Being upbeat about Brexit.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear me lectures me on quote mining and then repeatedly does exactly that.
'the referendum (that Jeremy proposed) is unfairly structured'

'A fair way of doing it (if we do it) would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.'

What on earth are you on about.

How can I be quote mining when I am using your exact words and the context is there for all to see merely by following the links back up the thread.

You very clearly indicated that the fair thing to do 'would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Well we've had the first part, the in/out referendum so you are clearly suggesting that the fair thing to do now is to have a second referendum on the actual negotiated deal.

I agree.

[jakswan]

What on earth are you on about.

How can I be quote mining when I am using your exact words and the context is there for all to see merely by following the links back up the thread.

Do I have to explain this to you, really?

You very clearly indicated that the fair thing to do 'would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Well we've had the first part, the in/out referendum so you are clearly suggesting that the fair thing to do now is to have a second referendum on the actual negotiated deal.

If you read my response in context it should say 'A fairer way from the one you propose would be', of course you have ignored the context and you can now claim ya boo sucks victory.

You lost the vote might be time to change tact.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do I have to explain this to you, really?

Yes - because you are making completely unsubstantiated claims.

If you read my response in context ...

I did and my conclusion is the obvious one.

... it should say 'A fairer way from the one you propose would be',

But you didn't - my comment was made on the basis of what you actually wrote, rather than what you claimed you might have said when you original comment was challenged. Stop moving the goalposts - and also accept that I can't be accused of quote mining when I was using your exact words and in context, rather than words you actually didn't say but claim now, in retrospect that you could have.

of course you have ignored the context and you can now claim ya boo sucks victory.

No I haven't - the discussion was on the fairest way to deal with the issue that no-one has actually voted for any specific brexit deal. You said that the '[a] fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Given that we have already had the in/out referendum, then the clear inference is that you think we should now have a second referendum (or rather should have when there is a deal on the table) on the negotiated deal. Or do you think we shouldn't do something fair? That seems to be the only other explanation - that you think a second referendum is fair but you have no interest in doing the fair thing.

You lost the vote might be time to change tact.

Oh dear - lose the argument and resort to a slightly more polite version of the 'yah, boo, you lost, get over it - remoaner, remoaner' chant of the more unreconstructed brexiters.

Indeed the 2016 vote is now in the past, we now the result - the advisory referendum gives a mandate to negotiate a brexit deal. It provides no mandate whatsoever to implement any specific brexit deal, because no one has voted on it. Nor can we be sure that in 2018, 2019 or 2020 or whenever the deal would actually be implemented that the negotiated deal would have a greater mandate than remaining in the EU.

Hence in 2018, 2019 or 2020, when the deal is negotiated and clear (i.e. can be implemented) and at the point when implementation is imminent (say 3 months before implementation) there should be a second referendum with two clear, unambiguous and deliverable options - brexit on the basis of the negotiated deal, or remain in the EU. I'd be happy for that second referendum to be binding, given that it would involve two options that were completely clear and implementable.

[jakswan]

No I haven't - the discussion was on the fairest way to deal with the issue that no-one has actually voted for any specific brexit deal. You said that the '[a] fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Given that we have already had the in/out referendum, then the clear inference is that you think we should now have a second referendum (or rather should have when there is a deal on the table) on the negotiated deal. Or do you think we shouldn't do something fair? That seems to be the only other explanation - that you think a second referendum is fair but you have no interest in doing the fair thing.

The context you are ignoring is that this was in a hypothetical discussion with Jeremy about a fair way of handling a second vote.

In order have that discussion I had to have hypothetically presumed to have accepted that a second vote was needed, this is the context you are ignoring and why it a classic example of quote mining.

Oh dear - lose the argument and resort to a slightly more polite version of the 'yah, boo, you lost, get over it - remoaner, remoaner' chant of the more unreconstructed brexiters.

No you lost, the reason you lost may be because you can't stop yourself from quote mining, name calling and accept some criticism.

Indeed the 2016 vote is now in the past, we now the result - the advisory referendum gives a mandate to negotiate a brexit deal. It provides no mandate whatsoever to implement any specific brexit deal, because no one has voted on it. Nor can we be sure that in 2018, 2019 or 2020 or whenever the deal would actually be implemented that the negotiated deal would have a greater mandate than remaining in the EU.

That is an argument you could also argue the 2015 election gave the government & parliament a mandate to lead us out of the EU with best deal possible. 

Hence in 2018, 2019 or 2020, when the deal is negotiated and clear (i.e. can be implemented) and at the point when implementation is imminent (say 3 months before implementation) there should be a second referendum with two clear, unambiguous and deliverable options

Not convinced but don't strongly disagree, I'm open to this as an option.

- brexit on the basis of the negotiated deal, or remain in the EU.

There would be three options, accept EU deal, leave EU go to WTO rules, remain in EU.

We have already voted to leave so that would not need to be an option on the ballot paper.

I'd be happy for that second referendum to be binding, given that it would involve two options that were completely clear and implementable.

Now I'm not sure but for it to be binding all legalisation has to have been made and ready to go, is that feasible given the many complexities?

Its a genuine question. 

[jeremyp]

There are many courses of action should all of them be on the ballot?

What other courses of action are there than accepting the deal, leaving under WTO rules and staying in?

Since its an argument I never made, no.

Why did you even bring up the idea that it complicates things then?

In your opinion, we had that debate, you lost.

No. We lost a vote by quite a small margin. If it turns out to have been a mistake, which was always the probability and is looking more and more likely, we will all have lost, including the Leave voters. Well, except for Nigel Farage MEP who is paid in Euros and therefore got a quite healthy pay rise after the pound dipped against the Euro.

[jeremyp]

You very clearly indicated that the fair thing to do 'would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Well we've had the first part, the in/out referendum so you are clearly suggesting that the fair thing to do now is to have a second referendum on the actual negotiated deal.

I agree.

Yes, but where I disagree with Jackswan and, it appears, you is in what should happen if we don't accept the terms of the deal. If we say no to the deal, there are two choices open to us: stay in or leave under WTO terms and I think we should get to vote on that bit too.

And being fair to Jackswan, his comment about a referendum was in response to my idea of a three way one, not the one we already had.

[jeremyp]

There would be three options, accept EU deal, leave EU go to WTO rules, remain in EU.

We have already voted to leave so that would not need to be an option on the ballot paper.

So that would leave: accept EU deal, remain in EU

On the assumption that you really meant accept the deal or go to WTO rules,  you seem to be ignoring the fact that people change their minds when they get new information and there is nothing wrong with that. Why not accommodate the eventuality that the terms might be so unattractive that people would rather stick with what they have got now?

If I said you can have a prize which might be £0 or might be £20 or you can keep the £10 you already have, you might go for the prize. If I then said, the prize is £5, you can have it or you can have £0 but you can't keep the $10 you already have because you rejected it, you might be a bit pissed off. If I said the prize is £5, you can have it or you can have £0 or you can keep the $10 you already have, you might not be happy, but you would be a bit relieved.

Now I'm not sure but for it to be binding all legalisation has to have been made and ready to go, is that feasible given the many complexities?

Its a genuine question.

We have to have legislation no matter what if there if going to be a second referendum, but it presumably would be a bit more complex if it were binding. However, nothing about this whole thing isn't complex. Let's not avoid doing the Right Thing just because it's more complex than doing the wrong thing.

[jakswan]

On the assumption that you really meant accept the deal or go to WTO rules,  you seem to be ignoring the fact that people change their minds when they get new information and there is nothing wrong with that.

Not ignoring anything or claiming there is anything wrong with people changing their minds.

Why not accommodate the eventuality that the terms might be so unattractive that people would rather stick with what they have got now?

If that remains an option the EU will offer the worst deal possible in an attempt to keep us in, it makes the vote more complex (note: not too complex) than it needs to be, it is an issue that we have already voted on.

If I said you can have a prize which might be £0 or might be £20 or you can keep the £10 you already have, you might go for the prize. If I then said, the prize is £5, you can have it or you can have £0 but you can't keep the $10 you already have because you rejected it, you might be a bit pissed off. If I said the prize is £5, you can have it or you can have £0 or you can keep the $10 you already have, you might not be happy, but you would be a bit relieved.

Tortured analogy.

We have to have legislation no matter what if there if going to be a second referendum, but it presumably would be a bit more complex if it were binding. However, nothing about this whole thing isn't complex. Let's not avoid doing the Right Thing just because it's more complex than doing the wrong thing.

I'm not sure lets hypothetically say we have your vote, the EU offered a duff deal and the country votes to go to WTO rules, the EU then offers a better deal but the vote was binding so we now have to move to WTO rules.

If having a binding vote is the "right thing" then I assume you wish the July 16 vote was binding as well?

[Sassy]

Yes you leavers keep repeating this mantra for some reason.
It's almost like you are frightened you have made the wrong decision.

Some of us grew up understanding more  than what the Government allow us to see.#
Never was I more sure of the decision being right and never waivered.

The scare tactics about the EU employed by the media for decades frightened enough people.

Nothing of a sort.The people fed up of all the influx of people from the EU and our own people including our soldiers
being forced to live on the streets. The EU was not good for Britian it is Hitlers ideas being enforced by a method of control
without war. If you cannot see that, then you are blinder than you think.

They have made it clear on several occasions.

But you cannot accept it, can you?

This is not true. There is an amount of trying that can change it.
It's also very foolish to set a course of action now for the next two years without acknowledging that things can change
 and we might have to alter our plans.

No we won't be altering plans the Brexit will happen because we are democracy not a laughing stock as remaining in the EU would
make us. You need to get use to the fact we are leaving the EU and it is what is needed for this country.

[Sassy]

I don't think that I have ever before seen such a clueless pile of rubbish written even by you, Sass. You do not even understand the obvious meanings of your own fairy stories. Read Matthew 2, 13 - 23.

No! your clueless.

"1In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."

This nothing to with going to Bethlehem and everything to do with fleeing from a despot, Herod,  who plans to kill all children under the age of 2. Joseph and Mary were refugees - people seeking refuge or safety. Another word for safety and refuge is asylum. They were seeking asylum in Egypt. They wanted refuge in a place not controlled by Herod.

Again your ignorant Gods Son has a right to go anywhere his Father owns the earth.
He cannot be an asylum seeker if he is son of God. Joseph was told to go to Egypt.

After the wise men had gone, an angel from the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Get up! Hurry and take the child and his mother to Egypt! Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is looking for the child and wants to kill him.' That night, Joseph got up and took his wife and the child to Egypt, where they stayed until Herod died. So the Lord's promise came true, just as the prophet had said, 'I called my son out of Egypt.'

You are clueless when it comes to prophecy being fulfilled.

What the hell have passports got to do with anything?

You cannot be a refugee in a place where anyone can go.
And as the bible clearly shows.. The world belongs to God and all that is contained within.

Jesus Christ is the Son of the owner of the world. Do you and others who claim to be Christian not see why Christ could not be a refugee in his Fathers world?
And certainly NOTHING like being an actual refugee today.

[jeremyp]

If that remains an option the EU will offer the worst deal possible in an attempt to keep us in

They are going to offer us the worst deals possible in an attempt to keep us in - or stop others from considering leaving.

it makes the vote more complex (note: not too complex) than it needs to be, it is an issue that we have already voted on.

If it's not too complex then complexity is not a problem.

Tortured analogy.

By which you mean good analogy that you can't address.

I'm not sure lets hypothetically say we have your vote, the EU offered a duff deal and the country votes to go to WTO rules, the EU then offers a better deal but the vote was binding so we now have to move to WTO rules.

If having a binding vote is the "right thing" then I assume you wish the July 16 vote was binding as well?

The right thing would have been not to have the Brexit referendum at all.

[jakswan]

They are going to offer us the worst deals possible in an attempt to keep us in - or stop others from considering leaving.

Phew good job we are leaving such a hostile organisation, trying to keep members with threats is not something I want to be part of.

If it's not too complex then complexity is not a problem.

In your opinion, others are available.

By which you mean good analogy that you can't address.

No, it is a bad analogy, you think staying in the EU is worth X and I think its worth Y.

The right thing would have been not to have the Brexit referendum at all.

I thought you wanted another Brexit referendum? Perhaps you want democracy when it gives you the results you like otherwise the dummy gets thrown out of the pram?

[Sriram]

Why is no one discussing May's speech of today?  Here are some reactions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-38635035

[jakswan]

Why is no one discussing May's speech of today?  Here are some reactions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-38635035

I think its things we already knew and the Bremaniacs are maybe sulking?

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps because while it isn't a surprise it's also haunted by entirely unclear rhetoric like this:

" I know my emphasis on striking trade agreements with countries outside Europe has led to questions about whether Britain seeks to remain a member of the EU's Customs Union. And it is true that full Customs Union membership prevents us from negotiating our own comprehensive trade deals. Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible. That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU. Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it."

This is far from as significant a step as first might appear, and it's much less important then it might seem.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I agree with that.  It's being sold as hard Brexit, yet she states that she wants to keep the same trading arrangements for cars and for financial services, as 'it makes no sense to start again from scratch'. 

That sounds like the single market a la carte, which she is not likely to get, I think. 

Starmer seems to have cottoned on anyway.

[jakswan]

Perhaps because while it isn't a surprise it's also haunted by entirely unclear rhetoric like this:

" I know my emphasis on striking trade agreements with countries outside Europe has led to questions about whether Britain seeks to remain a member of the EU's Customs Union. And it is true that full Customs Union membership prevents us from negotiating our own comprehensive trade deals. Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible. That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU. Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it."

This is far from as significant a step as first might appear, and it's much less important then it might seem.

What is unclear about it? She wants out of customs union and a free trade deal with EU, leaving options on the table for how this is achieved.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I agree with that.  It's being sold as hard Brexit, yet she states that she wants to keep the same trading arrangements for cars and for financial services, as 'it makes no sense to start again from scratch'. 

That sounds like the single market a la carte, which she is not likely to get, I think. 

Starmer seems to have cottoned on anyway.

She wants not to be a member of the club yet still have access to all the benefits of being a member of the club. Problem is that it isn't her decision, and the members of the club will, quite reasonably, say no.

We are in really treacherous waters now - committing to leave the single market while keeping our fingers crossed that the rest of the EU will give us back preferential access. I simply don't think that is going to happen and, let's not forget, it wont be us driving the decision, but the remaining EU.

Looks like tariffs galore are on the horizon.

[Harrowby Hall]

My judgement is that she has fallen into the same trap that destroyed her predecessor: she is putting Conservative Party interests before national interests. Hidden within the verbiage are assurances (of a type) to each of the interest groups in the party.

There are "assurances" that the UK will leave the EU - so Fox, Redwood, Davis, Johnson (if that is the side of the bed he got out of this morning) will be satisfied. But there are also "aspirations" - become an associate member of the Customs Union etc to give hope to the majority who do not want to leave.

I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it.

This is a politician speaking, not a stateswoman.

[jakswan]

She wants not to be a member of the club yet still have access to all the benefits of being a member of the club. Problem is that it isn't her decision, and the members of the club will, quite reasonably, say no.

Not quite a fair analogy, a fairer one would be a highly skilled employee saying to an employer that they are leaving to work freelance. The employer still wants the employee to work for them on a freelance basis. You think it would be reasonable for the employer to boycott them?

We are in really treacherous waters now - committing to leave the single market while keeping our fingers crossed that the rest of the EU will give us back preferential access. I simply don't think that is going to happen and, let's not forget, it wont be us driving the decision, but the remaining EU.

How is it preferential? We want access to the EU market, the EU wants access to the UK market, a deal something like Canada, Turkey, S Korea, etc. It will be the EU putting trade barriers up in order to punish the UK for wanting independence, that is unreasonable.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not quite a fair analogy, a fairer one would be a highly skilled employee saying to an employer that they are leaving to work freelance. The employer still wants the employee to work for them on a freelance basis. You think it would be reasonable for the employer to boycott them?

Sure you can run with your analogy if you wish - but let's do it properly. The equivalent would be an employee deciding to go freelance and expecting to retain all the perks that the company provides to its employees, so sick pay, paid holidays, pension package, being able to access their preferential childcare voucher scheme etc etc. Sure the person can become a freelancer, but that comes with downsides, i.e. the loss of the benefits of being an employee and also the loss of certainty, in other words the company can simply stop using you if they wish in a manner that wouldn't be possible as an employee.

How is it preferential? We want access to the EU market, the EU wants access to the UK market, a deal something like Canada, Turkey, S Korea, etc. It will be the EU putting trade barriers up in order to punish the UK for wanting independence, that is unreasonable.

Because none of the countries you mention have anything like the benefits that are attached to being a member of the single market - what May was effectively saying yesterday was that we will leave the single market and customs union and then negotiate a deal which is effectively just as beneficial as being in the single market and customs union - that is still 'have your cake and eat it' and remains just as much a fantasy as it ever was.

And on the countries you mention, do you actually understand firstly the nature of those deals, and secondly the time taken for those deals to be negotiated - if, for example, Canada is the model then we are in deep, deep trouble - looking at only securing a deal in about 2028 and even then one that doesn't cover services.

[ProfessorDavey]

a deal something like ... Turkey

Turkey isn't a useful example, because Turkey is a declare accession state, in other words has formally requested to join the EU. For a country in that category the EU provides some preferential status and in return expect the counties to agree to work toward the requirements it set for full membership.

Clearly the UK wont be an accession state so cannot expect to gain any of the benefits linked to states who have formally applied to join the EU.

Also worth noting that last time I took the family to Turkey (less than a year ago) we all required visas which added about £100 to the cost of our trip. Turkey still one of your gold standard models? Do you want to need a visa to travel to France or even across the land border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland?

[jakswan]

Sure you can run with your analogy if you wish - but let's do it properly. The equivalent would be an employee deciding to go freelance and expecting to retain all the perks that the company provides to its employees, so sick pay, paid holidays, pension package, being able to access their preferential childcare voucher scheme etc etc. Sure the person can become a freelancer, but that comes with downsides, i.e. the loss of the benefits of being an employee and also the loss of certainty, in other words the company can simply stop using you if they wish in a manner that wouldn't be possible as an employee.
Because none of the countries you mention have anything like the benefits that are attached to being a member of the single market - what May was effectively saying yesterday was that we will leave the single market and customs union and then negotiate a deal which is effectively just as beneficial as being in the single market and customs union - that is still 'have your cake and eat it' and remains just as much a fantasy as it ever was.

We accept that we will lose some benefits but gain independence & the ability to do trade deals with others. We need to move on find the best deal possible you just want to re-run the referendum, you lost let it go.

And on the countries you mention, do you actually understand firstly the nature of those deals, and secondly the time taken for those deals to be negotiated - if, for example, Canada is the model then we are in deep, deep trouble - looking at only securing a deal in about 2028 and even then one that doesn't cover services.

Yes it takes time to negotiate a new deal retaining a free trade deal is pretty much the status quo and much easier to achieve. 

[jakswan]

Turkey isn't a useful example, because Turkey is a declare accession state, in other words has formally requested to join the EU. For a country in that category the EU provides some preferential status and in return expect the counties to agree to work toward the requirements it set for full membership.

Clearly the UK wont be an accession state so cannot expect to gain any of the benefits linked to states who have formally applied to join the EU.

Also worth noting that last time I took the family to Turkey (less than a year ago) we all required visas which added about £100 to the cost of our trip. Turkey still one of your gold standard models? Do you want to need a visa to travel to France or even across the land border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland?

Stop making shit up never claimed it was a gold standard.

[ProfessorDavey]

We accept that we will lose some benefits but gain independence & the ability to do trade deals with others. We need to move on find the best deal possible

And you need to be realistic that:

1. We don't hold the cards, the EU do. They don't have the cliff edge of WTO for a massive proportion of their exports, we do.
2. We wont get anything like the same kind of benefits as we now enjoy in the single market unless we sign up to the obligations that come with those benefits.
3. We cannot have our cake and eat it.

you just want to re-run the referendum, you lost let it go.

Where have I ever said that the 2016 referendum should be re-run? Never. What I have said is that the final negotiated deal should be put to a referendum to demonstrate that there is a democratic mandate for the actual brexit deal at the point when it is could be enacted. That is an entirely different thing. You, on the other hand seem to be running away from the principle that there should be a clear mandate for the actual way in which we leave the referendum.

Let's not forget that there is exactly zero mandate for leaving the single market, firstly because that question wasn't on the ballot paper and because Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU.

Yes it takes time to negotiate a new deal retaining a free trade deal is pretty much the status quo and much easier to achieve.

The status quo isn't on the table, because in order to maintain the status quo you have to remain in the EU. We won't be 'retaining' a free trade deal because that deal will cease to apply to us by default 2 years after triggering article 50, which given previous experience might be some 5-9 years before we actually get a free trade deal in place (of that is even possible).