Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Chris Heaton-Harris MP. FFS.

Not a particularly elevated contribution from me I know but a contribution nonetheless.

I was really referring to the 3 options, when  asked "have I missed something ?"

....but I agree that Heaton-Harris begins to make Redwood look respectable.

Hi Don. I wasn't responding to your post, just venting. C.

Just googled ffs.

I wondered how friction free shaving dovetailed into this. 

Googled again. Got it.

s.

Minor diversion: I've just heard Alan Sugar on Today. Regarding UK productivity he said the problem is basically 'China'. 'There are no consumer electronics made in the UK'. [Allowed to go unchallenged].

He was then asked about Brexit. He said it was the biggest thing in Britain since the first world war. 'But you don't send a politician, you send your top negotiator to make a deal'.

There are no high volume, low value, disposable electronic items (cue Amstrad shite etc) made in the UK

Nick, You must think forum contributors don't know that!  :-)

Well, I'm typing this on an I-pad mini and I don't think it's shite but equally it wasn't made in the UK nor the USA..........

......so who is to "blame" ? Me, for buying it, or some UK/USA CEO for outsourcing manufacture to China ?

Que the muso ...............

I've turned to some music too, Don. The Today programme's editorial line has certainly wound me up this morning.

Christopher_M posted:

Chris Heaton-Harris MP. FFS.

Not a particularly elevated contribution from me I know but a contribution nonetheless.

Equally abhorrent is the reaction of Philip Davies to what he calls the "false outrage" in response to the Chris Heaton-Harris letter.

Despite claiming that the motives behind the letter have been misunderstood, he goes on to claim that Universities have been "rumbled", and that they are "full of left wing lecturers who force their Opinions on students".

Its worse Jim... Parliament (you know that great organisation that was being subverted by the EU) might not get a vote on the final deal until AFTER we've fully left the EU.

I have visions nightmares of "the lads" voting on Micheal Caine's "great idea"...

Eloise posted:

Its worse Jim... Parliament (you know that great organisation that was being subverted by the EU) might not get a vote on the final deal until AFTER we've fully left the EU.

I have visions nightmares of "the lads" voting on Micheal Caine's "great idea"...

Despicable.

I had to listen twice, to TM's "explanation" that we could leave, continue some sort of negotiation leading to a deal/no-deal. And then have Parliament vote on that deal/no-deal !

Looks like my Option 2.............which was meant to be a joke !

I despair. And I am enraged.

Apologies, it was DD who said we might leave-negotiate-vote.

TM provided assurance that we would negotiate-vote-leave.

Of course, when I say "we" vote, I do mean Parliament, not "us" the electorate.

And the vote is about the "deal" (or no-deal) NOT whether we leave/don't-leave.

Don Atkinson posted:

TM provided assurance that we would negotiate-vote-leave.

Well technically speaking she was “confident” there would be a vote before leaving... which isn’t quite the same!

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

TM provided assurance that we would negotiate-vote-leave.

Well technically speaking she was “confident” there would be a vote before leaving... which isn’t quite the same!

I'm just too trusting of our politicians..........

From today's i, key ally of Angela Merkel, Manfred Weber, head of the centre-right European People's Party said his party would oppose any plan giving Britain the same benefits outside the EU as it had inside. "There must be a difference", he said.

Seems no deal is a very real possibility.

As I intimated in an earlier post, the EU cannot let UK leave without [significant and visible] detriment to UK.

if UK doesn't want to suffer that detriment, it is simple:don't leave (but instead have strong negotiators arguing agains the creeping move of sovereignty).

Innocent Bystander posted:

As I intimated in an earlier post, the EU cannot let UK leave without [significant and visible] detriment to UK.

 

I understand the logic of that argument but (a) the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget which strengthens our negotiating hand as compared to those member states who are net beneficiaries and may have some feelings about leaving the EU too; and (b) in the end game practicality for continuing trade between the EU and UK will likely outweigh gesture politics.     

The phrase that comes to mind is that one from history O level: pour encourager les autres.

MDS posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

As I intimated in an earlier post, the EU cannot let UK leave without [significant and visible] detriment to UK.

 

I understand the logic of that argument but (a) the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget which strengthens our negotiating hand as compared to those member states who are net beneficiaries and may have some feelings about leaving the EU too; and (b) in the end game practicality for continuing trade between the EU and UK will likely outweigh gesture politics.     

That's certainly the line taken by tory optimists.  But I don't think it's realistic.  On point a) I'd argue that that is even more incentive for a punitive deal, since it'd send a message to those other countries that even the UK couldn't do any better.  Something like 'You want to leave too?  Well look what happened to your mate, and he's way bigger than you'.  Take a hit on the deal with the UK in order to secure the unity of the broader EU?  Sounds like something they might do. 

On b) I am skeptical, since the EU's published opinion (see my previous post) is that a no-deal brexit will be a pain in the rear for the EU, but nothing insurmountable in the grand scheme of things.  Whereas for us it'll be disastrous, whatever the cheerleaders try to claim.  The precedent here is Russia.  Sanctions against Russia hurt the economic interests of the EU, but they still went ahead.  While they won't crucify themselves to prove a point, the EU can and will do things which aren't in their obvious economic interest in order to secure certain outcomes.

The Gov has today announced that Parliament WILL be allowed to discus the deal and vote.

For some reason, I thought that had already been established. I must have been sleepwalking !

Non-the-less, I am somewhat unclear what this new situation will mean in reality.

I am clear that it will NOT be a discussion/vote as to whether to accept the "deal" v "Remain in the EU". This seems to me to be the sensible option, (except it's not on the table !)

My cynical thought is that it will amount to "deal" v "Leave without a deal".

The third option would appear to involve sending David Davis back to Brussels to continue negotiations............this seems to me to be the "you must be joking" option.

Thoughts ?

Having covered themselves in glory (not) with regard to a British/Iranian woman held in prison in Iran, I am not at all surprised to learn that Boris and Gove have co-operated in the writing of a letter putting pressure on the PM to drive a hard Brexit.

Is this what the 51% aspired to in the Referendum ? or are these two looking after their own short-term futures regardless of the effect on the lives of others ?

Don Atkinson posted:

The Gov has today announced that Parliament WILL be allowed to discus the deal and vote

......

My cynical thought is that it will amount to "deal" v "Leave without a deal".

.......

Thoughts ?

 

 

I think your thought is right. A Tory MP was quoted on R4 news just now as saying the PM intends to enshrine in law that UK will leave EU in March 2019.

Don Atkinson posted:

My cynical thought is that it will amount to "deal" v "Leave without a deal".

Thoughts ?

 

 

Don - my reading of today's developments is that what Davis offered was the one above, or at least 'take it, or leave it' with no opportunity to amend.  I suspect that tactic is predicated on the assumption that if Parliament rejects what has been negotiated, it follows automatically that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.  However, my understanding is that the earlier triggering of Art 50 is insufficient to achieve that and there will need to be some further legislation to make it happen.  I don't think there's EU appetite to just throw us out if our Parliament (or any other EU parliament) rejects the deal.  The appetite for that exists only with the hard-line brexiteers.  So if I'm right, the next difficulty that HMG faces is that when that next piece of draft legislation comes along there will be efforts to amend it so that in the event that Parliament rejects the negotiated deal, the default is that the UK stays in the EU while further negotiations take place. That of course will likely cause the hard-line brexiteer MPs to go apoplectic but fortunately there are not enough of them in the House to vote against it. Their leverage is praying-in-aid the referendum result and the weakness of the PM who has no real majority. That won't be enough to sway both Houses.

I just wrote out a long post angrily lamenting an effective soft coup d'état, the erosion of democracy and all sorts.

But I'll forego the rant and simply say MDS, I bloody hope you're somewhere near right.