I think we have to go through the process.
No matter how bent the referendum was, as a remainer I still think we have to stand by the result.

Perhaps we could just leave everything as it it is, but send them a slightly smaller Christmas card?

Oh I think we have to press on for a bit in order to make it crystal clear to the hard-of-thinking that it can’t work. Or perhaps more precisely, it needs to be clearly established that only deal we can negotiate will be clearly far worse than the status quo. That’s the only situation where the politicians will feel able to abandon the process. While politicians are still fantasising about tariff-free (and barrier-free) access to the single market for trade but not labour, with no payment, and no ECJ jurisdiction, we have to keep going like lemmings heading for the cliff..

And if they are right, I’ll eat my bike.

EFTA cop out is I think the best that we can hope for. I would of course be happy to pitch up in Brussels in 10 days time and beg forgiveness!

The arrogance of the likes of Fallon this morning is quite breathtaking.

No matter how bent the referendum was, as a remainer I still think we have to stand by the result.

Why ?

Personally i think it is highly unlikely a vote now would win so why are we still going ahead with the madness won on a pack of lies?

In what sense is that democratic?

Opinions change and policies change to reflect this

No I think a second ref vote right now would win comprehensively. Not through logic and care but because I’m quite sure that a large majority don’t really care one way or the other but just want it over with. Note how few votes the LDs got. Also, “sense of fair play” would come into it, people don’t like the idea of having repeated votes until they say what they are told to. That’s why we probably have to press on and negotiate a stupid damaging deal before people can actually make a sensible decision between that and the status quo. The alternative would require a level of political leadership that we aren’t likely to see any time soon.

We’ve just seen that honesty, not cynical opportunism can actually engage people in politics.

How do you think people would react if we attempted to reverse the result now?

the captain has it above – start the process, present the facts honestly and see how the country reacts.

possibly but i dont think so personally. The fairest thing given all- bar the most ardent Brexiteer* – agree it meant different things to different people is to negotiate a deal then ask if we prefer the deal or staying.

I just find it absurd to say we cannot reconsider this – if that was the case then it applied to joining 😉

* who seem to think it was a vote for hard Brexit despite leave campaigning for a free trade deal and saving the NHS with £350 million

How do you think people would react if we attempted to reverse the result now?

its another vote if its reversed then it is by the majority as mentioned the compromise is a vote on the deal to decide- how could leavers object to that ?

Even Jamba admits a second ref would be remain. Not necessarily because of “bregret” but because before, everyone was voting for their dream brexit and now, you’d only get to vote for the real one. The will of the people is only important til you know it’s not what you want.

thecaptain – Member

Brexit is the Kobayashi Maru of modern politics

takes one to know one and we all know it can only be beaten by cheating 😉

Failing that the best option is not to play. Which is why Corbyn threatening to overthrow the govt and run a minority himself is so silly – far better to let the tories twist in the wind for a while until they collapse under the weight of their own failure. Whoever is seen to be calling the next election will pay a price for that alone.

He’s just keeping the pressure on – I doubt he has any intention of playing. In a way the Tories best move might be to call his bluff, but they’re too arrogant for that.

it needs to be clearly established that only deal we can negotiate will be clearly far worse than the status quo. That’s the only situation where the politicians will feel able to abandon the process.

Agree. Whereas it makes sense to just call it off now as it is clearly not going to end well you have to at least have shown you tried as that was the will of the (52% of) people.

Turnout only 40% with an hour left to vote in France. Anything could happen with so few voters. Off to count at 18:00.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/eu-threatens-year-long-delay-in-brexit-talks-over-uks-negotiating-stance

EU losing patience……..

Indeed Edukator, my wife commented how low the turnout was. She voted this morning

EDIT: I see @mille posted the story already. The EU has been stalling for 11 months already insisting on no talks before A50. That’s backfired badly now

In EU news the Guaradian has this “excusive” quoting an EU official threatneing to delay negotiations by a year if we seek to discuss exit arrangements at the same time as trade. Yup suits us, we call your bluff mon amis

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/eu-threatens-year-long-delay-in-brexit-talks-over-uks-negotiating-stance

Yup suits us, we call your bluff mon amis

You’re happy with a delay to Brexit?

Juncker: I think you need to call an election Theresa. You need a mandate.

Mummy: Ok. Let’s do this.

Juncker: *giggles* My work here is done.

Outmanoeuvred again.

The EU has been stalling for 11 months already insisting on no talks before A50. That’s backfired badly now

“If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”

One tory David Cameron now remind us what the Tories die whilst the EU were “delaying” the process of exit

Once more your politics goes before the facts

FWIW i dont understand the reason, beyond belligerence, why they wont negotiate beforehand or negotiation in parallel [ trade and payments etc] but the delay in all of this cannot be laid at their door.

FWIW i dont understand the reason, beyond belligerence, why they wont negotiate beforehand or negotiation in parallel [ trade and payments etc] but the delay in all of this cannot be laid at their door.

I would imagine it is that they want to control the negotiation. They believe we probably want to get on and sort out our trade deals so we can still import food etc. at a reasonable cost. If we are not able to negotiate these until we have sorted out the payments owed, status of people we can’t get the trade deal we want and then stall the other half of the talks.

Still none of this should really matter as there has been so much time to prepare all the negotiators and positions should already be in place and if you believe everything we have been told it should only take a few months to complete everything…

I wonder if the negotiators will take the summer recess..

Jamba – you keep trotting out this nonsense.

The EU has been stalling for 11 months already insisting on no talks before A50.

How often do you start negotiating before there’s anything to negotiate.

“I’m interested in buying your house.”
“Great let’s negotiate a price”

Not
“I’d like to view your house”
“Great let’s negotiate a price”

There is a point where negotiations start and triggering A50 was always the only sensible point. The referendum was essentially meaningless outside of domestic politics.

Well that had the counters drop jawed. The National Front and Socialists have all but disappeared and it’s a two horse race between the Republicans and En Marche with En Marche well ahead in our local voting station.

If we are not able to negotiate these until we have sorted out the payments owed, status of people we can’t get the trade deal we want and then stall the other half of the talks.

hence doing them in parallel as its also blindingly obvious that the extent of the payment settlement is going to be based on what we get in return

No one is going to settle the finances in a divorce and then discuss the kids they happen in parallel as its the fairest and easiest way as cooperation [ or lack of] can be countered.

Its a negotiation and both sides need to see movement on what they care about most.

I dont think either side is covering itself in glory right now but the initial delay is of our making not theirs.

Wanting to negociate future agreements during the pull out is not what Lisbon treeaty defined so I think that Bannier is being generous to even consider it. The treay only has a few lines of text and they give two years to neociate the withdrawal conditions, not what happens after.

I don’t understand why the delay is bad for the EU ?

33%, wow man! Macron has done the impossible in the space of a year.

Nor me, Chris. The longer it drags on and the more uncertain the outcome, the greater the chance that those English will realise that Brexit is folly and withdraw Art. 50.

@ junkyard

It is a power struggle not an equal divorce. By forcing the issue on payments and people to be done first this will delay the trade deal. If we are desperate to get a good trade deal it is in our interest to get the first step out of the way first. Favours given in expectation of favours to be received and all that.
If trade was negotiated first then pressure can be brought by companies inside member states to push through the payment deal to get everything approved.
It is not a plan designed to make the transition quick or easy. Depends on if you think the EU believe they need us more than we need them.
If we keep saying we are prepared to walk away with no deal unless we get a better position than we now have they may just be lining up to call our bluff.

IMO the time for backing out has long gone. It would be political suicide on a global stage to let it get this far then u turn.

The impression I get from French and German media is:

Best outcome: no Brexit.

Worst outcome: Brexit with the possibility social and fiscal dumping.

So the strategy has to be to make Brexit undesirable and if it does go ahead, the least damaging possible for the remaining 27 states.

Depends on if you think the EU believe they need us more than we need them.

They don’t. But they do need us to not disappear into an economic abyss.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/ruth-davidsons-scottish-tory-mps-will-be-prepared-to-defy?utm_term=.dbE3QZpwq#.qt7B3dXRJ

Wonder how far the Scottish Tories will push it, it would also undermine the SNP to get a EFTA style deal as you will have left the EU but with few major changes.

By forcing the issue on payments and people to be done first this will delay the trade deal. If we are desperate to get a good trade deal it is in our interest to get the first step out of the way first. Favours given in expectation of favours to be received and all that.

that is the critical bit. it is obvious the extent to which we wish to pay is related to the extent to which we think they have been fair. We wont know that till afterwards so it makes sense to debate both concurrently. I assume its the same for the EU. Fair payment = fair terms. we cannot negotiate one and then the other. If they wish to delay they can but i assume us leaving with no deal and them getting no payment is also the least desirable outcome for them also – though it is worse for us than them.

Its unlikely we will agree to what they want then get nothing and then pay anyway. No PM can take that chance

they do need us to not disappear into an economic abyss.

they may well choose this if we dont pay a penny.
The two are so obviously intertwined i dont see the point in doing one first as it will still obviously be dependent on the outcome of the other talks for both sides.

I guess my take on it is the EU want their money first then trade seconds we want to do it at the same time so we pay for what we get. They are positioning the UK to be on the back foot and having to pay in expectation of a trade deal.

Separate negotiations give them a better platform at the start (IMO) but I agree that we probably won’t get the deal either side wants and no one will end up happy.

In the media I read the main issue is not the cash payment, that’s taken as given. It’s a debt that has to be paid. Either way it’s a short term issue.

It’s the long game that counts. Finding a solution that allows trade under fair conditions. i.e. Britain contributes financially to the trade system it enjoys access to, and doesn’t indulge in unfair trade practices, social or fiscal dumping… .

i.e. Britain contributes financially to the trade system

Without any influence…

So the Eurozone implosion – that starts tomorrow am, yeah?

Edukator it is absolutely not a debt that needs to be paid. It’s a political try on, an attempt to blackmail the UK on the basis we need a free trade deal. It has no legal basis, see the House of Lords report. We owe our budget contributions less rebate till 2019. We are not legally liable for the budget beyond that, we are not kegalky liable even for the pensions of retired / current EU bureaucrats who happen to be UK citizens. This is why the EU is trying to insist the “exit bill” is decided before trad discussions, its a politcal try on. If it was a legal debt there would b no dicussion, the bill would be written down in black and white. This is why May quite rightly said no deal is better than a bad deal.

As you say yourself, in the press you read. The Germans have got the message and havecalled for a meeting in 2018 to decide what to do about the EU budget after 2019. More payments vs less grants

If there is WTO or even if not I see no reason why the UK shouldn’t have the same tax rates as Ireland or Luxembourg. If the EU doesn’t like our labour laws they can impose some extra tariffs. The UK’s exprts to Europe have been falling in oercentage terms for 10 years, the tremd is clear. Europe is less and less important.

Turkey. Has it joined yet?

Jamba, who is paying Farages pension?

Do you really think the EU won’t expect the UK to cover it?

The UK’s exprts to Europe have been falling in oercentage terms for 10 years, the tremd is clear. Europe is less and less important.

true but it is still 44% of OUR trade and you really cannot play a game of chicken when its 44% of your trade and 4 % of theirs – well you can but you will get run over

Edukator it is absolutely not a debt that needs to be paid.

Yeah coz running off and not paying our dues isn’t going to make us look like even more of a basket case to future trading partners.

I know it’s been said many, many times but, shit the bed! You Brexies really haven’t thought this through