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.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Full speech in written text for anyone interested

Well...at least businesses liked it. I think we won't see the actual effects until 2-3 years when we actually seperate and then 10 years to see how it's affected us.

Trump will probably have pressed the red button by then, and we'll have all probably allied with the Brotherhood of Steel against Enclave forces, so it's a moot point

BoS??

I'm joining The Institure, thank you very much!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
BoS??

I'm joining The Institure, thank you very much!

We'll take back that advance tech, assuming we get past the formidable defences first.

Very interesting stuff. As an aside, the reason the pound has bounced back is because it gives us certainty. Uncertainty is what the markets despise most, better a bad situation than an unknown one.

Regarding May's speech, I've just read through it. Here are the most salient points:-

-The body of existing EU law will be incorporated into British Law in one great wodge at the same time as the European Communuties Act is repealed. So all those worried about worker rights, etc, can breathe easier for a shorter time. Any such amendment would have to get through Parliament at a later date, all existing protections will be transferred. As will the various multiplicity of other legalities and laws.

-Britain will no longer be a signatory to the ECJ.

-A Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations has been established, at which the various devolved administrations can raise their concerns, and press for specific points to be included in the negotiations ahead. It will also decide on which repatriated powers will be devolved to those administrations.

-The Common Travel area with Ireland must be maintained.

-There will be no flexibility on immigration law.

-The restating of an offer on EU nationals in Britain; namely if you guarantee the rights and status of Brits abroad, we will guarantee the rights of EU nationals here. No strings attached, and she says it doesn't even need to be part of the negotiations, she'll agree it tomorrow if they will.

-We will not seek to remain in the Common Market, or mimic a prior agreement. Instead, Britain will pursue a separate free trade agreement on its own, but will hope to accelerate the process by agreeing to maintain certain parts of the Single Market arrangements where appropriate.

-It is desired university and research collaborations will continue. No word on how to be achieved, so clearly a negotiating point.

-Britain would like to continue current anti-crime and terrorism co-operation arrangements with the EU.

-Parliament will receive a vote on the final deal.

-She wants the process over within two years. No hanging around.

May also states that she reckons she can get a good Free Trade agreement with the EU because everyone in the EU says they want a good relationship with Britain as opposed to 'punishing' it , it's in everyone's interest to keep the trade flowing, and we have a lot of international military and diplomatic muscle that they'll want to keep at their table. If they want to play silly buggers on exports/imports though, she'll raise a load of trade barriers and tariffs on them because she reckons two can play at that game. But she doesn't want that, so we should all just play nice.

I suppose time will tell if the carrot/stick approach works. At least the uncertainty has ended one way or t'other!

Personally I think this is just her starting negotiating point to shut up the euro-sceptics in her party, and UKIP.

We'll see what comes out of this, but one thing is certain. I am done with the Tories. I've voted for them in the past, but that will never happen again. I'm never willingly contributing to the success of a party that has demonstrated such reckless and destructive self interest.
There is no such thing as British interest, only Tory interest with them, and I've had enough. I sincerely hope that when they feth this up, they get royally destroyed at the next election. It's bound to happen at some point, they're about as cooperative as a sack full of cats, once this sorry debacle has run its course, they will turn on each other.

One thing has struck me from the European responses so far; of those who are complaining, they don't seem to understand how the ground has shifted.

When Britain was looking for ways to retain membership of the single market but reject other parts of membership, they shouted 'Why should we give you special treatment? Where's your give in all this?' And to a large extent, they were right. We did want special treatment, and we were asking for something without giving anything.

I'm hearing the same calls again today though, which is revealing something of a fundamental disconnect on how the situation has now changed. The difference between then and now is that Britain is saying, 'I am a sovereign power once again, and will conduct negotiations according to that status'. It is not asking to be treated as a special snowflake yet remain part of the same intrinsic whole, it is rather asking to be treated entirely separately, like the USA, Canada, Japan, and so forth.

As such, to demand 'where is the give for the take' in the negotiations that follow are a misunderstanding. The 'give' in a free market agreement here is that we give access, and then they give it back. Access to the British market is no longer a guaranteed starting point that counts for nothing, that contributes no 'give' on our behalf.

In the same way one would look at a free trade agreement between Australia and the EU (for example), if Australia stood up and said 'we wish to formulate a free trade agreement', the EU would not say 'Well what else have you got to offer?' because the metaphorical 'give' is contained within the statement. The answer being Trade. On both sides.

It is an interesting development, and /probably (slightly uncertain on that) the best direction the UK could head in. All the potential roads were fraught with danger. This one has the most short term danger, but the highest long term potential benefit, most other paths (trying to negotiate membership of common market, renegotiate eu membership, etc) had that the opposite way around.

We are in for an interesting few years. I can only hope that the information May has that I do not indicate that this path is the surest to success.

 r_squared wrote:
Personally I think this is just her starting negotiating point to shut up the euro-sceptics in her party, and UKIP.

So bigotry and racism has won temporarily and holds sway over sensible arguments in government. It justifies people's xenophobia even more. The population didn't vote on immigration they voted on the EU and yet they have turned it into anti-immigration issue (something that has dogged the Tories for years). To note I don't think everyone that voted Leave is bigoted but there is a sizeable proportion of the leave camp that are that swung the vote and yet they seem to be given more hearing than anyone else. I only have to go by my dad and youngest brother, which although anecdotal, have become more bigoted and racist since the vote.

It's going to ruin a lot of opportunities for my nephew and niece and any children or grand children any of us may have. All because a few loud mouths don't like people that aren't from the UK being in the country. But I will make sure they know just how much they have been screwed over by Tory party bigotry.

We're back to the 70's again (and even worse in a lot of ways, it's more insidious now).

We'll see what comes out of this, but one thing is certain. I am done with the Tories. I've voted for them in the past, but that will never happen again. I'm never willingly contributing to the success of a party that has demonstrated such reckless and destructive self interest.
There is no such thing as British interest, only Tory interest with them, and I've had enough. I sincerely hope that when they feth this up, they get royally destroyed at the next election. It's bound to happen at some point, they're about as cooperative as a sack full of cats, once this sorry debacle has run its course, they will turn on each other.

I whole heartedly agree with this. And don't just stop there, make sure you let everyone around you know just how bad they are! If they get hammered hard enough in elections (note there are local ones in May) then they may take notice. One other thing. Make sure you right to your MP and Tory party to let them know this. For too long the bigots have been the loudest voice!

Help us EU're our only hope!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


-It is desired university and research collaborations will continue. No word on how to be achieved, so clearly a negotiating point.

I don't think she needs to worry about this one. By the time we've lost EU scientists back to the EU because of immigration issues, EU student fees that support the universities dwindles, then there won't be any money left to employ the researchers and the collaborations will be rather thin on the ground (except maybe at Oxford and Cambridge).

I'm happy with the details of May's speech, but words are cheap. When they turn to action then I'll be impressed.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm happy with the details of May's speech, but words are cheap. When they turn to action then I'll be impressed.

So basically you are saying you support that the only thing she actually said was that we don't want immigration and we don't want the ECJ and open border with Ireland (everything else is just nothing statements). That's not the question that was asked last year...

It would be interesting to see what happens though if the EU insist that an open border with Ireland means an open border with the EU; also nothing about Gibraltar is May about to hand it back to Spain?

@ Whirlwind

The question was "should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" The leave side won, so we're leaving the EU. Remaining a part of any of it's institutions isn't leaving the EU. I knew this when I cast my vote.

Also, I'm perfectly OK with immigration, just so long as there's controls. Controls that we can decide for ourselves. And we had a boarder deal with Ireland long before the EU.

Why don't I get to decide on the border with Ireland? AFAIA, Eire is in the EU. Anyone could cross* and we can't be having that!


*open border = no controls?

 r_squared wrote:
Personally I think this is just her starting negotiating point to shut up the euro-sceptics in her party, and UKIP.

We'll see what comes out of this, but one thing is certain. I am done with the Tories. I've voted for them in the past, but that will never happen again. I'm never willingly contributing to the success of a party that has demonstrated such reckless and destructive self interest.
There is no such thing as British interest, only Tory interest with them, and I've had enough. I sincerely hope that when they feth this up, they get royally destroyed at the next election. It's bound to happen at some point, they're about as cooperative as a sack full of cats, once this sorry debacle has run its course, they will turn on each other.

We're in agreement.

Looking back, I'm struck by how little democracy factored into Dave's calculations. Did he call a referendum because he was anxious that the British people should have a say on this great issue of our times? Of course not, it was a tactical decision to preserve the Conservative party ahead of the UK.

Cameron thought he could win and in the process kill two birds with one stone: silence the Euro-sceptic nutters in his party once and for all, and as a bonus, head UKIP off at the pass.

Sadly, David Cameron was David Cameron, and not Harold Wilson, the latter using his superior political skill to pull it off back in the 1970s when he led a Labour party divided over Europe and the EEC.

I'm curious, Whirlwind. Let's say I plonked you in May's position right now. How would you settle the democratic conundrum of 52% of the country (that voted) having voted to leave the EU? Would you force them to go back to the polls until they gave the answer you liked? Would you institute some sort of 'Brexit-lite', which was Remain in all but name? How would you square the circle in such a way, that people who voted Leave couldn't say every argument you're currently making against the current Leave decision?

Alrighty then...

Guy Verhofstadt
(@GuyVerhofstadt)
Britain has chosen a hard Brexit. May's clarity is welcome--but the days of UK cherry-picking and Europe a la cart are over.

Guy Verhofstadt
(@GuyVerhofstadt)
Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people--it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic
January 17, 2017

"Hard Brexit" then?

 Ketara wrote:
I'm curious, Whirlwind. Let's say I plonked you in May's position right now. How would you settle the democratic conundrum of 52% of the country (that voted) having voted to leave the EU? Would you force them to go back to the polls until they gave the answer you liked? Would you institute some sort of 'Brexit-lite', which was Remain in all but name? How would you square the circle in such a way, that people who voted Leave couldn't say every argument you're currently making against the current Leave decision?

Well, given both main Leave campaigns said we'd stay in the Single Market, and otherwise pedalled absolute lies....

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I'm curious, Whirlwind. Let's say I plonked you in May's position right now. How would you settle the democratic conundrum of 52% of the country (that voted) having voted to leave the EU? Would you force them to go back to the polls until they gave the answer you liked? Would you institute some sort of 'Brexit-lite', which was Remain in all but name? How would you square the circle in such a way, that people who voted Leave couldn't say every argument you're currently making against the current Leave decision?

Well, given both main Leave campaigns said we'd stay in the Single Market, and otherwise pedalled absolute lies....

And the Remain campaign threatened WW3. Leaving the somewhat absurd claims of both sides just there...at the side, I'm just wondering if anyone can actually conceive of a better way forward that wouldn't be just as open to claims of being anti-democratic.

Yeah.

Re-run the referendum now all the lies have been exposed. See what happens then.

I'd bet good money it'd be Remain - on account leaving is a bloody stupid thing to do.

I think leave would still win.

I very much doubt it.

No extra money for the NHS was a. whopper of a lie after all....

That was out of line, I grant you that. But I don't think the big red bus won the election. I think people had largely made up their minds by the time it started. It was an issue that went back decades after all.

 Whirlwind wrote:
I whole heartedly agree with this. And don't just stop there, make sure you let everyone around you know just how bad they are! If they get hammered hard enough in elections (note there are local ones in May) then they may take notice. One other thing. Make sure you right to your MP and Tory party to let them know this. For too long the bigots have been the loudest voice!

And who should the people of England be voting for instead?
Labour? They are in complete disarray. Their traditional supporters are divided between elitist europhiles and working class eurosceptics. They've managed to repulse the very core of their support. And the ongoing pantomime is pathetic.
LibDems? Time heals, but it heals slowly. The long standing memory everyone will have of LibDems in power is how the Tories managed to successfully blame them for everything horrible the government did while taking credit for the LibDem policies that were turned into legislation. Seriously, the Tory's clever manipulation of the LibDems was the perfect political play. It should be taught in schools. And as a result they all but got wiped out. They're so fragile right now that even pretending they could get in power will petrify them into inaction.
UKIP? Shan't even bother with them
Green Party? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

At the moment the Tories are the only party showing coherency and leadership. Don't like them, hate their policies, their smugness, how they look after themselves and their donors first while the country doesn't even get a look in. Sure. Do all that. I'll even wholeheartedly agree with you. But don't pretend there's a viable alternative for the country at the moment with any coherency to their plans or thoughts of fulfilling the wishes of the majority of the population regarding Europe.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Whirlwind

The question was "should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" The leave side won, so we're leaving the EU. Remaining a part of any of it's institutions isn't leaving the EU. I knew this when I cast my vote.

Also, I'm perfectly OK with immigration, just so long as there's controls. Controls that we can decide for ourselves. And we had a boarder deal with Ireland long before the EU.

That's not the issue. Yes leave won by a tiny majority. However that was on leaving the EU. No one voted on what that was to look like. What if 75% of the voters wanted less 'red tape' but are happy with open borders and free market access? That question was never asked. What's happened is that it has become the Tory dark horse issue on immigration because there are few obnoxious groups spouting bigoted nonsense, which the Tory party are bending over backwards to accommodate. But it may only be a relatively small percentage. So we have 48% of the voters that don't want to leave and unknown number of people that may wish to stay in the open market/open borders that voted leave. So LD are right when they say it's a sad day for democracy because a vote is being turned into a tool for an ultra right wing Tory party to achieve what they want without considering what the populaces reasons for voting were.

There's a difference as you've pointed out with Ireland now, they are part of the EU. Any EU citizen is allowed to move to Ireland and that implies they then have free movement to the UK. The EU would have to give special access for the Irish which is against EU liberalist principles.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm curious, Whirlwind. Let's say I plonked you in May's position right now. How would you settle the democratic conundrum of 52% of the country (that voted) having voted to leave the EU? Would you force them to go back to the polls until they gave the answer you liked? Would you institute some sort of 'Brexit-lite', which was Remain in all but name? How would you square the circle in such a way, that people who voted Leave couldn't say every argument you're currently making against the current Leave decision?

For me, the fact that I'm not May, or a dyed in the wool tory kind of colours it. I have no loyalty to the party, or their manifesto pledge so we could be under no obligation to carry out their promise. Kind of like if we held a general election and another government was elected in, they could just throw the whole BREXIT thing in the bin.

This problem is exclusively a Tory one, they're the ones with a circle to square.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm curious, Whirlwind. Let's say I plonked you in May's position right now. How would you settle the democratic conundrum of 52% of the country (that voted) having voted to leave the EU? Would you force them to go back to the polls until they gave the answer you liked? Would you institute some sort of 'Brexit-lite', which was Remain in all but name? How would you square the circle in such a way, that people who voted Leave couldn't say every argument you're currently making against the current Leave decision?

It should never be a referendum issue as its too complicated for any individual, including me, to fully understand.

But for laughs I would rerun the referendum but there would be three choices. Staying in, leaving and going full WTO (current route) and a Brexit light (after a period of negotiation and agreement with the EU). Each option would be have a equally valid analysis of the pro's and risks independently verified by a couple of companies with little vested interest (so ones based in Australia, America and a South American company say). These would be similar manner to the SNP document on leaving the UK but as independent as possible. These would be the basis for political debates as they would allow the populace to be fully informed. Finally I would make it illegal with a minimum of 5 years prison term to lie to the populace (so breaking point posters, WWIII statements, 350m to the NHS etc). Obviously this is a summary of the principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:


At the moment the Tories are the only party showing coherency and leadership. Don't like them, hate their policies, their smugness, how they look after themselves and their donors first while the country doesn't even get a look in. Sure. Do all that. I'll even wholeheartedly agree with you. But don't pretend there's a viable alternative for the country at the moment with any coherency to their plans or thoughts of fulfilling the wishes of the majority of the population regarding Europe.

Perhaps it's time for new party then? However if you just vote Tory 'because' effectively you justify the damage they are inflicting on the country. Yes they are coordinated, but coordinated in doing the best for themselves and thief mates and screwing over everybody else. My recommendation would be to vote for whichever party is most likely to get rid of them in individual seats. And I'm not sure I agree with you about LDs. The recent local and by election results all show a heavy swing back towards LD. I think people might have started realising that LDs were holding back a tide of filth and excrement from the Tory party between 2010 and 2015, and didn't quite realise how bad it would be when they let the dam burst.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I think leave would still win.

I don't know, there were a lot people that didn't vote, and a lot of them are waking up to the fact that they may be railroaded down a route they don't want.

One of the reasons I think the dedicated leavers want a fast exit is because they know the tide is turning against them and the sooner they get out the less likely enough people will wake up and demand a rethink.

 Whirlwind wrote:

It should never be a referendum issue as its too complicated for any individual, including me, to fully understand

You don't consider the 'The population should not be allowed to vote on anything we consider complex' position to be a dangerous one?

Plato's Philosopher King isn't usually considered a viable form of government.

But for laughs I would rerun the referendum but there would be three choices. Staying in, leaving and going full WTO (current route) and a Brexit light (after a period of negotiation and agreement with the EU).

Do you think this was actually a political option for May? Do you not also consider it somewhat anti-democratic and tiresome for everyone involved when a referenda is held, to say 'Hang on a minute, do it again'? Also, what would happen if we're split three ways down Brexit, Brexit lite, and remain? Doesn't that just extend the problem?

Lastly, would you be demanding the same sort of concessions/taking into account the other side of the country if the vote had gone 52/48 the other way?

Please note that I'm not being aggressive in this questioning, but I'm honestly having trouble seeing how your solution would make anything any better then what's already happening in terms of democracy and fairness.

And you then get into a mess of, 40% vote for remain, 35% vote for Brexit-lite, 25% vote for 'hard' Brexit.

Did the population vote in, or out?

How is common travel with Europe going to work? Will it continue as-is? Or will border checkpoints be established on either side of the chunnel?

 Ketara wrote:

Do you think this was actually a political option for May?

Yes, she is after all breaking a Tory manifesto pledge, but I can't see her going down this route at all.

 Breotan wrote:
How is common travel with Europe going to work? Will it continue as-is? Or will border checkpoints be established on either side of the chunnel?

There are border checkpoints already. UK is not Schengen.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


In the same way one would look at a free trade agreement between Australia and the EU (for example), if Australia stood up and said 'we wish to formulate a free trade agreement', the EU would not say 'Well what else have you got to offer?' because the metaphorical 'give' is contained within the statement. The answer being Trade. On both sides.

The answer not just "trade", it's how much of my trade vs how much of yours, and whose rules will it follow.

Just looking at the Canada trade agreement, for example EU companies can tender for public contracts in Canada, but not the other way around.

jouso wrote:
[
The answer not just "trade", it's how much of my trade vs how much of yours, and whose rules will it follow.

Just looking at the Canada trade agreement, for example EU companies can tender for public contracts in Canada, but not the other way around.

Those are merely the terms of the trade. The EU doesn't expect Canada to cede control of its borders, its police force, redesign its flag, or whatever. The point being that there is no extra 'give' beyond the trade itself. If the EU agrees to a free trade agreement with us, it is expected that we will agree to certain shared provisions and limitations. It is not expected that they will demand we get rid of the Queen, cede the Isle of Man, or pay the President of the EU a large cash sum every year.

The 'give' is the trade, the terms under which it will occur may be negotiable, but expecting us to 'give' other things as well is misunderstanding the basis upon which a free trade agreement is drawn up. As we already have unified standards in most regards, there's actually very little in the way of additional legislation, safeguards, and so forth required.

I reiterate, when we were looking to maintain one foot in the door, it was a reasonable complaint, we were one of them looking for special treatment. Now we are emphatically not one of them, and a trade agreement should be approached on the same basis as it would be with Japan. Namely carefully, and with respect and consideration on both sides for the beneficial enrichment of all.