I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
So, in your view, she's looking for the middle ground that doesn't exist, ie something that means we leave the EU, but is less harmful than a no-deal brexit. And she'll keep searching for it until... when?
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
So, in your view, she's looking for the middle ground that doesn't exist, ie something that means we leave the EU, but is less harmful than a no-deal brexit. And she'll keep searching for it until... when?
She is looking for a middle ground that doesn't exist to appease her back benchers.
I haven't got a clue when she will declare the game is up.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
So, in your view, she's looking for the middle ground that doesn't exist, ie something that means we leave the EU, but is less harmful than a no-deal brexit. And she'll keep searching for it until... when?
She is looking for a middle ground that doesn't exist to appease her back benchers.
I haven't got a clue when she will declare the game is up.
What do you believe her strategy to be?
I think she thinks the middle ground does exist. She's scrabbling about for something that will cover as many of the aspirations of her party as possible and ignoring the fact that it's not possible to find.
So, it appears that you think she's being deliberately deceitful and I think she's just delusional. Either way, it's embarrassing and damaging. And, worst of all, you and I are probably both right!
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
So, in your view, she's looking for the middle ground that doesn't exist, ie something that means we leave the EU, but is less harmful than a no-deal brexit. And she'll keep searching for it until... when?
She is looking for a middle ground that doesn't exist to appease her back benchers.
I haven't got a clue when she will declare the game is up.
What do you believe her strategy to be?
I think she thinks the middle ground does exist. She's scrabbling about for something that will cover as many of the aspirations of her party as possible and ignoring the fact that it's not possible to find.
So, it appears that you think she's being deliberately deceitful and I think she's just delusional. Either way, it's embarrassing and damaging. And, worst of all, you and I are probably both right!
Some politicians are delusional, most politicians are deceitful.
Great article from the brilliant Gary Younge discussing the sense of victimhood that many Leavers love to wallow in, and which also feeds Trump supporters in the US.
It’s never their fault: why the Brexiteers love to cry betrayal
I do hope that if it does go tits up people would have the humility to accept that they backed the wrong horse and hold their hands up. I still hear (not on here) a lot of people whinging and bitching that the reason it's all gone wrong is down to the government. Whilst I fully agree the government have made a complete pigs ear of it, it shouldn't take away from people accepting responsibility for their choices. For example, can people who voted out say they truly took the time to go through all the facts and determine whether or not that they/the nation would be materially better off being out? I accept a lot of what has come out in the wash may have been unforeseen at the time, but then you could argue why vote out when you don't know what the consequences will be (good or bad).
I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, and I will put in writing now that should this turn out to be a good thing and in however many years from now we are better off out, thank you for all those that did vote out, you chose to do the right thing.
I've just got a feeling there will be a lot passing the buck if does go wrong and we'll hear 'oh but they never gave us all the facts', 'oh the government ruined it for us' 'they should've done it this way' etc etc.
The feeling from a few people I've spoken to in Government is this
- Still no deal by December that can command a majority in the HoC, so big businesses activate contingency plans, including putting staff on notice of redundancy around Christmas to give them the 90 days notice. Supermarket chains refuse to stockpile as they can't, and the NHS can't afford the bills for medicines. - Absolute panic going into the new year, public suddenly get it about leaving the EU, CU and SM. NHS talks about cancelling cancer treatments due to lack of Isotopes etc etc. Sensible Tories shit themselves on a massive scale - May goes back to Brussels and asks for more time on A50, EU agree only if there is a second referendum or election. May also asks for a more open ended transition. - Second referendum in the Summer of 2019, we end up remaining in the EU
Great article from the brilliant Gary Younge discussing the sense of victimhood that many Leavers love to wallow in, and which also feeds Trump supporters in the US.
It’s never their fault: why the Brexiteers love to cry betrayal
I do hope that if it does go tits up people would have the humility to accept that they backed the wrong horse and hold their hands up. I still hear (not on here) a lot of people whinging and bitching that the reason it's all gone wrong is down to the government. Whilst I fully agree the government have made a complete pigs ear of it, it shouldn't take away from people accepting responsibility for their choices. For example, can people who voted out say they truly took the time to go through all the facts and determine whether or not that they/the nation would be materially better off being out? I accept a lot of what has come out in the wash may have been unforeseen at the time, but then you could argue why vote out when you don't know what the consequences will be (good or bad).
I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, and I will put in writing now that should this turn out to be a good thing and in however many years from now we are better off out, thank you for all those that did vote out, you chose to do the right thing.
I've just got a feeling there will be a lot passing the buck if does go wrong and we'll hear 'oh but they never gave us all the facts', 'oh the government ruined it for us' 'they should've done it this way' etc etc.
Be an interesting few months
I don't think there will ever be progress on all this until a massive shed load of brexit voters admit they made a massive mistake, and acknowledge it as publically and widely as possible. However nobody likes to admit they got it wrong
So May has lost two cabinet ministers and further split her party over her White Paper, the main plank of which she hadn't run past Barnier. Is she just incredibly incompetent and stupid? Can't believe she is trying to shift blame. Why? Just walk away and leave it to Mogg and Boris.
The feeling from a few people I've spoken to in Government is this
- Still no deal by December that can command a majority in the HoC, so big businesses activate contingency plans, including putting staff on notice of redundancy around Christmas to give them the 90 days notice. Supermarket chains refuse to stockpile as they can't, and the NHS can't afford the bills for medicines. - Absolute panic going into the new year, public suddenly get it about leaving the EU, CU and SM. NHS talks about cancelling cancer treatments due to lack of Isotopes etc etc. Sensible Tories shit themselves on a massive scale - May goes back to Brussels and asks for more time on A50, EU agree only if there is a second referendum or election. May also asks for a more open ended transition. - Second referendum in the Summer of 2019, we end up remaining in the EU
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
Why not just go for the Norway option? I don’t understand why that doesn’t get more airtime.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
So, in your view, she's looking for the middle ground that doesn't exist, ie something that means we leave the EU, but is less harmful than a no-deal brexit. And she'll keep searching for it until... when?
She is looking for a middle ground that doesn't exist to appease her back benchers.
I haven't got a clue when she will declare the game is up.
What do you believe her strategy to be?
She is playing a game and pretending to appease both sides. The brexiteers won't budge, the remainers (in her party) will. It will be ever decreasing circles of 'soft' brexit until we have a hard brexit by another name (or Habban as intelligent commentators are referring to it). She will go to the country saying we have the best deal possible but it will be all but a hard brexit.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
Why not just go for the Norway option? I don’t understand why that doesn’t get more airtime.
I agree that if we cease to be full members the Norway model is by far the best option. The problem is that it is not as good as full membership but with most if not all of the so called negatives that leavers say were the reasons for voting leave. If Norway is the only 'soft' option then don't leave is the better option.
The only benefit of Norway politically is that it can claim to honour the 'will of the people' whilst protecting the economy, the Union and cooperation.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
Why not just go for the Norway option? I don’t understand why that doesn’t get more airtime.
I agree that if we cease to be full members the Norway model is by far the best option. The problem is that it is not as good as full membership but with most if not all of the so called negatives that leavers say were the reasons for voting leave. If Norway is the only 'soft' option then don't leave is the better option.
The only benefit of Norway politically is that it can claim to honour the 'will of the people' whilst protecting the economy, the Union and cooperation.
Those sound like a number of benefits, far more than any other option offers to my mind.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
Why not just go for the Norway option? I don’t understand why that doesn’t get more airtime.
Because it involves still paying in loads of money, which is one red line. It involves free movement of labour, another red line, and it would make brexiteers look stupid, in that they will have campaigned vigorously for us to achieve none of their aims, whilst still having to pay into and accept the rules of an organisation we no longer have any influence over as we just paid to hand all that influence back to them.
Great article from the brilliant Gary Younge discussing the sense of victimhood that many Leavers love to wallow in, and which also feeds Trump supporters in the US.
It’s never their fault: why the Brexiteers love to cry betrayal
I do hope that if it does go tits up people would have the humility to accept that they backed the wrong horse and hold their hands up. I still hear (not on here) a lot of people whinging and bitching that the reason it's all gone wrong is down to the government. Whilst I fully agree the government have made a complete pigs ear of it, it shouldn't take away from people accepting responsibility for their choices. For example, can people who voted out say they truly took the time to go through all the facts and determine whether or not that they/the nation would be materially better off being out? I accept a lot of what has come out in the wash may have been unforeseen at the time, but then you could argue why vote out when you don't know what the consequences will be (good or bad).
I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, and I will put in writing now that should this turn out to be a good thing and in however many years from now we are better off out, thank you for all those that did vote out, you chose to do the right thing.
I've just got a feeling there will be a lot passing the buck if does go wrong and we'll hear 'oh but they never gave us all the facts', 'oh the government ruined it for us' 'they should've done it this way' etc etc.
Be an interesting few months
I don't think there will ever be progress on all this until a massive shed load of brexit voters admit they made a massive mistake, and acknowledge it as publically and widely as possible. However nobody likes to admit they got it wrong
Nobody likes it, but only weak people can't do it.
In case anyone is wondering why Norway have the model they do, and not full membership like we do, one of my Norwegian mates offered the following (originally posted here years ago!):
Norway voted no for two main reasons back in 1994 when Sweden and Finland voted yes and joined. Norway's agricultural and fisheries policies. Short version is Norway has maintained the population in the districts through having a very heavily subsidised agricultural sector (which is extremely inefficient, but basically paid for by the oil). The effect has been that we have managed to maintain the population in the far north. Both Sweden and Finland had already really lost that battle by 94 anyway. So one reason was the strong opposition in the districts. Norway actually also have for some unknown reason the largest protected national fishing zone of any country in Europe. After oil, fishing is another major industry. If we'd joined we would've had to give up our very privileged fishing rights. In addition, Norway cut back on fishing 20 years before the rest of Europe including UK. So the fishing industry had already gone through a painful era of restrictive quotas and by the 90s our fish stocks had recovered. Bad timing to allow the rest of Europe in then! Other aspects were also involved of course but these two weighed heavily.
I.e. they went from nothing, to Norway. Which has been an improvement for Norway. We don't have the same situation as Norway, and are taking a step back which will not benefit us in the slightest and will mean we lose our influence at the top table. The Norway model, for us, is a waste of time.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
Why not just go for the Norway option? I don’t understand why that doesn’t get more airtime.
Because it involves still paying in loads of money, which is one red line. It involves free movement of labour, another red line, and it would make brexiteers look stupid, in that they will have campaigned vigorously for us to achieve none of their aims, whilst still having to pay into and accept the rules of an organisation we no longer have any influence over as we just paid to hand all that influence back to them.
Whose “red lines” are these? And, as far as I can see, there was no common “what happens next” scenario campaigned for by any consensus of Brexiteers, half the reason we’re in this mess. The only thing Brexiteers have I’m common is they want us to leave the EU, which a Norway model would do.
For me Norway is the best of a bad set of options.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
Why not just go for the Norway option? I don’t understand why that doesn’t get more airtime.
Because it involves still paying in loads of money, which is one red line. It involves free movement of labour, another red line, and it would make brexiteers look stupid, in that they will have campaigned vigorously for us to achieve none of their aims, whilst still having to pay into and accept the rules of an organisation we no longer have any influence over as we just paid to hand all that influence back to them.
Whose “red lines” are these? And, as far as I can see, there was no common “what happens next” scenario campaigned for by any consensus of Brexiteers, half the reason we’re in this mess. The only thing Brexiteers have I’m common is they want us to leave the EU, which a Norway model would do.
For me Norway is the best of a bad set of options.
Agreed - worse than staying in but maintains economic stability and fulfills the result of the referendum.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
Because there is NO credible plan that is acceptable to the EU 27 and in the crazy world of British politics NO plan that she can get her own party to get behind. That’s where we are after more than two years.
She cannot move forward, backwards or sideways. Instead she is still telling an expectant country through her mouthpiece Rabb that a deal can be concluded in 12 weeks. If it can’t then it’s not Britain’s fault it’s the eu’s for not wanting to break every rule it has to appease a country that has just told it to do one.
No problems though. As @seth plum has posted above we are stockpiling food and medicine so we don’t completely implode straight away.
Why we can’t just hold our hands up and say this is just one big mistake and cancel Article 50 I don’t know. The cliff is fast approaching and havn’t even thought about hitting the brakes.
Looks like Trump is happy to deal with the EU again so any fantasy of a post-Brexit UK getting preferential treatment on trade from the US looks very silly now.
The feeling from a few people I've spoken to in Government is this
- Still no deal by December that can command a majority in the HoC, so big businesses activate contingency plans, including putting staff on notice of redundancy around Christmas to give them the 90 days notice. Supermarket chains refuse to stockpile as they can't, and the NHS can't afford the bills for medicines. - Absolute panic going into the new year, public suddenly get it about leaving the EU, CU and SM. NHS talks about cancelling cancer treatments due to lack of Isotopes etc etc. Sensible Tories shit themselves on a massive scale - May goes back to Brussels and asks for more time on A50, EU agree only if there is a second referendum or election. May also asks for a more open ended transition. - Second referendum in the Summer of 2019, we end up remaining in the EU
Most radiotherapy cancer treatments are carried out by using high energy photons (x-rays). There are still some gamma ray treatments but isotopes are sourced with the UK.
Chemotherapy agents are different. If as is being predicted the country struggles getting drugs enough then there could be significant issues. Cancer treatments would be the tip of the iceberg.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
Why not just go for the Norway option? I don’t understand why that doesn’t get more airtime.
Because it involves still paying in loads of money, which is one red line. It involves free movement of labour, another red line, and it would make brexiteers look stupid, in that they will have campaigned vigorously for us to achieve none of their aims, whilst still having to pay into and accept the rules of an organisation we no longer have any influence over as we just paid to hand all that influence back to them.
All the major Brexiteers and the leave website bigged up the Norway option during the campaign.
Great article from the brilliant Gary Younge discussing the sense of victimhood that many Leavers love to wallow in, and which also feeds Trump supporters in the US.
It’s never their fault: why the Brexiteers love to cry betrayal
I do hope that if it does go tits up people would have the humility to accept that they backed the wrong horse and hold their hands up. I still hear (not on here) a lot of people whinging and bitching that the reason it's all gone wrong is down to the government. Whilst I fully agree the government have made a complete pigs ear of it, it shouldn't take away from people accepting responsibility for their choices. For example, can people who voted out say they truly took the time to go through all the facts and determine whether or not that they/the nation would be materially better off being out? I accept a lot of what has come out in the wash may have been unforeseen at the time, but then you could argue why vote out when you don't know what the consequences will be (good or bad).
I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, and I will put in writing now that should this turn out to be a good thing and in however many years from now we are better off out, thank you for all those that did vote out, you chose to do the right thing.
I've just got a feeling there will be a lot passing the buck if does go wrong and we'll hear 'oh but they never gave us all the facts', 'oh the government ruined it for us' 'they should've done it this way' etc etc.
Be an interesting few months
I don't think there will ever be progress on all this until a massive shed load of brexit voters admit they made a massive mistake, and acknowledge it as publically and widely as possible. However nobody likes to admit they got it wrong
I really can't understand why you keep banging on that us leave voters got it wtong & we need to apologise. Applogise for what exactly ?? we had a referendum & there were only 2 possible outcomes. If, according to your logic, one outcome was so bad then why were we given the choice to vote ?? Surely you ire should be aimed at David Cameron, The Civil Service and any other buggers responsible.
I was simply asked to attend a polling station & put a X in 1 of 2 boxes. What happens after that I have no power over.
I have already said publicly on here that TM & her Government have no idea what they are doing & I'm expecting that the end result will either be a no deal or another referendum......which I would probably vote to stay as to leave is patently no possible.
From all your posts I'm assuming your a Labour supporter. If so I'm looking forward to the next few years so I can blame you for every policy decision that ends up in tears ( as it inevitably will) once Corbyn gets into power.
I really can't understand why you keep banging on that us leave voters got it wtong & we need to apologise. Applogise for what exactly ?? we had a referendum & there were only 2 possible outcomes. If, according to your logic, one outcome was so bad then why were we given the choice to vote ?? Surely you ire should be aimed at David Cameron, The Civil Service and any other buggers responsible.
I was simply asked to attend a polling station & put a X in 1 of 2 boxes. What happens after that I have no power over.
I have already said publicly on here that TM & her Government have no idea what they are doing & I'm expecting that the end result will either be a no deal or another referendum......which I would probably vote to stay as to leave is patently no possible.
From all your posts I'm assuming your a Labour supporter. If so I'm looking forward to the next few years so I can blame you for every policy decision that ends up in tears ( as it inevitably will) once Corbyn gets into power.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
So, in your view, she's looking for the middle ground that doesn't exist, ie something that means we leave the EU, but is less harmful than a no-deal brexit. And she'll keep searching for it until... when?
Until late October whem the other 27 EU countries vote to reject Brexit & TM will have to go to parliament & tell them. I then expect either a vote of no confidence on her Government & thus a GE or a vote of no confidence in her by her party & there in a leadership election. In both cases I would hope that the leave process is suspended or put back 3-6 to see what happens next.
I see Michel Barnier has already said the "Chequers white paper" is a non-starter. EU wont agree to collecting our tarrifs & taxes and that the "not single market but still trying to be together" thingy wont work either. Best get your cabinet back to Chequers Mrs May for a re-think......
but Raab thinks its all still good & the EU are just joshing with us.....they're good chaps really & will see sense in the end...
It was never going to be acceptable. Why would/should the EU change their rules for a nation that has decided to leave the union.
Call me an old cynic but my view is that May and co always knew it wouldn't be acceptable and they are just preparing the ground to divert blame to the 27. The Daily Mail will go for it.
What would be the point of that? What would Theresa May gain from creating a solution that will be rejected and use that rejection to point fingers at the EU27?
Are you serious. Politics is and always has been about diverting blame. Given the complete and utter fiasco that the government have presided over in negotiating Brexit I think the Tories will be absolutely desperate to blame anyone and as Labour are not going to be available as a target the only possibility is to blame the 27.
It will be a complete case of the EU being inflexible and intransigent whereas the U.K. will have tried its utmost to offer solutions and compromise.
It’s nailed on 100% certain.
I get that Theresa May will want to divert blame. Of course. But what would be the point of coming up with a plan that will be rejected, purely in order to be able to divert blame? Where does that benefit anyone? The only person to benefit from that as a strategy would be the Prime Minister and the only benefit would be to make the situation harder to solve, because she would be back at square one.
I don't want to give her any credit for anything within this whole fiasco. But surely she must have a better solution than kicking it down the road and being able to blame someone else for how far it's been kicked?
There is no solution to a soft Brexit. It's Norway, staying in (which is better than Norway), or falling off the cliff. It was never, despite Bojo's claim, a possibility of cake and eat it.
May will be forced to go for either stay or cliff edge - she can't find another way because there is no other way - but if she can blame someone else then she will. This is about 1) her survival, 2) the Tory Party and a distant 3) the country.
So, in your view, she's looking for the middle ground that doesn't exist, ie something that means we leave the EU, but is less harmful than a no-deal brexit. And she'll keep searching for it until... when?
Until late October whem the other 27 EU countries vote to reject Brexit & TM will have to go to parliament & tell them. I then expect either a vote of no confidence on her Government & thus a GE or a vote of no confidence in her by her party & there in a leadership election. In both cases I would hope that the leave process is suspended or put back 3-6 to see what happens next.
If that were to happen then I would expect the EU 27 to grant an extension to the 2 year Article 50 time limit.
Comments
I haven't got a clue when she will declare the game is up.
What do you believe her strategy to be?
So, it appears that you think she's being deliberately deceitful and I think she's just delusional. Either way, it's embarrassing and damaging. And, worst of all, you and I are probably both right!
I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, and I will put in writing now that should this turn out to be a good thing and in however many years from now we are better off out, thank you for all those that did vote out, you chose to do the right thing.
I've just got a feeling there will be a lot passing the buck if does go wrong and we'll hear 'oh but they never gave us all the facts', 'oh the government ruined it for us' 'they should've done it this way' etc etc.
Be an interesting few months
- Still no deal by December that can command a majority in the HoC, so big businesses activate contingency plans, including putting staff on notice of redundancy around Christmas to give them the 90 days notice. Supermarket chains refuse to stockpile as they can't, and the NHS can't afford the bills for medicines.
- Absolute panic going into the new year, public suddenly get it about leaving the EU, CU and SM. NHS talks about cancelling cancer treatments due to lack of Isotopes etc etc. Sensible Tories shit themselves on a massive scale
- May goes back to Brussels and asks for more time on A50, EU agree only if there is a second referendum or election. May also asks for a more open ended transition.
- Second referendum in the Summer of 2019, we end up remaining in the EU
However nobody likes to admit they got it wrong
Or the adults take over and we remain.
The only benefit of Norway politically is that it can claim to honour the 'will of the people' whilst protecting the economy, the Union and cooperation.
Norway voted no for two main reasons back in 1994 when Sweden and Finland voted yes and joined. Norway's agricultural and fisheries policies. Short version is Norway has maintained the population in the districts through having a very heavily subsidised agricultural sector (which is extremely inefficient, but basically paid for by the oil). The effect has been that we have managed to maintain the population in the far north. Both Sweden and Finland had already really lost that battle by 94 anyway. So one reason was the strong opposition in the districts. Norway actually also have for some unknown reason the largest protected national fishing zone of any country in Europe. After oil, fishing is another major industry. If we'd joined we would've had to give up our very privileged fishing rights. In addition, Norway cut back on fishing 20 years before the rest of Europe including UK. So the fishing industry had already gone through a painful era of restrictive quotas and by the 90s our fish stocks had recovered. Bad timing to allow the rest of Europe in then! Other aspects were also involved of course but these two weighed heavily.
For me Norway is the best of a bad set of options.
Isn't going to happen though.
She cannot move forward, backwards or sideways. Instead she is still telling an expectant country through her mouthpiece Rabb that a deal can be concluded in 12 weeks. If it can’t then it’s not Britain’s fault it’s the eu’s for not wanting to break every rule it has to appease a country that has just told it to do one.
No problems though. As @seth plum has posted above we are stockpiling food and medicine so we don’t completely implode straight away.
Why we can’t just hold our hands up and say this is just one big mistake and cancel Article 50 I don’t know. The cliff is fast approaching and havn’t even thought about hitting the brakes.
Chemotherapy agents are different. If as is being predicted the country struggles getting drugs enough then there could be significant issues. Cancer treatments would be the tip of the iceberg.
I was simply asked to attend a polling station & put a X in 1 of 2 boxes. What happens after that I have no power over.
I have already said publicly on here that TM & her Government have no idea what they are doing & I'm expecting that the end result will either be a no deal or another referendum......which I would probably vote to stay as to leave is patently no possible.
From all your posts I'm assuming your a Labour supporter. If so I'm looking forward to the next few years so I can blame you for every policy decision that ends up in tears ( as it inevitably will) once Corbyn gets into power.
I really can't understand why you keep banging on that us leave voters got it wtong & we need to apologise. Applogise for what exactly ?? we had a referendum & there were only 2 possible outcomes. If, according to your logic, one outcome was so bad then why were we given the choice to vote ?? Surely you ire should be aimed at David Cameron, The Civil Service and any other buggers responsible.
I was simply asked to attend a polling station & put a X in 1 of 2 boxes. What happens after that I have no power over.
I have already said publicly on here that TM & her Government have no idea what they are doing & I'm expecting that the end result will either be a no deal or another referendum......which I would probably vote to stay as to leave is patently no possible.
From all your posts I'm assuming your a Labour supporter. If so I'm looking forward to the next few years so I can blame you for every policy decision that ends up in tears ( as it inevitably will) once Corbyn gets into power.
So you got it wrong then ?