[Politics] Brexit

[pb21]

The triggering of Article 50 requires 2 years of negociations - it was those EU rules I was referring to. If the EU want to protect their corrupt like club that's quite understandable.

Presumably we would have endorsed A50, being part of the EU, so it is partially our own rule?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

DisMay's crucial error was not going for a Norway deal and spending 2 years getting as many +++'s on it as possible.

Sure, we'd have been a 'rule taker' - but only of 20ish % of EU rules. Not really worth stressing over I reckon, particularly given Farage and Hannan are on video offering it as a potential outcome.

Theresa Dismay - you are a *No deal* dunce.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Presumably we would have endorsed A50, being part of the EU, so it is partially our own rule?

Yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but

 

[Westdene Seagull]

All things aside your “half a post a year” line did make me chuckle! It’s safe to say he won’t be bothering the NSC New Year’s honours list anytime soon

I don't think BG's crown is under any threat

 

[WATFORD zero]

I don't think BG's crown is under any threat

Talking of crowns under threat



Still the longest running farce in British history - just

 

[Westdene Seagull]

OK, since you think that the EU and TM are responsible for the complete clusterf*** we now find ourselves in. I have three very simple questions on what you would have liked to have happened.

Following the referendum

Who do you think should have led the country and the negotiations ?
Do you believe we should have negotiated with the EU or just started preparations for 'no deal' immediately ? (I know that 'no deal' is your preferred option)
If we did negotiate with the EU, what concessions do you think that we could have got with your negotiating team that TM didn't ?

You love questions don't you !

For whom I think should have been in charge I'm going to get lots of rolling eyes and 'are you fvcking stupid' but I personally think Gove would have done a much better job. People hated him in Education but he stuck to his guns and I also think he's done a very decent job at Environment. He's a leaver ( it really never made any sense having a remainer as leader - it's as sensible as having [MENTION=435]Stat Brother[/MENTION] head of the SMMT ) and comes across as a hard nosed politician ( regardless if you support his policies ). Nothing like sit on the fence May who appears to not even be able to decide what to have for dinner let alone stick to a policy.

Both - it was idiotic not to start planning for a no deal immediately - it made our position weak. No deal is my option over Chequers ..... it clearly isn't the best deal but we've passed the point of getting anything decent out of the EU.

I don't know but we chould have been far more vicious with the EU. Threaterned punitive tarrifs on the EU car industry, no right to stay for EU citizens, no divorce payment etc - we started at a low point - being too nice. The EU were never going to agree to concessions if we were being nice.

 

[The Clamp]

You love questions don't you !

For whom I think should have been in charge I'm going to get lots of rolling eyes and 'are you fvcking stupid' but I personally think Gove would have done a much better job. People hated him in Education but he stuck to his guns and I also think he's done a very decent job at Environment. He's a leaver ( it really never made any sense having a remainer as leader - it's as sensible as having [MENTION=435]Stat Brother[/MENTION] head of the SMMT ) and comes across as a hard nosed politician ( regardless if you support his policies ). Nothing like sit on the fence May who appears to not even be able to decide what to have for dinner let alone stick to a policy.

Both - it was idiotic not to start planning for a no deal immediately - it made our position weak. No deal is my option over Chequers ..... it clearly isn't the best deal but we've passed the point of getting anything decent out of the EU.

I don't know but we chould have been far more vicious with the EU. Threaterned punitive tarrifs on the EU car industry, no right to stay for EU citizens, no divorce payment etc - we started at a low point - being too nice. The EU were never going to agree to concessions if we were being nice.

Some of this I agre with but I think our main fault was coming in with mixed tactics . On the one hand we had May stating she’s a “difficult woman” and Farage performing a rant to the European Parliament and on the other we had government stammering and stallling and capitulating. All of which just made us look like a bunch of bumblefecks. However , we all know my overall position is that Brexit could never work whoever took the reigns as I believe it’s a fundamentally flawed concept.

 

[CHAPPERS]

The GE should have been the end of it. May should have been shitcanned then, or they should have paused everything.

****ing Tories.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Looking forward to next year now, for sure :

https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1061607091364945921?s=19

 

[Two Professors]

You are accusing another poster of making no sense when you have made no sense in any of your posts at anytime.
Hypocrisy of the highest order.

So are you the Plymouth bonehead,or just a chopper?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Breathtaking hypocrisy .. undemocratic loons and remoaners have been arguing for a vassalage/soft Brexit second prize option for nearly two years. Now all of a sudden it's unacceptable and a reason for a second vote ... do behave.

And another thing... you're stating the bleeding obvious.

OF COURSE people arguing against Brexit would, if the country had to leave, prefer the mildest form of it. That doesn't mean and has never meant that they want it. Are you really expecting them to say: "I'm 100 per cent against leaving the EU but if we have to leave I'd prefer the severest-possible version of departure."?

The considered view is that a soft-Brexit is most people's second favourite - Remainers would rather have it than leave and Leavers would rather have it than remain. But hardly anyone actually wants it. You know all this anyway - you just couldn't resist an unfounded rant.

 

[Two Professors]

I see Bloomberg is now reporting on the $240 be a day market that is leaving London for Amsterdam solely because of Brexit. So many news outlets commenting on this but not one Leave voter. Baffling. It’s massive news. It’s almost as if they’re avoiding reality or something. Well, reality won’t avoid them. Hope they have some contingency plans in place for their loved ones.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-month-market-leaves-london-because-of-brexit

Think most people followed the debate on this when they first announced the move in July 2017.Congratulations on catching up.

 

[Two Professors]

6 posts by Monday lunchtime.

Have you chewed through your whole week's worth of crayons already ?

Have you chewed through yours.Perhaps I could send you some as a reward,when you tell us the implementation timetable for EU/Japan.I will give you a clue-it's either 2 years,or 15 years.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

British airways to become Spanish ?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special...b-rees-mogg-response-british-airways-spanish/

JRM advising them to seek a back up when it goes wrong, like he has already done

 

[WATFORD zero]

You love questions don't you !

For whom I think should have been in charge I'm going to get lots of rolling eyes and 'are you fvcking stupid' but I personally think Gove would have done a much better job. People hated him in Education but he stuck to his guns and I also think he's done a very decent job at Environment. He's a leaver ( it really never made any sense having a remainer as leader - it's as sensible as having [MENTION=435]Stat Brother[/MENTION] head of the SMMT ) and comes across as a hard nosed politician ( regardless if you support his policies ). Nothing like sit on the fence May who appears to not even be able to decide what to have for dinner let alone stick to a policy.

Both - it was idiotic not to start planning for a no deal immediately - it made our position weak. No deal is my option over Chequers ..... it clearly isn't the best deal but we've passed the point of getting anything decent out of the EU.

I don't know but we chould have been far more vicious with the EU. Threaterned punitive tarrifs on the EU car industry, no right to stay for EU citizens, no divorce payment etc - we started at a low point - being too nice. The EU were never going to agree to concessions if we were being nice.

I do love a question ! Thanks for that

I think that there are a number of reasons there wasn't (and still hasn't been) any planning for 'no deal'.

1. The vast majority of MPs, economists, business people etc, thought (and still think - look at the stories coming out daily) that 'no deal' would be economic suicide and not going to happen. Something that I may have mentioned once or twice and therefor any significant investment in preparation would be wasted.

2. To properly plan and prepare would cost 10s of billions. Building Lorry parks at ports and increasing customs at all ports and airports would be major, together with all the Requirements Anslysis (Once our negotiations with the WTO members are complete), IT Infrastructure, Applications to be developed and Staff to be trained.

3. NI would have to have a hard border for which there is very little political appetite from any side (to say the least !).

4. If we had immediately submitted our schedules and quotas to the WTO after the referendum, within 6 months we would have been in heavyweight negotiations with, USA, Russia, Brazil, India, China, the EU (of course) and numerous others. The size and complexity of these negotiations would quickly become apparent, and that these negotiations are likely to take years judging from WTO negotiations in the past. Of course, having failed to pay our previously agreed commitments to the EU (the divorce bill) and being more threatening with the EU we are going to be in an excellent negotiating position, both with them and the rest of the world.

And, in the case of a deal with the EU, I think whoever was leading negotiations for us, were never going to get anything but the bare minimum (membership benefits, membership costs, no influence over rule-making). This is the line that the EU have consistently held.

Those have always been the two Brexit options and the simple fact of the matter is they are both shit.

And to be fair, all of the above isn't with the benefit of hindsight. As I'm sure you're sick of hearing, I have been saying this ever since the referendum.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

if , could ,should, maybe , another muggy Monday from the Grizzlers , be seeing you
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

https://youtu.be/SxgocFOCUBc bye bye EU
regards
DR

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I do love a question ! Thanks for that

I think that there are a number of reasons there was (and still hasn't been) any planning for 'no deal'.

1. The vast majority of MPs, economists, business people etc, thought (and still think - look at the stories coming out daily) that 'no deal' would be economic suicide and not going to happen. Something that I may have mentioned once or twice and therefor any significant investment in preparation would be wasted.

2. To properly plan and prepare would cost 10s of billions. Building Lorry parks at ports and increasing customs at all ports and airports would be major, together with all the Requirements Anslysis (Once our negotiations with the WTO members are complete), IT Infrastructure, Applications to be developed and Staff to be trained.

3. NI would have to have a hard border for which there is very little political will from any side (to say the least !).

4. If we had immediately submitted our schedules and quotas to the WTO after the referendum, within 6 months we would have been in heavyweight negotiations with, USA, Russia, Brazil, India, China, the EU (of course) and numerous others. The size and complexity of these negotiations would quickly become apparent, and that these negotiations are likely to take years judging from WTO negotiations in the past. Of course, having failed to pay our previously agreed commitments to the EU (the divorce bill) and being more threatening with the EU we are going to be in an excellent negotiating position, both with them and the rest of the world.

And, in the case of a deal with the EU, I think whoever was leading negotiations for us, were never going to get anything but the bare minimum (membership benefits, membership costs, no influence over rule-making). This is the line that the EU have consistently held.

Those have always been the two Brexit options and the simple fact of the matter is they are both shit.

And to be fair, all of the above isn't with the benefit of hindsight. As I'm sure you're sick of hearing, I have been saying this ever since the referendum.

Planning and implementation would indeed have cost money but in any negociation you always need an ultimate backstop - in this case it could only ever realistically be 'no deal'. We could have easily carried out the planning phase and held back on the implementation for a while to save on up front costs. I'd liken 'no deal' planning to BCP/DR planning in business. I've lost count how many FDs I've sat in front of and said it will cost you say £200k to make all your IT resilient. "I'm not paying that !". "How much would it cost you per day to have no operation ?", "About £50k a day", "I rest my case". I'll use a local example of why this sort of planning is so vital. A local healthcare company near Worthing had a dodgy roof. The owning company had provided the budget to replace it but the MD kept delaying because he doesn't like spending money. The roof would have cost around £100k. No BCP/DR planning was in place. Roof started to leak and when checked there was asbestos. The company had to shut down and give all staff two weeks paid leave. They had to have 850 pallets of stock moved to a temporary site - took over two weeks to do. The company is still not fully up and running and the whole episode has cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds. There is zero excuse for it to take a company over six weeks to get back to 100% and it's all because of lack of planning. Thankfully for them their owning company is bankrolling them.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Planning and implementation would indeed have cost money but in any negociation you always need an ultimate backstop - in this case it could only ever realistically be 'no deal'. We could have easily carried out the planning phase and held back on the implementation for a while to save on up front costs. I'd liken 'no deal' planning to BCP/DR planning in business. I've lost count how many FDs I've sat in front of and said it will cost you say £200k to make all your IT resilient. "I'm not paying that !". "How much would it cost you per day to have no operation ?", "About £50k a day", "I rest my case". I'll use a local example of why this sort of planning is so vital. A local healthcare company near Worthing had a dodgy roof. The owning company had provided the budget to replace it but the MD kept delaying because he doesn't like spending money. The roof would have cost around £100k. No BCP/DR planning was in place. Roof started to leak and when checked there was asbestos. The company had to shut down and give all staff two weeks paid leave. They had to have 850 pallets of stock moved to a temporary site - took over two weeks to do. The company is still not fully up and running and the whole episode has cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds. There is zero excuse for it to take a company over six weeks to get back to 100% and it's all because of lack of planning. Thankfully for them their owning company is bankrolling them.

Not sure it's really relevant.

(But I think I'm gradually winning you round )

 

[Pavilionaire]

DisMay's crucial error was not going for a Norway deal and spending 2 years getting as many +++'s on it as possible.

Sure, we'd have been a 'rule taker' - but only of 20ish % of EU rules. Not really worth stressing over I reckon, particularly given Farage and Hannan are on video offering it as a potential outcome.

Theresa Dismay - you are a *No deal* dunce.

Norway has special circumstances on why that deal works for them. The same cannot be said for the UK, with a larger population, more diverse economy but greater reliance on services. Nobody wants Norway.