UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The public want out of the EU, but Parliament wants in...

I can see the argument for why some people don't like referendums, and in our parliamentary system, they can cause problems.

In an ideal world, MPs would reflect the voters' position, so the referendum wouldn't have been needed, as Parliament would have voted us out of the EU, and a lot of our problems would have disappeared.

Sadly, this crisis has been caused by the distance between Joe public and our MPs, as they no longer represent the views of the people who vote them in. so I think the use of the term political elites is justified...

That depends on what you mean by 'the public'. It was pretty much 50:50 split in the referendum so all the public don't want out. When you take into account 3 million of the public in the UK weren't even allowed to vote (even though the impacts on them could be more severe) and that possibly up to 1 million voters abroad that are British but not currently registered weren't allowed to vote (again the impacts on them could be more severe) then it's easy to argue that public at large could easily be swung to being in favour of the EU overall. On top of this the referendum result had about 10% more people vote than for a General election. *If* we assume that for whatever reason the people that made up the difference are more inclined to vote leave (but hence don't generally vote in the GE, say it was 'disgruntled vote') then combined it could be that the make up of the parties could be more representative than the referendum result would imply of the populace as a whole (I'm ignoring the group that didn't vote, but in reality they shouldn't be as they are still part of the public at large). That's not to say there isn't elitism rampant in the parties (and is particularly bad in the Tories case but the others aren't excluded from this accusation).

However, MPs are voted in to make the best judgements for the Country as a whole. That might not always meet eye to eye on individual issues. For example if we had a referendum on whether the national speed limit should be 85mph or 70mph we again may see a difference in MPs views vs the public (how many of the public would be swung by Clarkson just spouting off?). Mainly because MPs should look at the bigger picture whereas a significant proportion of the populace their picture is simply the *relatively* small world they live in (so 85mph means they can get home quicker and the accident will never happen mentality).

The real difficulty is that many MPs are becoming dissociated from their electorate (which can be particularly bad when some are parachuted in) and don't really explain why they make certain decisions on behalf of their electorate. That's not going to improve if a few people basically start controlling all the outcomes of the referendum because those people voted in effectively have no voice. That can lead to more frustration and anger (on both sides of the argument) that the political establishment are out of touch and potentially leading to more Trump/Farage/Corbyn/Sanders style candidates popping up all over the place as the populace becomes more divided.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:

This is a trainwreck in slow motion. Best lay in a few year's worth of popcorn.

I would prefer to not be on the train when it goes into the ravine however, unless someone has a handy time machine...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ktMe0xclxA&t=1m42s

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
Should mps act on in accordance of the wishes of those that voted, or in the best interest of all constituents?

I accept the fact that some people can't vote because illness, disability or being out of the country, prevents them.

But for anybody else who didn't vote in June, I couldn't give a damn what they think. In my book, a remain voter who actually voted carries more weight than a leave voter who had a no show on June 23rd, because they couldn't be arsed to go to their pollling station.

All this talk of the true number only being 37% of the country voting to leave is a smokescreen, because by that measure, only 34% voted to stay in the EU.

People who talk about those numbers are only trying to muddy the waters...

Hell, even somebody who turned up to spoil their paper with none of the above or whatever, gets some credit in my book.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Whirlwind wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The public want out of the EU, but Parliament wants in...

I can see the argument for why some people don't like referendums, and in our parliamentary system, they can cause problems.

In an ideal world, MPs would reflect the voters' position, so the referendum wouldn't have been needed, as Parliament would have voted us out of the EU, and a lot of our problems would have disappeared.

Sadly, this crisis has been caused by the distance between Joe public and our MPs, as they no longer represent the views of the people who vote them in. so I think the use of the term political elites is justified...

That depends on what you mean by 'the public'. It was pretty much 50:50 split in the referendum so all the public don't want out. When you take into account 3 million of the public in the UK weren't even allowed to vote (even though the impacts on them could be more severe) and that possibly up to 1 million voters abroad that are British but not currently registered weren't allowed to vote (again the impacts on them could be more severe) then it's easy to argue that public at large could easily be swung to being in favour of the EU overall. On top of this the referendum result had about 10% more people vote than for a General election. *If* we assume that for whatever reason the people that made up the difference are more inclined to vote leave (but hence don't generally vote in the GE, say it was 'disgruntled vote') then combined it could be that the make up of the parties could be more representative than the referendum result would imply of the populace as a whole (I'm ignoring the group that didn't vote, but in reality they shouldn't be as they are still part of the public at large). That's not to say there isn't elitism rampant in the parties (and is particularly bad in the Tories case but the others aren't excluded from this accusation).

However, MPs are voted in to make the best judgements for the Country as a whole. That might not always meet eye to eye on individual issues. For example if we had a referendum on whether the national speed limit should be 85mph or 70mph we again may see a difference in MPs views vs the public (how many of the public would be swung by Clarkson just spouting off?). Mainly because MPs should look at the bigger picture whereas a significant proportion of the populace their picture is simply the *relatively* small world they live in (so 85mph means they can get home quicker and the accident will never happen mentality).

The real difficulty is that many MPs are becoming dissociated from their electorate (which can be particularly bad when some are parachuted in) and don't really explain why they make certain decisions on behalf of their electorate. That's not going to improve if a few people basically start controlling all the outcomes of the referendum because those people voted in effectively have no voice. That can lead to more frustration and anger (on both sides of the argument) that the political establishment are out of touch and potentially leading to more Trump/Farage/Corbyn/Sanders style candidates popping up all over the place as the populace becomes more divided.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:

This is a trainwreck in slow motion. Best lay in a few year's worth of popcorn.

I would prefer to not be on the train when it goes into the ravine however, unless someone has a handy time machine...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ktMe0xclxA&t=1m42s

For argument's sake, let's forget all this talk about the real result being close to 50/50 or something, and accept it as a de facto vote to leave, which it is...

You say the MPs have to use their judgement for the good of the country which is fair enough, but it's not as simple as that.

70% of MPs want to stay in the EU, the public wants out.

MPs think we made a mistake. There is talk of re-runs, high court challenges, bringing people to their 'senses.' Some MPs like Nick Clegg used to work for the EU, and there are others like them.

These people have a clear conflict of interest. How can you trust them?

I keep hearing this horsegak about Parliamentry sovereingty. They voted overwhemingly in favour of a referendum, they can't complain now if the result goes against the way they wanted it to go....

Never has the divide between the public and parliament been so wide. That's why I don't trust MPs.

EDIT: apologies for spelling mistakes.

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

For argument's sake, let's forget all this talk about the real result being close to 50/50 or something, and accept it as a de facto vote to leave, which it is...

Just, on the basis of excluding an important fraction of the UK public...

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You say the MPs have to use their judgement for the good of the country which is fair enough, but it's not as simple as that.

70% of MPs want to stay in the EU, the public wants out.

MPs think we made a mistake.

Not just MPs. I for one think we are about to make a mistake as well. But the point was when you actually factor in decreased ballot turnout and the excluded voters then you will probably find that the MPs views aren't radically different to the *General Electrorate* voters views so maybe it is no surprise that there is a higher percentage share of pro-EU MPs. However as the GE is generally on more than one issue (but maybe not on the next one) then the populace make a decision as to what they will and won't accept from their MP.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

There is talk of re-runs, high court challenges, bringing people to their 'senses.' Some MPs like Nick Clegg used to work for the EU, and there are others like them.

These people have a clear conflict of interest. How can you trust them?

How can we trust anyone?; how do I know you don't have an ulterior motive thinking this is the quickest way for Scottish independence. How do you know that I'm not a businessperson that wants to stay in the EU as that is where I import materials from? We all have vested interests, the real challenge is to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from the country overall. There are always losers unfortunately and everyone's views on the world is different here (for me if the very rich lost some of their wealth and to discourage greed to support the very poorest then I would be supportive of those ideals; but a CEO might think otherwise)

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I keep hearing this horsegak about Parliamentry sovereignty. They voted overwhemingly in favour of a referendum, they can't complain now if the result goes against the way they wanted it to go....

You can't state that you want more Democracy and then in the next breath support a government policy of giving 4/5 people all the power to determine and define the future of the Country for the next decade. UK democratic system is a representative democracy. You vote for an MP who then acts on the basis of the betterment of the people that voted them in. If you remove them from the equation and that only the people in 4/5 constituencies have any say at all then you do not have a democracy at all. That is more akin to a dictatorship. What people are asking is that parliament not individuals (such as Liam Fox), i.e. the MPs you, me and everyone else voted for are allowed to vote on the strategic direction for the negotiations to come. If you are only happy where the democratic process only aligns with personal views then that isn't a sound basis at all for a engaged society in the democratic process.

**Kilkrazy**

Ketara wrote:
Brexit has become the most horrendous can of worms. There's absolutely no way to proceed that isn't flawed.

If the government gives a blow by blow account of what they're doing to Parliament or the electorate, they sabotage their own negotiating position. If they don't, they risk taking a position nobody backs and render themselves vulnerable to accusations of being undemocratic.

If they make the agreement they come up with subject to Parliament's approval, they risk it being thrown back in their faces and the whole brexit procedure being turned into a farce (as Parliament is out of step with the referendum vote). If they don't have it ratified by Parliament, they're violating the constitution and acting in a decidedly facist way.

Finally, whatever they come up with, a third of the country is automatically opposed, and of the third in favour, no more than a third of that in turn will approve of it.

This is a trainwreck in slow motion. Best lay in a few year's worth of popcorn.

I agree with all of that except the part about popcorn, because we are on the train.

To go back to a previous point, the 2-year deadline does not become active until May activates Article 50. May does not have to activate Article 50. Her argument is that the British people voted in a Conservative government on the basis of the promise to hold a referendum, and the referendum delivered a Leave result -- therefore this authorises May to activate Article 50 without reference to Parliament. She has decided to activate Article 50 next March whatever the situation, because reasons... (some people suspect because the process of a forced, rushed Brexit will allow the Conservatives to smash a load of regressive legislation through Parliament. There is already talk of repealing the Human Rights Act, for example.)

Equally, the EU is tensioning the situation up by refusing to negotiate before the Article 50 is activated. They are being rather petty, IMO. The UK won't vanish from the west of France and Holland because of Brexit, so there needs to be some resolution of the situation. Of course they have taken this position because any example of a smoothly negotiated Brexit might encourage a Frexit and a Dexit and Nexit.

Ironically, this situation may satisfy both Remainers, who will be able to say they warned you how gakky it would turn out, and Leavers, who will be able to say the EU are obviously the bunch of witches they always claimed them to be.

However it still will be the most enormous pig's ear for everyone.

**tneva82**

Whirlwind wrote:
2 years is not really a sensible time to negotiate anyway and the EU if they have any sense will waive the two years A50 obligation (even if it is simply on the basis no one has done this before so there is no basis as to how to approach anything at all). Alternatively they could agree to negotiate before A50 is enacted get everything lined up so that if A50 is enacted it can be implemented quickly. The problem with having a 2 year fixed timeline is that it allows for no flexibility in the timeline (say a civil war in Turkey, Mount Vesuvius erupts, or there is a massive flooding issues in the UK). You would then have to divide countries efforts between equally pressing matters when ideally all these issues would need the utmost of their countries attention. Even from a UK political democratic process having an unfixed deadline would be useful. As it stands Empress May intends to negotiate for the leaking and slowly sinking ship, point the a cannon at the deck and say to parliament "Sign this or I'll fire the cannon and see how fast I can sink the ship and all of you on it". Without the hard deadline May would not be able to use this threat.

Any sense? Sense in allowing UK to blackmail EU? "Give us terms WE want or keep paying money indefinitely".

That's no sense.

2 years isn't fixed in that it CANNOT be extended but it requires agreement by all EU countries. Now if there's massive ecological catastrophe in UK then that might garner that extend.

But there HAS to be time line or it will keep draining EU's money for no good and allows UK to have it's cake and eat it too and gives them good blackmailing tool.

Same reason why EU has already stated they won't talk about terms in advance. If UK could they would sort it all out before A50 is initiated but since that benefits UK and hurts EU the EU is obviously not going to be happy with that.

UK voted to leave. Fine. Now EU has no obligation to consider what's good for UK. Only what's good for EU. If it happens to be good for UK fine but EU is concerned of EU as priority. World isn't one where it's "everybody benefits" but race on who benefits and who pays for benefits.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In an ideal world, MPs would reflect the voters' position, so the referendum wouldn't have been needed, as Parliament would have voted us out of the EU, and a lot of our problems would have disappeared.

Sadly, this crisis has been caused by the distance between Joe public and our MPs, as they no longer represent the views of the people who vote them in. so I think the use of the term political elites is justified...

That assumes out is actually good for UK. But you know people don't neccessary want what's actually good for them...

I know tons of people who think rich people(anybody making 50,000€ a year before taxes) need to have like 95%+ taxes on them. Doesn't mean it would actually be good idea.

Plus also it's not like out had massive outnumbering. Indeed less than 40% of people in UK actually voted "leave".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Equally, the EU is tensioning the situation up by refusing to negotiate before the Article 50 is activated. They are being rather petty, IMO. The UK won't vanish from the west of France and Holland because of Brexit, so there needs to be some resolution of the situation. Of course they have taken this position because any example of a smoothly negotiated Brexit might encourage a Frexit and a Dexit and Nexit.

Petty? UK decided it's best for them to leave. If UK can be allowed to do what's best for them and damn to others(UK's decicion impacts other countries than themselves. And not even just EU. I bet Japan isn't currently too happy about Brexit seeing it has given them financial problems as well) why can't EU be allowed to do same?

Allowing UK to talk terms before it's activated gives them more time without deadline. That's blackmailing tool for UK to get better terms and costs EU money. In otherwords: Bad for EU.

EU has no obligation anymore to do anything to help UK. All they have to do is look out their own interest and if happens to help UK good. If not screw UK.

If it's even one iota better for EU then that's decision EU needs to do.

Don't like it? Find a way to go into alternative reality where reality isn't like it is.

**notprop**

It's in the EUs ongoing in interests to procure a deal with the UK as much as it is for the UK.

The only thing that will sour this is small minded self interest and petty feelings of rejection with overtones of teaching Britain (and by extension any only her wavering EU nation) a lesson.

I have enough faith in May's emotional detachment and ambition to hold up our end, Tusk and co. I'm less sure about.

**Kilkrazy**

The EU being too hissy and pissy might backfire. Other wavering nations such as Denmark and France might take a bad treatment of the UK as a signal to get out as soon as possible without caring too much about the effects on the rest of the EU.

I don't want to see the EU fail, so I think they need to play their cards right too.

**reds8n**

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-31/japan-demands-talks-with-u-k-government-over-brexit-strategy

Japan warned Prime Minister Theresa May her government must improve its communications about Brexit or put inward investment in the U.K. at risk.
Days after May pulled out the stops to persuade Nissan Motor Co. to continue building cars at its plant in Sunderland, northeast England, the Japanese ambassador to London demanded regular meetings to discuss Britain’s strategy for leaving the European Union.

“Of course Japan will not sit at the negotiating table when the U.K. negotiates with the EU,” Koji Tsuruoka told lawmakers, including Britain’s chief negotiator David Davis, at a reception in Parliament in London. “But we are friends, we are also a very major stakeholder, the Japanese economic presence in the U.K. is quite significant. Therefore this important presence will of course have an impact on how the negotiations should be conducted.”
Japan’s intervention, two months after it published a 15-page document setting out its concerns about Brexit, adds to pressure on May to deliver a divorce that gives investors confidence.
‘Interested Party’
Tsuruoka argued that Japanese industry’s “very large stake” in the U.K. economy makes its companies “an interested party” in the Brexit talks. He praised Nissan’s “courageous statement” and welcomed May’s actions “in making this possible.”
“Japanese companies are not leaving, they like it here and they have been operating profitably in the U.K.” the ambassador said. The two governments “should make certain there will be a business environment that will continue to allow them to make profits and operate in the U.K.,” he told lawmakers.
“For that objective we are prepared to engage in periodic meetings with U.K. government officials for broad discussion regarding the range of economic challenges arising from Brexit,” he said, adding that his embassy is “in constant contact with Tokyo on a daily basis about what is happening here.”

Haruki Hayashi, president of the Japanese Chamber Of Commerce And Industry In The United Kingdom, and European regional CEO of Mitsubishi, hammered the point home in a subsequent speech.
Other Offers
“More than general reassurances are called for at this stage to ensure the Japanese investment presence in the U.K. is not diminished for lack of consultation and information sharing,” he said. Japanese companies are being approached by other countries inviting them to relocate there, he said.
Hayashi said the U.K. needs to understand the importance its “global investment partners” attach to its membership of the EU’s single market and customs union, and the the ability of workers to move freely around the bloc.
“Many Japanese businesses came here looking for the gateway to Europe,” Hayashi told reporters afterward.
Davis, speaking after Tsuruoka, didn’t directly address the ambassador’s warning or his request for meetings. He instead painted a picture of Britain’s future as an attractive place for foreign investment.
Britain will be “a beacon of free trade,” he said. “This government understands that providing certainty for business and investors is the key.” He added that he wanted to see a “comprehensive trading relationship between the U.K. and the EU.”
As the reception started, Business Secretary Greg Clark was still addressing Parliament and resisting calls to publish a letter he wrote to Nissan to persuade them to stay in the U.K.
“It’s important that when companies of all types and in all sectors share with me their investment plans that are information to their prospective competitors, that they can be assured that they are not going to be disclosed to their competitors, to their disadvantage,” Clark said.

"Hayashi said the U.K. needs to understand the importance its “global investment partners” attach to its membership of the EU’s single market and customs union, and the the ability of workers to move freely around the bloc.
“Many Japanese businesses came here looking for the gateway to Europe,” Hayashi told reporters afterward."

ruh roh raggy!

On the plus side I guess we can take the money we were giving to the EU and give to the Japanese so they'll stay and do business with us.

... hooray..?!

A "divorce" is never easy to sort out but -- allbeit despite the evidence suggesting it was the case -- one had hoped that there was actually a somewhat more concrete plan/hope of what to do when we leave than has been demonstrated thus far.

As far as one can gather the only really upsurge has been in regards to attacks on European/foreign people in this country -- which I don't think was quite the point

-- or merited or wanted by the vast majority of leave campaigners TBF.

David Davis -- who I often disagreed with but at least could respect for having principles to which he stood on -- looks like he's only now becoming aware of exactly how complicated this process is going to be.

....and then there's Johnson and disgraced minister Fox who..well... yeah

I'm hoping the forthcoming Xmas period will help the economy a bit --- be that due to Xtian cheer or a " feth it spend it while you can" attitude

but then January rolls around and belts tighten a lot --

I'll point out here that the GOvt. is still -- shockingly! -- ignoring the poorly phrased and composed ~~demands~~ ..err.. letters I've been sending them saying we should change it so that it's Jan. that is 28 days long, not Feb. so people can paid quicker -- plus this woulc create a massive surge in demand for diaries, calendars etc etc too

-- and those prices roll back up...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/inflation-is-coming?utm_term=.tsoa2rdyg#.wkKjew5bN

Need to get something concrete -- if you follow -- that can be announced and used as a foundation/building block, if only to prop the £ up a bit.

I know the lower £ is handy for a bit of tourism -- alas... Winter is coming ... hmm ... catchy phrase ... ... anyway .. --- and exports but people gotta eat.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
Should mps act on in accordance of the wishes of those that voted, or in the best interest of all constituents?

I accept the fact that some people can't vote because illness, disability or being out of the country, prevents them.

But for anybody else who didn't vote in June, I couldn't give a damn what they think. In my book, a remain voter who actually voted carries more weight than a leave voter who had a no show on June 23rd, because they couldn't be arsed to go to their pollling station.

What about the approximately 14 million under 18's, who aren't allowed to vote but will be most affected by this clusterfeth?

Should their interests be ignored because they weren't old enough at the time of the decision?

**Mr. Burning**

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
Should mps act on in accordance of the wishes of those that voted, or in the best interest of all constituents?

I accept the fact that some people can't vote because illness, disability or being out of the country, prevents them.

But for anybody else who didn't vote in June, I couldn't give a damn what they think. In my book, a remain voter who actually voted carries more weight than a leave voter who had a no show on June 23rd, because they couldn't be arsed to go to their pollling station.

What about the approximately 14 million under 18's, who aren't allowed to vote but will be most affected by this clusterfeth?

Should their interests be ignored because they weren't old enough at the time of the decision?

You would assume that minors would be best represented by their parents or responsible adults. As it is has been for sometime.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

Why's talking about the actual percentages of the results for the population, muddying the water?

Surely muddying the waters would be talking about a majority of those who voted as if they were the entire population?

The 54% and 37% percent are the same thing, but 72% and 100% are not

**Ketara**

It's a strange idea that giving Brexit more time to be negotiated somehow disadvantages the EU. I'd be interested to hear how/why that is?

**welshhoppo**

It's probably because all the uncertainty here is causing ripples all over Europe, and there are several countries who have EuroSkeptics on the verge of actually getting into a position to do something about it. Germany and France has their elections relatively soon. And there is worry that the longer this drags out, the more chance they have of doing something.

**Herzlos**

Mr. Burning wrote:

You would assume that minors would be best represented by their parents or responsible adults. As it is has been for sometime.

That'd be fair enough if their parent/guardian was able to place a vote on their behalf, so a 2+2 family got 4 votes and not just 2.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
It's a strange idea that giving Brexit more time to be negotiated somehow disadvantages the EU. I'd be interested to hear how/why that is?

It means they waste money and have to deal with more uncertainly until it's eventually sorted. Without a deadline the UK could trigger the article and hold the EU to ransom indefinitely.

It's like quitting your job, but not telling your boss when you're actually going to leave.

**notprop**

Kilkrazy wrote:The EU being too hissy and pissy might backfire. Other wavering nations such as Denmark and France might take a bad treatment of the UK as a signal to get out as soon as possible without caring too much about the effects on the rest of the EU.

I don't want to see the EU fail, so I think they need to play their cards right too.

Indeed I agree. I think we are seeing the EU & UK Govt adopting a perfectly sensible negotiating positions and not a little posturing by both side to fill the "dead air" generated by this inevitable pause. I'm quite sure real politic will be in play and a sensible compromise reached.

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
Should mps act on in accordance of the wishes of those that voted, or in the best interest of all constituents?

I accept the fact that some people can't vote because illness, disability or being out of the country, prevents them.

But for anybody else who didn't vote in June, I couldn't give a damn what they think. In my book, a remain voter who actually voted carries more weight than a leave voter who had a no show on June 23rd, because they couldn't be arsed to go to their pollling station.

What about the approximately 14 million under 18's, who aren't allowed to vote but will be most affected by this clusterfeth?

Should their interests be ignored because they weren't old enough at the time of the decision?

Most of whom would ask what Brexit is and were more concerned about how many sweets they would collect last night while tearing about the streets with lanterns if my lot were anything to go by.

Sorry but the 'think about the children' bit has been done to death. This really is an adult issue, all of whom would have weighed up the future as part of the vote taken.

**Ketara**

welshhoppo wrote:It's probably because all the uncertainty here is causing ripples all over Europe, and there are several countries who have EuroSkeptics on the verge of actually getting into a position to do something about it. Germany and France has their elections relatively soon. And there is worry that the longer this drags out, the more chance they have of doing something.

But that's the opposite to dragging it out. The earlier they start negotiations, the earlier it will be resolved. Refusing to discuss the matter until the timeline is ticking only makes sense if you know as a fact that:-

a) the negotiations will definitely take two years and nothing could conceivably occur to modify this timeline, and
b) that starting negotiations earlier will slow the process down overall by a chronological total greater than the time saved by beginning negotiations earlier.

Neither of these factors are known definite quantities, and quite possibly likely to turn out to not be the case. They're certainly not estimates upon which to base a reasoned negotiating position off of.

Herzlos wrote:
It means they waste money and have to deal with more uncertainly until it's eventually sorted. Without a deadline the UK could trigger the article and hold the EU to ransom indefinitely.

It's like quitting your job, but not telling your boss when you're actually going to leave.

And then that boss telling you he's not going to unlock the exterior exit until you give him two hours notice. So when you do leave, the boss doesn't have enough time to figure out how to replace the functions you currently fulfill, risks not having sorted out the severance fee/other contracts, and most importantly, forgets that you're his son in law who lives with him and he'll be seeing you again when you both get home and need to figure out how to pay this month's household expenditure.

It's only a 'waste of money' and 'more uncertainty' if you know one hundred percent for sure that:

a) to repeat, you know that starting negotiations earlier will slow the process down overall by a chronological total greater than the time saved by beginning negotiations earlier, and
b) that any money expended upon a greater period of time for negotiation will result in clauses purely disadvantageous to you (for which there is absolutely no reason for that to be the case).

These are very flimsy uncertain reasons for delaying sorting things out.

**Kilkrazy**

Herzlos wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:

You would assume that minors would be best represented by their parents or responsible adults. As it is has been for sometime.

That'd be fair enough if their parent/guardian was able to place a vote on their behalf, so a 2+2 family got 4 votes and not just 2.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
It's a strange idea that giving Brexit more time to be negotiated somehow disadvantages the EU. I'd be interested to hear how/why that is?

It means they waste money and have to deal with more uncertainly until it's eventually sorted. Without a deadline the UK could trigger the article and hold the EU to ransom indefinitely.

It's like quitting your job, but not telling your boss when you're actually going to leave.

That is true in itself but the UK doesn't have to trigger Article 50, so the current situation could in theory exist indefinitely, with continuing uncertainty and so on.

My opinion is that the EU never really thought anyone would want to leave, so the arrangements for a leaving process were added as an afterthought, and therefore were clearly inadequate as we can now see.

**reds8n**

http://order-order.com/2016/11/01/248373/

err.. yeah.

as you do.

WTF ?

**notprop**

Now that's what I call OLD SKOOL!

**Herzlos**

notprop wrote:

Most of whom would ask what Brexit is and were more concerned about how many sweets they would collect last night while tearing about the streets with lanterns if my lot were anything to go by.

I think you'd be surprised at how politically aware young teens may be, there was a fair amount of engagement for Indyref, where the voting age was 16, even amongst 12-15 year olds. Not everyone under 18 is politically incompetent, just as not everyone over 18 is competent. Writing them off is grossly unfair.

This really is an adult issue

I disagree, the issue affects the younger generation more, proportionally. Brexit will have almost no impact on an 80 year old retiree, who's already paid off their mortgage and drawing a pension, but unlikely to travel, but the same decision will have a lot more impact on a 13 year old, who will leave school as we leave the EU, and will be hit by any economic factors, like interest rates, inflation, job market, housing, exchange rates.

For example, at mid-30's and with a house, I'm not that worried about what Brexit will do to me; I should be fairly well insulated. I'm much more concerned about how this mess will affect my toddler, who'll grow up long after we've split and will see none of the benefits that the EU brought us.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:

But that's the opposite to dragging it out. The earlier they start negotiations, the earlier it will be resolved. Refusing to discuss the matter until the timeline is ticking only makes sense if you know as a fact that:-

a) the negotiations will definitely take two years and nothing could conceivably occur to modify this timeline, and
b) that starting negotiations earlier will slow the process down overall by a chronological total greater than the time saved by beginning negotiations earlier.

Neither of these factors are known definite quantities, and quite possibly likely to turn out to not be the case. They're certainly not estimates upon which to base a reasoned negotiating position off of.

I don't think it's unreasonable for them to refuse to start negotiations until we trigger A50, otherwise we could waste millions of Euros in direct and opportunity costs, conceding to nothing, and eventually giving up and deciding we don't want to leave after all.

Herzlos wrote:
It means they waste money and have to deal with more uncertainly until it's eventually sorted. Without a deadline the UK could trigger the article and hold the EU to ransom indefinitely.

It's like quitting your job, but not telling your boss when you're actually going to leave.

And then that boss telling you he's not going to unlock the exterior exit until you give him two hours notice. So when you do leave, the boss doesn't have enough time to figure out how to replace the functions you currently fulfill, risks not having sorted out the severance fee/other contracts, and most importantly, forgets that you're his son in law who lives with him and he'll be seeing you again when you both get home and need to figure out how to pay this month's household expenditure.

It's more like him refusing to discuss any details of you leaving until you actually hand in your notice and let him know when you actually need to be replaced.

Or it's like only deciding if you're going to divorce your partner once your lawyers have decided what the settlement of assets is.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

A general rant here

There a a lot of replies to some of my comments, and a lot of comments in general, which is too much for me to keep up with, so apologies for not replying back to them this time.

I'm just going to post some general remarks, and rant a bit

To clarify on an earlier post, you all know about my Leave vote, that goes without saying, but I have way more respect for a Remain voter that did vote than for somebody on my side who didn't vote. That's how strongly I feel about voting. Even somebody who turned up and spoiled their ballot gets some respect in my book.

Japanese companies: don't they read history books? Laying down the law to Britain is only likely to make the British people dig in because of past history...

It didn't work pre-June 23rd, and it's not going to work now. Yes, I know they have to put themselves first, I understand that, but they could have handled it better. Toned down the language...

The Labour party: how feeble and poor are they? 7 years of the Tories and all the bullgak that has went with it, and Labour are STILL 16 points behind in the latest ICM poll. To be so rock bottom in the eyes of the British people after all the recent blunders by the Tories, shows how far Labour have fallen!

MPs and Joe Public: the gulf between the two has never been wider, and I still maintain that position, despite the replies to my earlier comments.

**Stranger83**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Why's talking about the actual percentages of the results for the population, muddying the water?

Surely muddying the waters would be talking about a majority of those who voted as if they were the entire population?

The 54% and 37% percent are the same thing, but 72% and 100% are not

Because by that logic you could claim that only 34% voted to remain, therefore it's silly to even be considering staying in as clearly 66% don't want to stay in the EU.

You can only base the outcome on those who actually vote - this is why it's just muddying the waters to try imply that only 37% voted leave therefore we should stay.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Why's talking about the actual percentages of the results for the population, muddying the water?

Surely muddying the waters would be talking about a majority of those who voted as if they were the entire population?

The 54% and 37% percent are the same thing, but 72% and 100% are not

Because no matter how you put it, the percentage of the electorate that voted Leave was higher than the percentage that voted Remain.

"Only 37% of the country voted leave!"

So what?! Its still more than the 34% who voted Remain, and that is how democratic votes work. You don't get to move the goalposts after the fact because you didn't get the result you wanted.

If people feel there should have been a minimum turnout criteria in order for the referendum to be valid, then it should have been put in place BEFORE the vote.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Japanese companies: don't they read history books? Laying down the law to Britain is only likely to make the British people dig in because of past history...

The Japanese companies don't care what the British people do; they just want their interests to be considered.
Plus, we've got a reputation for being stubborn, but have nothing on the Japanese.

Stranger83 wrote:

Because by that logic you could claim that only 34% voted to remain, therefore it's silly to even be considering staying in as clearly 66% don't want to stay in the EU.

We need to just keep perspective; 1/3rd voted out, 1/3rd voted in, 1/3rd didn't vote. That's not a clear mandate either way, and whilst we can assume we know the needs of 2/3rds of the population, some work is required to figure out the best interests of the other 1/3rd.

So this notion of having to leave because 37% of the electorate said so is the only democratic approach is just nonsense. So is the notion that we should stay out because 34% of the electorate said so is just as much nonsense.

The reality is that this is far too close to made a decision on.

**Kilkrazy**

Yes, the difference is that the actual triggering of Article 50 is going to be done on the basis that 36% of the public voted for the Tory government's manifesto that said they would do a referendum, which got 51.9% Yes to Leave, and this authorises the PM to use Royal Prerogative to avoid taking the issue to Parliament.

The problem is that once A50 is running, the UK is out in 2 years whatever deal might or might not be worked out, so it is irrelevant whether Parliament is later on allowed to debate and comment on and approve or disapprove the deal.

Considering the wide range of possibilities that could be included or excluded, it is ridiculous.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, the difference is that the actual triggering of Article 50 is going to be done on the basis that 36% of the public voted for the Tory government's manifesto that said they would do a referendum, which got 51.9% Yes to Leave, and this authorises the PM to use Royal Prerogative to avoid taking the issue to Parliament.

The problem is that once A50 is running, the UK is out in 2 years whatever deal might or might not be worked out, so it is irrelevant whether Parliament is later on allowed to debate and comment on and approve or disapprove the deal.

Considering the wide range of possibilities that could be included or excluded, it is ridiculous.

Good comment.

This is exactly why I wanted Article 50 triggered on June 24th. There is no perfect deal, nor will there ever be. It's going to be pros and cons for everybody and it will effect things in the short term, which was why my attitude was let's get it over with. It would have focused minds. People on this thread were arguing that we need time to plan, but even with time to plan, it's going nowhere fast...

The Tories have given themselves until March 2017, but it may as well be until March 2117, because they seem utterly clueless no matter how much time they have.

Let's take the hit, wish the EU well, and go our merry ways...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Japanese companies: don't they read history books? Laying down the law to Britain is only likely to make the British people dig in because of past history...

The Japanese companies don't care what the British people do; they just want their interests to be considered.
Plus, we've got a reputation for being stubborn, but have nothing on the Japanese.

Stranger83 wrote:

Because by that logic you could claim that only 34% voted to remain, therefore it's silly to even be considering staying in as clearly 66% don't want to stay in the EU.

We need to just keep perspective; 1/3rd voted out, 1/3rd voted in, 1/3rd didn't vote. That's not a clear mandate either way, and whilst we can assume we know the needs of 2/3rds of the population, some work is required to figure out the best interests of the other 1/3rd.

So this notion of having to leave because 37% of the electorate said so is the only democratic approach is just nonsense. So is the notion that we should stay out because 34% of the electorate said so is just as much nonsense.

The reality is that this is far too close to made a decision on.

I never give two hoots for Japanese companies myself these days

They have their 5 year plan, I have mine.

Plus, I still haven't forgiven Nintendo for ditching the Game Cube.

**Herzlos**

If they haven't got a clue now, how badly do you think Brexit negotiations would be going now, with 19 months left?

I mean, it took the Tories a couple of months to pick a new leader, form a new cabinet / task force and come up with a plan (even if the plan is "Brexit is Brexit").

I'm very much of the camp that if we're going to leave the UK (which I still think is a bad idea), I'd rather we at least did it properly instead of charging in and hoping we don't completely screw it up.

That said, if we're doing it, we shouldn't hang on forever leaving everyone in limbo. I'd like to be at a stage we can vote back in before my toddler goes to University

March seems like a decent time to start; it gives them 9 months to get their ducks in a row, allowing them 2 years of negotiating, and is a hard date they can't back out of without scrutiny.

The thing about Japanese businesses is that they are huge investment machines with huge cash reserves, and they generate a lot of business. They are also hugely risk averse. We want their money (and more importantly, we don't want them to take it from us to give to someone else), so we want to try and keep them on side. They've no massive ties to the UK, so wouldn't have any issues with moving their production and technology facilities into Europe if that makes trading easier (except for the risk aversion - they might decide it's safer to just pay more to operate from the UK, than to take the risk of creating facilities in Bavaria or Poland, but that'd likely come with a price rise).

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Herzlos wrote:
If they haven't got a clue now, how badly do you think Brexit negotiations would be going now, with 19 months left?

I mean, it took the Tories a couple of months to pick a new leader, form a new cabinet / task force and come up with a plan (even if the plan is "Brexit is Brexit").

I'm very much of the camp that if we're going to leave the UK (which I still think is a bad idea), I'd rather we at least did it properly instead of charging in and hoping we don't completely screw it up.

That said, if we're doing it, we shouldn't hang on forever leaving everyone in limbo. I'd like to be at a stage we can vote back in before my toddler goes to University

March seems like a decent time to start; it gives them 9 months to get their ducks in a row, allowing them 2 years of negotiating, and is a hard date they can't back out of without scrutiny.

The thing about Japanese businesses is that they are huge investment machines with huge cash reserves, and they generate a lot of business. They are also hugely risk averse. We want their money (and more importantly, we don't want them to take it from us to give to someone else), so we want to try and keep them on side. They've no massive ties to the UK, so wouldn't have any issues with moving their production and technology facilities into Europe if that makes trading easier (except for the risk aversion - they might decide it's safer to just pay more to operate from the UK, than to take the risk of creating facilities in Bavaria or Poland, but that'd likely come with a price rise).

I get what you're saying, but even if we had voted to stay in the EU, the Japanese companies could still have moved elsewhere if a better deal presented itself.

Trade and business is very important, and steps should be made to encourage business to stay. I have zero problem with them making money, but I never forget the fact that every company is essentially a mercenary. Their first loyalty is to themselves...

If they want to go, let them go. The British public have the choice of other car producing nations and companies to choose from : Ford, BMW, Skoda, Hyundai etc etc

Japan is not the only country that makes cars...

**Herzlos**

True, they'd move if the reward outweighed the risk, but we didn't have to make that more likely for them.

Curiously, I don't think any of the manufacturers you mentioned actually do any car production in the UK (Ford makes some engines IIRC), so we've inadvertantly made it harder for us to buy those ones too (due to the devaluation of GBP).

Even if we can source our stuff from elsewhere, the loss of the Japanese companies will potentially result in the loss of 130,000 jobs to the continent, as well as increasing prices for whatever markets they were in (due to the reduced competition).

It's all fair and well saying that we'll just buy British built cars instead, but we make a lot of money building Japanese cars* for Europe, which we'll lose if the Japanese manufacturers move to the continent.

Ditto for every other country; we can only let so many exporters and employers sod off to the continent before we realise that we're not employing anyone and can't afford anything.

*And whatever else we build here to export to the continent on behalf of the Japanese.

**Kilkrazy**

That's a logical fallacy but I can't remember the correct name. I mean the argument that something might have happened anyway if we didn't change, so we were right to change.