents.

 

3. Not sure what either of you does for a living; but I'd be out of a job pal if I proposed a destination without a relatively clear idea how to get there. Leaving SM and CM is not a plan without specifics on how it can be implemented safely (as Tusk's full quote makes clear).

 

The dirty secret is that leave never articulated a plan and promised the undeliverable. Some might respond that's not the point of a campaign but Brexiters continued to avoid a plan and promise the undeliverable after the referendum when they should have been governing. Hence we heard from the leading Cabinet members how we could have our cake and eat it, how we could have the exact same benefits of the SM and CU without its attendant obligations.

 

Whenever leave campaigners have had to articulate anything resembling a workable plan, as Nick Cohen points out, they've fallen apart.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/26/brexiters-never-had-a-real-exit-plan-no-wonder-they-avoided-the-issue

 

That stark fact was true in the wilderness years leading up to the referendum as it was true in the wake of the Chequers Plan when ERG members were at each others throats. It was acknowledged by the likes of Dominic Cummings “There is much to be gained from swerving the whole issue...opponents of the EU have been divided for years”. In any case, “the sheer complexity of leaving would involve endless questions of detail that cannot be answered”.

 

The leave side had plenty of years to develop a plan. The IEA even created a €100,000 prize to whoever could design a means of leaving the European Union. I have a lot of time for informed leave campaigners like Richard North who understand the sheer complexity of leaving the EU and the folly of a sudden departure (see his blog). For a period of time, his Flexcit proposal stood its ground in the battle of ideas. Then again rational politics went out of the window years ago and the prize ultimately went to a fella who dismissed the difficulties of leaving the EU, claiming that the UK could enjoy the free movement of capital and goods in the single market but stop the free movement of labour. As Cohen notes, the lesson was clear: better to take the road to Narnia and promise everything while committing to nothing. To some extent, the strategy has worked brilliantly - its done a superb job of pulling the wool over the eyes of mugs like JJ, LD and Les.

Edited 8 February, 2019 by shurlock

[shurlock]

I kind of agree with you. I really agonised about my vote. I spent most of the election period considering the implications for trade and prosperity, and a week out from the vote, I realised that not only did I not have a clue, but neither did anyone else really either. So I thought, I’m just going to vote based on who I see myself as being. I’m proud that our island has defended itself from conquest for nearly a thousand years, and of our more recent tradition of democracy. But the more powerful thing in me is clinging to the common cause of humanity, and a curiosity and respect for other, particularly European, nationalities. Strangely this is despite great enthusiasm for American culture. I detest nationalism, and the politics of self interest. I have loved the European project. Always will. If you asked me to vote again a thousand times, I would vote the same way.

 

This is actually what separates the two sides; modern religions. On one side a coalition of greens and liberals as humanists. On the other, a coalition of nationalists, which is wholly unfair to generally label as racists. These sides are utterly irreconcilable. You might as well try to get humanity to coalesce around one monotheistic religion, or even a single sexuality.

 

The oddest thing is people not being able see the fundamental nature of this. The remainers who publicly still argue about the economic effect, or lorry queues ffs. Respect to their motives, and courage in the face of considerable hostility, but do they still think they can change even one mind? I don’t think so. This thread sums it all up so beautifully.

 

Your side “won”, so we will have to get on with it. Remainers shouldn’t despair. Nationalism will be a dying force, ultimately. Human history has repeatedly been about coalescence into larger and larger societies. It’s just in our make up as a natural force. But moreover I think, a mass of tiny variables will begin to act against the larger variable that is Brexit, to compensate, and render the destination pretty much unchanged anyway. I will speculate that shangri-la is probably not just around the next corner. People never want to blame themselves, so without the EU as scapegoat, something else will be found. Maybe Brexit itself. Thankfully not a committed remainers problem.

 

I'm sympathetic to your perspective but you overstate the distinction between what you call 'humanists' and 'nationalists' (not sure about the labels). Its quite possible to hold multiple identities simultaneously without feeling threatened or having to choose one side over the other. Read a bit of Amartya Sen (Identity and Violence).

[Wes Tender]

Oh dear Les and LD managing to rewrite history and dish up the usual pony.

 

A few points on how leaving the SM and CU is tantamount to a plan.

 

1.Not all people knew they were voting to leave the CM and SM. That point has been demolished on here before and is well-summarised here

I've posted this thread before and each time its been met with tumbleweed which suggests that you lads are a bit stumped

 

2. The small number of people who claimed we would leave the CM and SM also critically claimed that the UK would retain all the benefits of the SM and CU -that is the best of all possible worlds. A plan isn't a plan if it doesn't satisfy all the conditions set out by its proponents.

 

3. Not sure what either of you does for a living; but I'd be out of a job pal if I proposed a destination without a relatively clear idea how to get there. Leaving SM and CM is not a plan without specifics on how it can be implemented safely (as Tusk's full quote makes clear).

 

The dirty secret is that leave never articulated a plan and promised the undeliverable. Some might respond that's not the point of a campaign but Brexiters continued to avoid a plan and promise the undeliverable after the referendum when they should have been governing. Hence we heard from the leading Cabinet members how we could have our cake and eat it, how we could have the exact same benefits of the SM and CU without its attendant obligations.

 

Whenever leave campaigners have had to articulate anything resembling a workable plan, as Nick Cohen points out, they've fallen apart.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/26/brexiters-never-had-a-real-exit-plan-no-wonder-they-avoided-the-issue

 

That stark fact was true in the wilderness years leading up to the referendum as it was true in the wake of the Chequers Plan when ERG members were at each others throats. It was acknowledged by the likes of Dominic Cummings “There is much to be gained from swerving the whole issue...opponents of the EU have been divided for years”. In any case, “the sheer complexity of leaving would involve endless questions of detail that cannot be answered”.

 

The leave side had plenty of years to develop a plan. The IEA even created a €100,000 prize to whoever could design a means of leaving the European Union. I have a lot of time for informed leave campaigners like Richard North who understand the sheer complexity of leaving the EU and the folly of a sudden departure (see his blog). For a period of time, his Flexcit proposal stood its ground in the battle of ideas. Then again rational politics went out of the window years ago and the prize ultimately went to a fella who dismissed the difficulties of leaving the EU, claiming that the UK could enjoy the free movement of capital and goods in the single market but stop the free movement of labour. As Cohen notes, the lesson was clear: better to take the road to Narnia and promise everything while committing to nothing. To some extent, the strategy has worked brilliantly - its done a superb job of pulling the wool over the eyes of mugs like JJ, LD, Trousers and Les.

 

Quiet afternoon, is it? *Yawn*

[shurlock]

Well, Mr Fawkes agrees with you at least...

 

https://order-order.com/2019/02/07/tusk-vs-vote-leaves-mincing-machine/

 

Still fluffing for Guido?

 

Have you actually read Change or Go? Its the usual banal regurgitation of wishful thinking, exaggeration, half-truths and bats**t crazy falsehoods.

 

As for providing a blueprint for UK's departure from the EU, it dedicates 15 pages to the question - most of which is spent discussing the Norway, Swiss and Turkey options and suggesting how the UK could establish a new relationship ‘inside’ a form of European Union. To the extent that it trumpets the UK's unique position in the EU (a forerunner to we hold all the cards) and its confidence in a unique, bespoke treaty tailored to the precise details of the UK's situation, it is virtually silent on the consequences of leaving the EU without deal and how that transition would be managed. You'd also think think for a 1000 page magnum opus, there would be at least one reference to the Irish Border. Just one

[trousers]

Still fluffing for Guido?

Try to wean myself off. Down to just 3 nights a week now.

[shurlock]

Quiet afternoon, is it? *Yawn*

 

Conference call with some Canadian clients at 3pm - till then I'm all yours, if you want to respond.

[Wes Tender]

Meanwhile, only 49 days to go until we leave the EU

[shurlock]

Meanwhile, only 49 days to go until we leave the EU

 

Les - its highly like that Article 50 will be extended. All signs is that May will bottle and postpone next week's meaningful vote.

[shurlock]

It seems that the Japanese aren't just prepared to roll over or copy and paste its FTA with the EU. Now its dealing with a smaller partner, its confident it can secure better terms from the UK than it did from the EU. Living the dream

 

https://www.ft.com/content/5ce60af2-2b90-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7

[Wes Tender]

https://sites-herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/19043/landing-pages/a-view-from-brussels-february-2018-briefing(2).pdf

 

The backstop is the fly in the ointment of the Withdrawal Agreement, as there is no termination date or unilateral right to terminate it. But it seems that as it stands, having no termination date makes it illegal. No doubt Shurlock will tell us that these legal eagles don't know what they're talking about.

[Wes Tender]

It seems that the Japanese aren't just prepared to roll over or copy and paste its FTA with the EU. Now its dealing with a smaller partner, its confident it can secure better terms from the UK than it did from the EU. Living the dream

 

https://www.ft.com/content/5ce60af2-2b90-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7

 

https://www.ft.com/content/8f0724b8-5a84-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0

 

I'm surprised at you; you must be slipping. This news is old hat, they were saying the same thing 9 months ago.

[Guided Missile]

I kind of agree with you. I really agonised about my vote. I spent most of the election period considering the implications for trade and prosperity, and a week out from the vote, I realised that not only did I not have a clue, but neither did anyone else really either. So I thought, I’m just going to vote based on who I see myself as being. I’m proud that our island has defended itself from conquest for nearly a thousand years, and of our more recent tradition of democracy. But the more powerful thing in me is clinging to the common cause of humanity, and a curiosity and respect for other, particularly European, nationalities. Strangely this is despite great enthusiasm for American culture. I detest nationalism, and the politics of self interest. I have loved the European project. Always will. If you asked me to vote again a thousand times, I would vote the same way.

 

This is actually what separates the two sides; modern religions. On one side a coalition of greens and liberals as humanists. On the other, a coalition of nationalists, which is wholly unfair to generally label as racists. These sides are utterly irreconcilable. You might as well try to get humanity to coalesce around one monotheistic religion, or even a single sexuality.

 

The oddest thing is people not being able see the fundamental nature of this. The remainers who publicly still argue about the economic effect, or lorry queues ffs. Respect to their motives, and courage in the face of considerable hostility, but do they still think they can change even one mind? I don’t think so. This thread sums it all up so beautifully.

 

Your side “won”, so we will have to get on with it. Remainers shouldn’t despair. Nationalism will be a dying force, ultimately. Human history has repeatedly been about coalescence into larger and larger societies. It’s just in our make up as a natural force. But moreover I think, a mass of tiny variables will begin to act against the larger variable that is Brexit, to compensate, and render the destination pretty much unchanged anyway. I will speculate that shangri-la is probably not just around the next corner. People never want to blame themselves, so without the EU as scapegoat, something else will be found. Maybe Brexit itself. Thankfully not a committed remainers problem.

Excellent and thoughtful post. I have two points that I would like to make:

1. Democracy won and always should.
   
2. Shangri-la is never around the next corner.
   

[benjii]

https://sites-herbertsmithfreehills.vuturevx.com/20/19043/landing-pages/a-view-from-brussels-february-2018-briefing(2).pdf

 

The backstop is the fly in the ointment of the Withdrawal Agreement, as there is no termination date or unilateral right to terminate it. But it seems that as it stands, having no termination date makes it illegal. No doubt Shurlock will tell us that these legal eagles don't know what they're talking about.

 

Are you saying we should ask the European Court of Justice to help us?

 

#takebackcontrol

[stug76]

Oh dear Les and LD managing to rewrite history and dish up the usual pony.

 

A few points on how leaving the SM and CU is tantamount to a plan.

 

1.Not all people knew they were voting to leave the CM and SM. That point has been demolished on here before and is well-summarised here

I've posted this thread before and each time its been met with tumbleweed which suggests that you lads are a bit stumped [emoji38]

 

2. The small number of people who claimed we would leave the CM and SM also critically claimed that the UK would retain all the benefits of the SM and CU -that is the best of all possible worlds. A plan isn't a plan if it doesn't satisfy all the conditions set out by its proponents.

 

3. Not sure what either of you does for a living; but I'd be out of a job pal if I proposed a destination without a relatively clear idea how to get there. Leaving SM and CM is not a plan without specifics on how it can be implemented safely (as Tusk's full quote makes clear).

 

The dirty secret is that leave never articulated a plan and promised the undeliverable. Some might respond that's not the point of a campaign but Brexiters continued to avoid a plan and promise the undeliverable after the referendum when they should have been governing. Hence we heard from the leading Cabinet members how we could have our cake and eat it, how we could have the exact same benefits of the SM and CU without its attendant obligations.

 

Whenever leave campaigners have had to articulate anything resembling a workable plan, as Nick Cohen points out, they've fallen apart.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/26/brexiters-never-had-a-real-exit-plan-no-wonder-they-avoided-the-issue

 

That stark fact was true in the wilderness years leading up to the referendum as it was true in the wake of the Chequers Plan when ERG members were at each others throats. It was acknowledged by the likes of Dominic Cummings “There is much to be gained from swerving the whole issue...opponents of the EU have been divided for years”. In any case, “the sheer complexity of leaving would involve endless questions of detail that cannot be answered”.

 

The leave side had plenty of years to develop a plan. The IEA even created a €100,000 prize to whoever could design a means of leaving the European Union. I have a lot of time for informed leave campaigners like Richard North who understand the sheer complexity of leaving the EU and the folly of a sudden departure (see his blog). For a period of time, his Flexcit proposal stood its ground in the battle of ideas. Then again rational politics went out of the window years ago and the prize ultimately went to a fella who dismissed the difficulties of leaving the EU, claiming that the UK could enjoy the free movement of capital and goods in the single market but stop the free movement of labour. As Cohen notes, the lesson was clear: better to take the road to Narnia and promise everything while committing to nothing. To some extent, the strategy has worked brilliantly - its done a superb job of pulling the wool over the eyes of mugs like JJ, LD and Les.

Just for complicity, could you do the same analysis of the remain plan?

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

https://www.ft.com/content/8f0724b8-5a84-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0

 

I'm surprised at you; you must be slipping. This news is old hat, they were saying the same thing 9 months ago.

 

No doubt you would have dismissed that type of news as project fear. Now its coming to pass.

 

Still not like you to miss the woods for trees Les. We need an independent trade policy so we can negotiate better deals than inside the EU has morphed into we can copy and paste all our EU FTAs (a lot of grunt work just to stand still) has now morphed into an acceptance that we're likely to negotiate inferior deals outside the EU because we're a smaller party.

 

#sovirintee

[Wes Tender]

No doubt you would have dismissed that type of news as project fear. Now its coming to pass.

 

Still not like you to miss the woods for trees Les. We need an independent trade policy so we can negotiate better deals than inside the EU has morphed into we can copy and paste all our EU FTAs (a lot of grunt work just to stand still) has now morphed into an acceptance that we're likely to negotiate inferior deals outside the EU because we're a smaller party.

 

#sovirintee

 

I hope that you enjoyed your conference call earlier. I was hoping that you would give us all the benefit of your expertise on the matter of the legality of the Backstop, as it seems that having one without a termination date could be illegal. I posted a link above and await your comments.

 

Regarding the Japanese suggesting that they will give us an inferior deal to that they give the EU, then it is feasible that this is a negotiating ploy, could it not? We will see what we or they wish to achieve when the horse trading starts in earnest. But as I said, unusual for you not to have realised that the story is basically a rehash of one from 9 months ago. Must be a slow news day at the FT whilst we are in this lull in the negotiations with the EU, when all there is to report is Tusk and Verhofstadt acting like prats.

[Wes Tender]

Are you saying we should ask the European Court of Justice to help us?

 

#takebackcontrol

 

It is the EU's backstop policy that appears to be at fault, so yes, it ought to be their Law Court that sorts it out to avoid their embarrassment. Deliciously ironic, isn't it? I understand that if they're quick about it, which they have proven to be capable of in the past, there could just be enough time to get it fixed before the 29th March.

[shurlock]

Just for complicity, could you do the same analysis of the remain plan?

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

 

As I said in another post, it goes without saying that nobody knows what the future looks like. However we know as a matter of fact the extent of our rights and obligations as an EU member and the rules of the game that fix the scope of the EU’s competences and the processes for reaching collective decisions. Thus, we would not be forced to join an EU army or participate in any of the swivels bête noires because of our veto while any new treaty or amendment of a treaty that attempted to rewrite the rules of the game would need to be approved by an Act of Parliament and the electorate in a referendum. All that places significant constraints on how our relationship with the EU might have evolved if we had decided to remain, reducing the degree of uncertainty associated with EU membership. There really is no comparison. Remain literally is remain.

Edited 8 February, 2019 by shurlock

[Verbal]

Just for complicity, could you do the same analysis of the remain plan?

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

Yes, here you go:

 

We remain.

[Wes Tender]

 

JHB nails the Tusk, Verhofstadt and Juncker childishness.

[shurlock]

I hope that you enjoyed your conference call earlier. I was hoping that you would give us all the benefit of your expertise on the matter of the legality of the Backstop, as it seems that having one without a termination date could be illegal. I posted a link above and await your comments.

 

Regarding the Japanese suggesting that they will give us an inferior deal to that they give the EU, then it is feasible that this is a negotiating ploy, could it not? We will see what we or they wish to achieve when the horse trading starts in earnest. But as I said, unusual for you not to have realised that the story is basically a rehash of one from 9 months ago. Must be a slow news day at the FT whilst we are in this lull in the negotiations with the EU, when all there is to report is Tusk and Verhofstadt acting like prats.

 

It was alright Les - had to bang off a few emails.

 

I have no idea about the legality of the backstop - I don't typically express a view on things I know little about. Suffice to say that every line of every policy proposal I worked on when I did a stint in government was thoroughly vetted by the government's lawyers. Its hard to believe that the European Council and Commission lawyers or the Attorney General would not have done the same for something significantly more important and controversial.

Edited 8 February, 2019 by shurlock

[shurlock]

 

JHB nails the Tusk, Verhofstadt and Juncker childishness.

 

Calm down snowflake. You can give it but you can't take it, right pal

 

The Europeans have been saints when you consider the decades of ignorant bile and vitriol that have gone their way. Nazis, concentration camps, devils, mafias, gulags you name it. Tusk, who suffered first-hand under communism, alone deserves a medal for putting up with Jeremy Hunt, the cretinous airhead cavorting as Foreign Secretary who described the EU as a soviet prison camp.

Edited 8 February, 2019 by shurlock

[stug76]

As I said in another post, it goes without saying that nobody knows what the future looks like. However we know as a matter of fact the extent of our rights and obligations as an EU member and the rules of the game that fix the scope of the EU’s competences and the processes for reaching collective decisions. Thus, we would not be forced to join an EU army or participate in any of the swivels bête noires because of our veto while any new treaty or amendment of a treaty that attempted to rewrite the rules of the game would need to be approved by an Act of Parliament and the electorate in a referendum. All that places significant constraints on how our relationship with the EU might have evolved if we had decided to remain, reducing the degree of uncertainty associated with EU membership. There really is no comparison. Remain literally is remain.

So no plan then? No long, medium or short term plan for our future in the EU? What were people voting for?

 

Both sides had no plan. Brexit had goals, and Remain had rights and obligations but not a plan to be seen! Could you argue that after brexit, after the short term uncertainty, we have a better chance of having a plan that reflects our interests as a nation rather than as part of a disparate collective of nations?

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

So no plan then? No long, medium or short term plan for our future in the EU? What were people voting for?

 

Both sides had no plan. Brexit had goals, and Remain had rights and obligations but not a plan to be seen! Could you argue that after brexit, after the short term uncertainty, we have a better chance of having a plan that reflects our interests as a nation rather than as part of a disparate collective of nations?

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

You can read the hundreds of thousands of pages detailing the UK's rights and obligations as an EU member and the EU's competences - all of which explain what it means to remain. That's your plan. When you can point to something similar for leave, perhaps come back and we can have a chat. In the meantime, I think you need to work on your argument a bit pal

Edited 8 February, 2019 by shurlock

[stug76]

You can read the hundreds of thousands of pages detailing the UK's rights and obligations as an EU member and the EU's competences - all of which explain what it means to remain. That's your plan. When you can point to something similar for leave, perhaps come back and we can have a chat. In the meantime, I think you need to work on your argument a bit pal [emoji38]

I've not really got an 'argument', to be fair. Just saying there's no Brexit plan so it's ok not to have a remain plan is a bit disappointing. I was genuinely hoping you would be able to point to something that's says ..we are the EU, this is what we are going to do. Short, medium and long term. Then I can weigh that up against the pro's and con's of Brexits sovereignty stance. Simple high level stuff, like the EU will invest in the UK car/manufacturing/service industries to increase our global competitiveness . Maybe the EU are going improve the UK infrastructure or health service. How about a policy aimed at poverty or workers rights. There must be something that the EU stands for? Stuff that it hasn't done yet, but it want to do.

 

Honestly, I'm not trying to pick a fight but you can't point and laugh at thickie brexiteers without at least being able to offer them an alternative. Even if it's, no change here, as you were.

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Unbelievable Jeff]

https://www.ft.com/content/8f0724b8-5a84-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0

 

I'm surprised at you; you must be slipping. This news is old hat, they were saying the same thing 9 months ago.

 

Let's say he did miss it at the time (which I doubt he did), aren't you missing the point that we're going to be signing an inferior deal - and will be worse off due to that.

 

I know it's difficult, but try playing the ball and not the man sometimes.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I've not really got an 'argument', to be fair. Just saying there's no Brexit plan so it's ok not to have a remain plan is a bit disappointing. I was genuinely hoping you would be able to point to something that's says ..we are the EU, this is what we are going to do. Short, medium and long term. Then I can weigh that up against the pro's and con's of Brexits sovereignty stance. Simple high level stuff, like the EU will invest in the UK car/manufacturing/service industries to increase our global competitiveness . Maybe the EU are going improve the UK infrastructure or health service. How about a policy aimed at poverty or workers rights. There must be something that the EU stands for? Stuff that it hasn't done yet, but it want to do.

 

Honestly, I'm not trying to pick a fight but you can't point and laugh at thickie brexiteers without at least being able to offer them an alternative. Even if it's, no change here, as you were.

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

I think the issue is you don't really understand what the EU is, or what it does.

[scotty]

So you now claim to speak for all leave voters. A number (6) of leave voting friends of mine who voted for a number of reasons but in the main they voted as a protest, 5 of the 6 would now change their vote as they acknowledge they did not fully appraise themselves fully of the facts, so the oft stated leaver slogan “we knew what we were voting for” is PONY

 

That's interesting, because I've spoken at length with at least 20 leave voters, and not one of them have suggested they would alter the way they voted. If anything the ongoing debate since the referendum has hardened their positions.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

That's interesting, because I've spoken at length with at least 20 leave voters, and not one of them have suggested they would alter the way they voted. If anything the ongoing debate since the referendum has hardened their positions.

 

It's definitely true that a lot of leavers have doubled down on their position, even in the face of all the difficulties we have/are facing, but there are also a lot that have decided that the current and potential economic issues aren't worth it.

 

I think for a lot of Brexiteers it will be that they will reap what they sow - especially if they have index linked pensions...

[shurlock]

Let's say he did miss it at the time (which I doubt he did), aren't you missing the point that we're going to be signing an inferior deal - and will be worse off due to that.

 

I know it's difficult, but try playing the ball and not the man sometimes.

 

Les is struggling if he's having to challenge me on whether I've read and recollect every article in the FT. Especially when he’s citing articles that pretty undermine everything he’s claiming. Still he can fill his boots as far as I’m concerned

 

The point is that last May (when Les killer article was published) Liam Fox could (reasonably) claim that time was on his side - that he still had a nearly year to roll over the EU's FTAs and iron out differences.

 

Now with less than 50 day to go, that excuse no longer holds water as Japan and other prospective trade partners dig their heels in and demand better terms. So not only is the UK failing to replicate the deals it already has in the event of a no deal but a good number of those deals are likely to be on inferior terms.

Edited 8 February, 2019 by shurlock

[CB Fry]

I've not really got an 'argument', to be fair. Just saying there's no Brexit plan so it's ok not to have a remain plan is a bit disappointing. I was genuinely hoping you would be able to point to something that's says ..we are the EU, this is what we are going to do. Short, medium and long term. Then I can weigh that up against the pro's and con's of Brexits sovereignty stance. Simple high level stuff, like the EU will invest in the UK car/manufacturing/service industries to increase our global competitiveness . Maybe the EU are going improve the UK infrastructure or health service. How about a policy aimed at poverty or workers rights. There must be something that the EU stands for? Stuff that it hasn't done yet, but it want to do.

 

Honestly, I'm not trying to pick a fight but you can't point and laugh at thickie brexiteers without at least being able to offer them an alternative. Even if it's, no change here, as you were.

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

Jesus wept. Jesus effing wept.

[Guided Missile]

Japan can wait...

Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, is expected to agree a trade deal with Switzerland on Monday which would come into effect at midnight on March 29 under a no-deal Brexit, or at the end of the 18-month transition period if an agreement is signed off. "This is by far the biggest of the EU third party trade agreements and represents 20 per cent of the total of the value of trade for the UK in the rolling over of [existing] EU trade agreements," a senior government source said.