Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Should the Commons accept the Lords amendment and give MPs a meaningful vote on any Brexit deal, rather than the “accept the deal, or leave without any deal” (no deal is better than a bad deal) ?

A good question - for Resurresction's benefit, a one word response - "Yes".

For everyone else, a more nuanced response. A good article on it in the Guardian today - salient extracts:

[Douglas Hogg] said a choice between accepting the terms or crashing out of the EU would not be a genuine choice. “This is not regaining control. To act in such a manner would be to impose ministerial decisions on parliament by coercion,” he said, calling it “an elective dictatorship of a particularly flagrant kind”.

He called the referendum vote “at the very best an interim decision” and said the public could not have predicted the terms of the UK’s departure.

By way of balance, and from the same article:

The Brexit secretary, David Davis, said: “Firstly, the amendment tries to secure a vote for parliament before the negotiations have concluded. This is, quite frankly, nonsensical – because nothing in this negotiation is agreed until everything is agreed.

“Second, it demands specific votes by artificial deadlines which, if not met, would give parliament the power to micromanage the government on how to carry out these negotiations.”

Davis said the change would give the EU commission “a clear incentive to delay the negotiations or present unacceptable propositions”.

My take on it would be that the UK's negotiating team have consistently played a weak negotiating hand very badly, and that this isn't really a negotiation - the EU Commission have hardly moved on their red lines from the get go, nor are they likely to, despite JRM's wet dreams about British exceptionalism. I note that even the DT have been calling for a re-examination of the Norway option recently, as they realise that the negotiation is a busted flush, and that this is the least bad option remaining open to the UK, if we are to have any form of Brexit. There is no doubt in my mind that the EU have indeed firmed up their negotiating position in recent months, no doubt to put pressure on the UK to at the very least stay in a/the customs union - primarily as this forms a workable basis for a solution to the NI problem, but as a useful corollary prevents the UK from becoming Singapore upon Thames. Clearly, there has been much briefing from No 10 recently that remaining in a/the customs union is actively under consideration, hence the near panic on the part of the ERG. The only thing the ERG fear more than this is a Corbyn government, which is a very real prospect given the dire performance of the current incumbents. 

Given the above, I'd much rather Parliament had a meaningful input to the process of deciding our destiny re Brexit, than trust the hard right cabal of the Tory party, who have no grasp of realpolitik and who I suspect are trying to engineer a crash out of Europe at any costs, to the immense detriment of practically everyone except the 1%ers. 

Once this is all over, and TM is safely out of the way having served her purpose as useful idiot, it will be fascinating to read her memoir as to her role in all of this. I am endlessly baffled as to what motivates her to try to square the Brexit circle. 

Duncan Mann posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Should the Commons accept the Lords amendment and give MPs a meaningful vote on any Brexit deal, rather than the “accept the deal, or leave without any deal” (no deal is better than a bad deal) ?

A good question - for Resurresction's benefit, a one word response - "Yes".

For everyone else, a more nuanced response. A good article on it in the Guardian today - salient extracts:

[Douglas Hogg] said a choice between accepting the terms or crashing out of the EU would not be a genuine choice. “This is not regaining control. To act in such a manner would be to impose ministerial decisions on parliament by coercion,” he said, calling it “an elective dictatorship of a particularly flagrant kind”.

He called the referendum vote “at the very best an interim decision” and said the public could not have predicted the terms of the UK’s departure.

By way of balance, and from the same article:

The Brexit secretary, David Davis, said: “Firstly, the amendment tries to secure a vote for parliament before the negotiations have concluded. This is, quite frankly, nonsensical – because nothing in this negotiation is agreed until everything is agreed.

“Second, it demands specific votes by artificial deadlines which, if not met, would give parliament the power to micromanage the government on how to carry out these negotiations.”

Davis said the change would give the EU commission “a clear incentive to delay the negotiations or present unacceptable propositions”.

My take on it would be that the UK's negotiating team have consistently played a weak negotiating hand very badly, and that this isn't really a negotiation - the EU Commission have hardly moved on their red lines from the get go, nor are they likely to, despite JRM's wet dreams about British exceptionalism. I note that even the DT have been calling for a re-examination of the Norway option recently, as they realise that the negotiation is a busted flush, and that this is the least bad option remaining open to the UK, if we are to have any form of Brexit. There is no doubt in my mind that the EU have indeed firmed up their negotiating position in recent months, no doubt to put pressure on the UK to at the very least stay in a/the customs union - primarily as this forms a workable basis for a solution to the NI problem, but as a useful corollary prevents the UK from becoming Singapore upon Thames. Clearly, there has been much briefing from No 10 recently that remaining in a/the customs union is actively under consideration, hence the near panic on the part of the ERG. The only thing the ERG fear more than this is a Corbyn government, which is a very real prospect given the dire performance of the current incumbents. 

Given the above, I'd much rather Parliament had a meaningful input to the process of deciding our destiny re Brexit, than trust the hard right cabal of the Tory party, who have no grasp of realpolitik and who I suspect are trying to engineer a crash out of Europe at any costs, to the immense detriment of practically everyone except the 1%ers. 

Once this is all over, and TM is safely out of the way having served her purpose as useful idiot, it will be fascinating to read her memoir as to her role in all of this. I am endlessly baffled as to what motivates her to try to square the Brexit circle. 

"Yes!"

As for the rest of the dull, delusional, anti-democratic tripe that you have inflicted on us couched in terms like 'realpolitik', 'Parliament having a "meaningful" input ' to a decision already made by the people, the obfuscation dropped in by referring to the ERG (I am assuming Efficiency And Reform Group - what a misnomer, but enlighten me otherwise!), and so on. Your reference to 1% ers is a blatant lie as you have no supportive figures. The use of NI as another red herring once again turned into fact by Remainers. The NI border worked just fine for the fifty years before we joined the EEC, and has absolutely no contribution to 'peace' in the whole of Ireland or even Brexit. 

In short, a piece of puff full of terminological inexactitudes. About the only thing I would agree with you.is the hopelessness of our Liberal Parish Councillor mightily over promoted to Prime Minister.

Go and do something much more useful with your Grauniad than quoting from it as if something that barely sells outside of the BBC or even read (validated by its circulation figures) is a valued contribution to anything. Am afraid that as soon as you use the word 'Grauniad' you are defining your own self as a 1% er, but a pretty self entitled one I'm sure. 

I agree the EU negotiation team have played a much better game than HMG, but then they do have a stronger hand.  Like in any negotiation, it pays to understand where your opponent's position is strong and where it is weak, and seek to leverage the weaknesses to maximum advantage. The EU team have rightly identified the Irish  border issue as a real weak spot for the UK, not just because it is practically difficult but also the tension within the Conservative party and the DUP. It's hard to see that position being reconciled so it's completely logical for the EU team to say 'the UK created this problem so it is up to the UK to come forward with suggestions for solving it and, BTW, a satisfactory solution to the Irish border issue is critical to the overall deal. So if you can't find a solution to it you get no negotiated exit.'

So I see Johnson has done the (near) impossible today: the Brexit and Remain camps are united in agreeing that TM’s preferred customs partnership is unworkable and “crazy”.

I suspect they differ in their reasons why this is unworkable or what the best alternative is, but May’s plan has at last united the country if only in a very small way!

Eloise posted:

So I see Johnson has done the (near) impossible today: the Brexit and Remain camps are united in agreeing that TM’s preferred customs partnership is unworkable and “crazy”.

I suspect they differ in their reasons why this is unworkable or what the best alternative is, but May’s plan has at last united the country if only in a very small way!

Like Johnson would know anything about it?! He's demonstrated time and again a poor grasp of the topics he expresses views on, even those he should know about.  I suspect he wouldn't stand-up too well to a well-briefed journo quizzing him about the two customs union options that TM seems prepared to consider.  The dividing line I'm seeing here is one group (Johnson & co)  criticising options on the basis that they offend what they believe is the ideology of Brexit and another who seem keen to explore practical options that might accommodate a host of competing objectives and minimise possible damage to the UK trade's and economy.   I know which group I'd rather have in charge.  

I read today that Airbus has, if awarded the contract, committed to future activities for Galileo in than EU27 rather than in the UK.  Beyond the catchphrases I hope someone is keeping count of the wins and losses that Brexit is generating. I work for a company that is invested in the UK, and we are looking beyond the fantasies of the elected officials who don't  have to worry about how to keep people busy, pay their salaries, while making a profit to secure future investments inside a fiscal year to keep the shareholders happy. That would be too much trouble since Brexit does mean Brexit and the details will come later, however the details are being worked by companies now as it is their money on the line.

Having spent the last 35 years working in the private  sector I feel that some of our politicians would benefit from a dose of economic reality. I work for a company with its EU HQ in the U.K. so no prizes for guessing what will happen to that. It also dismays me how many I’ll informed politicians seem to love taking pot shots at the private sector given that their nice cushioned pension schemes invest in the sector. I’d love to give them all all P&L account to manage

Brexit, a complete mess if ever there was one - at least for those who’ve yet to enter the workplace.

Ravenswood10 posted:

Having spent the last 35 years working in the private  sector I feel that some of our politicians would benefit from a dose of economic reality. I work for a company with its EU HQ in the U.K. so no prizes for guessing what will happen to that. It also dismays me how many I’ll informed politicians seem to love taking pot shots at the private sector given that their nice cushioned pension schemes invest in the sector. I’d love to give them all all P&L account to manage

Brexit, a complete mess if ever there was one - at least for those who’ve yet to enter the workplace.

You have my utmost sympathy and I am not being sarcastic in any way at all. Like yourself, all my working life was in the private sector where I specialised in implementing enterprise resource  planning systems. I loved automating manufacturing systems in both discreet and process industries, from flavours, fragrances, oil, pumps, clothing, lorries etc. etc. As you would  expect, this work took me to many countries, was quite happy with the EEC as a simple means of expediting trade and I voted for it. 

However, your own potshots at our own feeble politicians is, in my mind, simply amplified through the EU. From my perspective they offer simply another level of bureaucracy and unwanted government as it morphed from EEC to EU. You are right in that the politicians are currently making a complete hash of Brexit, many of them deliberately. Am afraid the more they, the politicians, push back against the people who voted for Brexit, the more the loathing and credibility gap between us and them will grow. And as for The Lords....

jpr posted:

I read today that Airbus has, if awarded the contract, committed to future activities for Galileo in than EU27 rather than in the UK.  Beyond the catchphrases I hope someone is keeping count of the wins and losses that Brexit is generating. I work for a company that is invested in the UK, and we are looking beyond the fantasies of the elected officials who don't  have to worry about how to keep people busy, pay their salaries, while making a profit to secure future investments inside a fiscal year to keep the shareholders happy. That would be too much trouble since Brexit does mean Brexit and the details will come later, however the details are being worked by companies now as it is their money on the line.

Yes, it looks as if the EU is determined to punish the U.K. despite protestations to the contrary.

As I commented a few pages back, the EU wants to exclude the U.K. from full military use of Galileo once it is up and running and they want to exclude U.K. based companies, including Airbus elements from further participation in development and construction of the project.

I have no doubt that other industries are likewise affected and I keep asking Andarkian for a list of these industries since he was fully aware of all the consequences of Brexit when he voted Leave.

So far he has failed to provide........

Don Atkinson posted:

jpr posted:

I read today that Airbus has, if awarded the contract, committed to future activities for Galileo in than EU27 rather than in the UK.  Beyond the catchphrases I hope someone is keeping count of the wins and losses that Brexit is generating. I work for a company that is invested in the UK, and we are looking beyond the fantasies of the elected officials who don't  have to worry about how to keep people busy, pay their salaries, while making a profit to secure future investments inside a fiscal year to keep the shareholders happy. That would be too much trouble since Brexit does mean Brexit and the details will come later, however the details are being worked by companies now as it is their money on the line.

Yes, it looks as if the EU is determined to punish the U.K. despite protestations to the contrary.

As I commented a few pages back, the EU wants to exclude the U.K. from full military use of Galileo once it is up and running and they want to exclude U.K. based companies, including Airbus elements from further participation in development and construction of the project.

I have no doubt that other industries are likewise affected and I keep asking Andarkian for a list of these industries since he was fully aware of all the consequences of Brexit when he voted Leave.

So far he has failed to provide........

I don't like the EU or what I think it stands for, which is a political, bureaucratic, federalist carbuncle. If they take their spite out on the U.K. for having the temerity to leave then it was never worth being there in the first place. As I already posted, I worked all my life in the private, manufacturing sector and watched politicians  of all hues trash it. The EU simply added another level of trashing. 

I  do understand but do not sympathise with all the bureaucrats, politicians, academics and lawyers who have leeched on the wealth of the EU extracted from British tax paying pockets. Not much production or profit for so many layers of bureaucracy.

The UK could go it alone with a GPS system. The Galileo payload is designed in the UK, even though the spacecraft platform is German.

If the U.K. went it alone with a GNSS solution then it would be a good sign in that certainly HS2 and the other critical infrastructure investments were complete. The most cost effective way would be to partner as part of a wider group of countries with similar priorities and shared geographical boundaries. You could have a common fund that then matches investments from the private sector with grants from that common fund. A good way to create jobs and develop intellectual property in a managed way. Only countries part of the club can benefit from the grants, not as a punishment of course it just doesn’t make sense that any country gets the benefit of a grant if they don’t pay to be in the club! 

Don Atkinson posted:

jpr posted:

I read today that Airbus has, if awarded the contract, committed to future activities for Galileo in than EU27 rather than in the UK.  Beyond the catchphrases I hope someone is keeping count of the wins and losses that Brexit is generating. I work for a company that is invested in the UK, and we are looking beyond the fantasies of the elected officials who don't  have to worry about how to keep people busy, pay their salaries, while making a profit to secure future investments inside a fiscal year to keep the shareholders happy. That would be too much trouble since Brexit does mean Brexit and the details will come later, however the details are being worked by companies now as it is their money on the line.

Yes, it looks as if the EU is determined to punish the U.K. despite protestations to the contrary.

As I commented a few pages back, the EU wants to exclude the U.K. from full military use of Galileo once it is up and running and they want to exclude U.K. based companies, including Airbus elements from further participation in development and construction of the project.

I have no doubt that other industries are likewise affected and I keep asking Andarkian for a list of these industries since he was fully aware of all the consequences of Brexit when he voted Leave.

So far he has failed to provide........

I do find this a very odd position for EU to take, Don. Leaving to one side the argument on Brexit (on which I think you and I agree), the EU has relied heavily on the UK's military support, and will continue to look for the UK's security support after Brexit. Putin's posturing probably weighs even more heavily for eastern EU states. On matters of national security I would have thought senior politicians in the EU wouldn't want to see the UK's military support weakened, nor rebuffed by such negotiating tactics as these.     

Suzy Wong posted:

The UK could go it alone with a GPS system. The Galileo payload is designed in the UK, even though the spacecraft platform is German.

The Gov is taking legal advice about the return of the UK ‘s £1.2bn contribution to Galileo, assuming we are denied further participation and access.

they have also talked about our own U.K. GNSS system at an estimated cost of £5bn............cheap compared to HS2 !

As you say, we have the expertise in the UK

MDS posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

jpr posted:

I read today that Airbus has, if awarded the contract, committed to future activities for Galileo in than EU27 rather than in the UK.  Beyond the catchphrases I hope someone is keeping count of the wins and losses that Brexit is generating. I work for a company that is invested in the UK, and we are looking beyond the fantasies of the elected officials who don't  have to worry about how to keep people busy, pay their salaries, while making a profit to secure future investments inside a fiscal year to keep the shareholders happy. That would be too much trouble since Brexit does mean Brexit and the details will come later, however the details are being worked by companies now as it is their money on the line.

Yes, it looks as if the EU is determined to punish the U.K. despite protestations to the contrary.

As I commented a few pages back, the EU wants to exclude the U.K. from full military use of Galileo once it is up and running and they want to exclude U.K. based companies, including Airbus elements from further participation in development and construction of the project.

I have no doubt that other industries are likewise affected and I keep asking Andarkian for a list of these industries since he was fully aware of all the consequences of Brexit when he voted Leave.

So far he has failed to provide........

I do find this a very odd position for EU to take, Don. Leaving to one side the argument on Brexit (on which I think you and I agree), the EU has relied heavily on the UK's military support, and will continue to look for the UK's security support after Brexit. Putin's posturing probably weighs even more heavily for eastern EU states. On matters of national security I would have thought senior politicians in the EU wouldn't want to see the UK's military support weakened, nor rebuffed by such negotiating tactics as these.     

I agree it’s an odd position. I only hope it’s initial posturing.

It is not a case of the EU taking their spite out on the UK. The UK has voted to leave. So leave. But don‘t come whinging about being excluded or that you are not getting a good enough deal. You (Brexiteers) are excluding yourselves.

William posted:

It is not a case of the EU taking their spite out on the UK. The UK has voted to leave. So leave. But don‘t come whinging about being excluded or that you are not getting a good enough deal. You (Brexiteers) are excluding yourselves.

Unfortunately that's not quite right.  There are several instances where the EU is insisting that the UK government continues it's "contractual obligation" to pay into previously agreed budgets and projects, where, at the same time, they have categorically stated that the UK will not be allowed to benefit from the existing facilities or facilities newly created using that money when those facilities come on line.

If we are to be excluded from facilities than the EU should repay contributions from the UK made so far; if payments are to continue we should be allowed to make use of the facilities in just the same way as any EU state (including voting rights on the future direction of these specific facilities).

BTW I'm a remainer; I believe that the UK and the EU both benefit from the participation and co-operation of all the European states.  Yes the EU isn't ideal, and there are parts of the organisation that desperately need reform, but I'm a strong believer in the overall benefit to all.

jpr posted:

I read today that Airbus has, if awarded the contract, committed to future activities for Galileo in than EU27 rather than in the UK.  Beyond the catchphrases I hope someone is keeping count of the wins and losses that Brexit is generating. I work for a company that is invested in the UK, and we are looking beyond the fantasies of the elected officials who don't  have to worry about how to keep people busy, pay their salaries, while making a profit to secure future investments inside a fiscal year to keep the shareholders happy. That would be too much trouble since Brexit does mean Brexit and the details will come later, however the details are being worked by companies now as it is their money on the line.

It doesn't matter how much damage is done to the economy.
It doesn't matter if our standard of living falls.
It doesn't matter how many people loose their jobs.

Brexit isn't here to help people; it's about an absolutist political principle and damn the consequences.

Huge posted:

It doesn't matter how much damage is done to the economy.
It doesn't matter if our standard of living falls.
It doesn't matter how many people loose their jobs.

Brexit isn't here to help people; it's about an absolutist political principle and damn the consequences.

Who will suffer most?

Does this ring any bells?.....

Matthew Parris self-diagnoses as a Remainiac:

“There’s no denying it. My spirit is restless and I must confess. This Brexit thing is driving me slightly mad. And I do mean that clinically: not as a rhetorical flourish. My mental state, like that of so many I know on both sides of the Remain/Brexit divide, is capable of medical diagnosis. A shaft of insanity has pierced our interior lives. I really am becoming a Remainiac… I know I’m boring my readers; know there’s almost nothing left to be said; know that the voice in my head, my mother’s voice, telling me I just need a good night’s sleep, is right… Is it not the first and clearest indication that the balance of one’s mind has been disturbed that, when having done all one reasonably can to achieve a result, one simply cannot let something go? What is the point of waking up at 3 a.m. and fretting sleepless until sunrise that we are leaving the European Union?”

Resurrection posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

jpr posted:

I read today that Airbus has, if awarded the contract, committed to future activities for Galileo in than EU27 rather than in the UK.  Beyond the catchphrases I hope someone is keeping count of the wins and losses that Brexit is generating. I work for a company that is invested in the UK, and we are looking beyond the fantasies of the elected officials who don't  have to worry about how to keep people busy, pay their salaries, while making a profit to secure future investments inside a fiscal year to keep the shareholders happy. That would be too much trouble since Brexit does mean Brexit and the details will come later, however the details are being worked by companies now as it is their money on the line.

Yes, it looks as if the EU is determined to punish the U.K. despite protestations to the contrary.

As I commented a few pages back, the EU wants to exclude the U.K. from full military use of Galileo once it is up and running and they want to exclude U.K. based companies, including Airbus elements from further participation in development and construction of the project.

I have no doubt that other industries are likewise affected and I keep asking Andarkian for a list of these industries since he was fully aware of all the consequences of Brexit when he voted Leave.

So far he has failed to provide........

I don't like the EU or what I think it stands for, which is a political, bureaucratic, federalist carbuncle. If they take their spite out on the U.K. for having the temerity to leave then it was never worth being there in the first place. As I already posted, I worked all my life in the private, manufacturing sector and watched politicians  of all hues trash it. The EU simply added another level of trashing. 

I  do understand but do not sympathise with all the bureaucrats, politicians, academics and lawyers who have leeched on the wealth of the EU extracted from British tax paying pockets. Not much production or profit for so many layers of bureaucracy.

So, to summarise,  theconsequences of leaving the EU are irrelevent so far as you are concerned.

William posted:

....The UK has voted to leave. 

The UK didn't vote to leave, 17.4 million UK voters voted to leave, 29+ million other UK voters didn't vote to leave.

The decision to leave the EU is merely the will of the governing Tory/UKIP Party.

Debs

Don Atkinson posted:

Resurrection posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

jpr posted:

I read today that Airbus has, if awarded the contract, committed to future activities for Galileo in than EU27 rather than in the UK.  Beyond the catchphrases I hope someone is keeping count of the wins and losses that Brexit is generating. I work for a company that is invested in the UK, and we are looking beyond the fantasies of the elected officials who don't  have to worry about how to keep people busy, pay their salaries, while making a profit to secure future investments inside a fiscal year to keep the shareholders happy. That would be too much trouble since Brexit does mean Brexit and the details will come later, however the details are being worked by companies now as it is their money on the line.

Yes, it looks as if the EU is determined to punish the U.K. despite protestations to the contrary.

As I commented a few pages back, the EU wants to exclude the U.K. from full military use of Galileo once it is up and running and they want to exclude U.K. based companies, including Airbus elements from further participation in development and construction of the project.

I have no doubt that other industries are likewise affected and I keep asking Andarkian for a list of these industries since he was fully aware of all the consequences of Brexit when he voted Leave.

So far he has failed to provide........

I don't like the EU or what I think it stands for, which is a political, bureaucratic, federalist carbuncle. If they take their spite out on the U.K. for having the temerity to leave then it was never worth being there in the first place. As I already posted, I worked all my life in the private, manufacturing sector and watched politicians  of all hues trash it. The EU simply added another level of trashing. 

I  do understand but do not sympathise with all the bureaucrats, politicians, academics and lawyers who have leeched on the wealth of the EU extracted from British tax paying pockets. Not much production or profit for so many layers of bureaucracy.

So, to summarise,  theconsequences of leaving the EU are irrelevent so far as you are concerned.

Yep.

I look at it another way:    17.4m voted to leave,  16.1m voted to remain,   the people who didn't vote were aprx 13m (28%) & these abstainers by not voting have removed themselves from the process & as such cannot be counted in any statics.   

However later analysis does show the abstainers were more sympathetic towards remain,  but their inactivity on 23 June caused the opposite,   so I view the abstainers as responsible for both losing the remain vote & winning the brexit vote.

Only 36% of the 18-24 age group voted & as the largest abstaining age group it's ironic that they have longer to regret (or rejoice)  on what they didn't bother about on 23 June 2016.   

Those who didn’t vote thinking that it was so obvious we’d stay that it wasn’t worth their time certainly can be blamed. (And it is highly unlikely anyone who wanted to leave would not have voted, so they are in the 17.4M.)

However there will be those who abstained because they couldn’t make up their minds, whether deep thinkers who see the advantages and disadvantages of both with no clear winner, or people confused by the media circus and unable to make any sense of it. These people can’t be blamed for not saying ‘stay’.

Meanwhile, unfortunately there are no statistics for the people in the 17.4M who either:

a) voted ‘leave’ to make a protest, never actually wanting to leave, instead wanting to reduce what they perceived the Govt thought was a strong pro-EU majority, with the sole intention of shaking Govt out of its complacency, but certainly neither expecting nor wanting the result to be leave, and seriously regret their vote, wishing they could reverse it.The figures in terms of the people I know personally who voted leave are 100% didn’t actually want to leave, 0% did want to leave.

b) voted ‘leave’ on the basis of what they were led to believe then through the various high profile media stories, but who, now that the lies have been debunked and the hard reality of what Brexit will mean to them, their families and their future is clearer, think differently and no longer wish to leave, and wish they could reverse their vote. I have no indication of any proportion to which this might apply, but suspect it is a high number.