Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

[ads36]

59 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

Even if there is a no deal, then negotiations will start immediately regarding future relationships between the UK and EU

 we've had 3 years, and we still can't tell Europe what kind of relationship we want.

 

[Lockdoctor]

42 minutes ago, Longcol said:

A "managed no deal" is still crashing out of the EU to WTO terms however you dress it up.

 

I accepted back in 2016 that we would leave the EU - the result however appears to have been hijacked by the no deal faction to their own ends eg slashing workers rights, environmental protection, health & safety standards etc - not for the good of the country as a whole.

A 'managed no deal' will most likely result in the temporary continuation of the current free trade deal between the UK and EU until a new free trade deal  is agreed.

 

You're spouting nonsense about hijacking.  If there was any hijacking done, it was done by un elected civil servants like Oliver Robbins.  The EU knew when Oliver Robbins and Theresa May were negotiating that the UK were never going to leave the EU by a no deal exit.  The big mistake  was removing no deal from the negotiating table because as anyone with any gumption know, the only way to get a good deal is by being prepared to walk away from a deal.

 

2 minutes ago, ads36 said:

 we've had 3 years, and we still can't tell Europe what kind of relationship we want.

 

That is because the wrong people were doing the negotiating.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Lockdoctor

[Top Cats Hat]

5 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

That is because the wrong people were doing the negotiating.

Don’t be ridiculous.

 

The outcome of a negotiation is 95% dependent on the relative strengths of the two sides and only 5% on who is doing the negotiation. The day we triggered Article 50 we put ourself in an incredibly weak position which the EU and everyone else are well aware of.

 

The weakness of the UK’s position has not changed since Johnson replaced May, so how is he going to get anything better in three months than she did in three years when he doesn’t even seem to have a plan?

[Longcol]

23 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

You're spouting nonsense about hijacking.  If there was any hijacking done, it was done by un elected civil servants like Oliver Robbins.  The EU knew when Oliver Robbins and Theresa May were negotiating that the UK were never going to leave the EU by a no deal exit.  The big mistake  was removing no deal from the negotiating table because as anyone with any gumption know, the only way to get a good deal is by being prepared to walk away from a deal.

Whose website said (and still does) ;

 

" There will be three stages of creating a new UK-EU deal - informal negotiations, formal negotiations, and implementation including both a new Treaty and domestic legal changes. There is no need to rush. We must take our time and get it right.

 

Overall, the negotiations will create a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way. In particular, we will negotiate a UK-EU Treaty that enables us 1) to continue cooperating in many areas just as now (e.g. maritime surveillance), 2) to deepen cooperation in some areas (e.g. scientific collaborations and counter-terrorism), and 3) to continue free trade with minimal bureaucracy."

[Robin-H]

25 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Don’t be ridiculous.

 

The outcome of a negotiation is 95% dependent on the relative strengths of the two sides and only 5% on who is doing the negotiation. The day we triggered Article 50 we put ourself in an incredibly weak position which the EU and everyone else are well aware of.

 

The weakness of the UK’s position has not changed since Johnson replaced May, so how is he going to get anything better in three months than she did in three years when he doesn’t even seem to have a plan?

Why did we trigger Article 50 when we did? 

[retep]

3 hours ago, ads36 said:

We've been offered deals.

 

We've been offered something like a Norway deal, we said no - too close a relationship.

 

We've been offered something like a Canada deal, we said no - not close enough.

 

We came up with the withdrawal agreement, as a stepping stone, somewhere to wait while we figure out what we want. The EU agreed, then we voted it down.

 

If we end up with no deal, we really can't blame the EU.

That's the one.

[Pettytom]

8 minutes ago, retep said:

That's the one.

If it is the one, what happens next?

[Top Cats Hat]

32 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Why did we trigger Article 50 when we did? 

Sheer incompetence!

 

Theresa May was advised at the time that setting the clock ticking without a plan, would give the EU a clear advantage in any negotiations that followed, as all the pressure would then be on the UK to not only come up with a deal, but also to get it through our Parliament.

 

This is what Sir Ivan Rogers said to a Treasury Select Committe:

 

“My advice, as a European negotiator, was that that was a moment of key leverage and if you wanted to avoid being screwed on the negotiations in terms of the sequencing, you had to negotiate with the key European leaders and the key people at the top of the institutions and say: 'I will invoke Article 50 but only under circumstances where I know exactly how it is going to operate and it's got to operate like this otherwise this is not going work for me.”

[geared]

Leverage was something constantly trotted out as well, for those wanting to keep a no deal exit on the table.

 

The fact we had already given all leverage away before even starting was lost on many.

[Robin-H]

13 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Sheer incompetence!

 

Theresa May was advised at the time that setting the clock ticking without a plan, would give the EU a clear advantage in any negotiations that followed, as all the pressure would then be on the UK to not only come up with a deal, but also to get it through our Parliament.

 

This is what Sir Ivan Rogers said to a Treasury Select Committe:

 

“My advice, as a European negotiator, was that that was a moment of key leverage and if you wanted to avoid being screwed on the negotiations in terms of the sequencing, you had to negotiate with the key European leaders and the key people at the top of the institutions and say: 'I will invoke Article 50 but only under circumstances where I know exactly how it is going to operate and it's got to operate like this otherwise this is not going work for me.”

I seem to remember there was quite a bit of pressure to do so. People like Corbyn were saying that it should have been triggered straight away, back in June 2016 (a full 9 months before it was actually triggered). 

 

https://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/

 

“The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from European Union.

“Obviously there has to be strategy but the whole point of the referendum was that the public would be asked their opinion. They’ve given their opinion. It is up for parliament to now act on that opinion."