If we vote for Brexit what happens

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Today was awful for the first day back of parliament. No answers other than 'Brexit means Brexit because that's what it means'. Terrible.

The Conservatives and the cabinet can't surely keep this up much longer. And to be frank I can't really see what the point is in delaying it greatly. They can spend eons working out what they're going to negotiate for... only for the EU to say no anyway. Might as well get on with the blerdy thing getting activated so we all know one way or the other.

You won't get any answers until the deals have been done.

For instance, we'd be stupid to state beforehand..... 'the single market is absolutely imperative to us' because the EU would then extract every conceivable condition before they granted us access.

To get the very best deal it's essential we don't give our negotiating stance away. Thankfully David Davis is smart enough to know this. Makes the government look as though they don't know what they want, but that can't be helped.

TrickyTree83

Rinoa wrote: »

You won't get any answers until the deals have been done.

For instance, we'd be stupid to state beforehand..... 'the single market is absolutely imperative to us' because the EU would then extract every conceivable condition before they granted us access.

To get the very best deal it's essential we don't give our negotiating stance away. Thankfully David Davis is smart enough to know this. Makes the government look as though they don't know what they want, but that can't be helped.

Exactly.

People expecting a plan to be announced should probably try bartering by going in with their highest price first, see how that works out for them.

wotsthat

Rinoa wrote: »

You won't get any answers until the deals have been done.

For instance, we'd be stupid to state beforehand..... 'the single market is absolutely imperative to us' because the EU would then extract every conceivable condition before they granted us access.

To get the very best deal it's essential we don't give our negotiating stance away. Thankfully David Davis is smart enough to know this. Makes the government look as though they don't know what they want, but that can't be helped.

There's a big difference between giving away negotiating tactics and being clear about what they want to achieve. Having a clear list of aims and targets shouldn't be a secret because, fairly obviously, they're going to have to declare what they want anyway.

It's being formulated now and the snippets and soundbites we're being fed are to test the water with the electorate and, of course, they're a form of advance negotiation with the EU.

The EU by stating freedom of movement is a prerequisite for a trade deal are doing the same thing - it doesn't harm their negotiating position to say this is a red line - what would harm it would be to state in advance how far they'd compromise to get a deal.

If the government look as though they don't know what they want it's probably because they don't - there is no plan.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

There's a big difference between giving away negotiating tactics and being clear about what they want to achieve. Having a clear list of aims and targets shouldn't be a secret because, fairly obviously, they're going to have to declare what they want anyway.

It's being formulated now and the snippets and soundbites we're being fed are to test the water with the electorate and, of course, they're a form of advance negotiation with the EU.

The EU by stating freedom of movement is a prerequisite for a trade deal are doing the same thing - it doesn't harm their negotiating position to say this is a red line - what would harm it would be to state in advance how far they'd compromise to get a deal.

If the government look as though they don't know what they want it's probably because they don't - there is no plan.

I agree with you we need to declare our objectives so all the EU can look and tremble

-no FoM for EU27 people to the UK
-full FoM for the people of the UK to EU27
-no tariffs or other barriers on UK goods and services to the EU27
-full passporting
-no financial UK contribution to EU of any sort
-UK full freedom to trade with all countries of the world even balck african ones
-EU officials never to criticise the UK
-the EU to help France to police French borders properly

seems like a good plan to me

TrickyTree83

CLAPTON wrote: »

I agree with you we need to declare our objectives so all the EU can look and tremble

-no FoM for EU27 people to the UK
-full FoM for the people of the UK to EU27
-no tariffs or other barriers on UK goods and services to the EU27
-full passporting
-no financial UK contribution to EU of any sort
-UK full freedom to trade with all countries of the world even balck african ones
-EU officials never to criticise the UK
-the EU to help France to police French borders properly

seems like a good plan to me

You forgot reparations for 40 years of misuse of funds provided by the UK. (See Strasbourg, see EU ministerial motor pool, etc...)

Rinoa

wotsthat wrote: »

There's a big difference between giving away negotiating tactics and being clear about what they want to achieve. Having a clear list of aims and targets shouldn't be a secret because, fairly obviously, they're going to have to declare what they want anyway.

It's being formulated now and the snippets and soundbites we're being fed are to test the water with the electorate and, of course, they're a form of advance negotiation with the EU.

The EU by stating freedom of movement is a prerequisite for a trade deal are doing the same thing - it doesn't harm their negotiating position to say this is a red line - what would harm it would be to state in advance how far they'd compromise to get a deal.

If the government look as though they don't know what they want it's probably because they don't - there is no plan.

Well, what we'd like to achieve is free access to the single market including financial services, limits to EU immigration, complete control of our fishing waters, the right to make trade deals with whoever we want and not a single penny paid to the EU in contributions.

We know we aren't going to get all that and David Davis would look foolish standing up in Parliament asking for them.

He could ask for something less ambitious but he's then conceding ground to the EU even before negotiations begin.

He's in a no win situation.

wotsthat

Rinoa wrote: »

Well, what we'd like to achieve is free access to the single market including financial services, limits to EU immigration, complete control of our fishing waters, the right to make trade deals with whoever we want and not a single penny paid to the EU in contributions.

We know we aren't going to get all that and David David would look foolish standing up in Parliament asking for them.

He could ask for something less ambitious but he's then conceding ground to the EU even before negotiations begin.

He's in a no win situation.

Of course he'd look a fool if he had a stated target which everyone knew from the off was unachievable. He'd look like a modern day King Canute which incidentally I think the EU are doing a good impersonation of with their stance on free movement - everyone knows it won't be achieved and concessions will be made.

There's nothing to stop the government issuing a list of 'stretch' targets. Some they'll achieve and some they won't. Most people are grown up enough to realise that's how the world works.

I worry less about poor David Davis' difficult job than I do about holding the negotiators to account - we know, whatever the outcome, success will be declared so being able to measure what they wanted with what they got is vital.

CKhalvashi

mrginge wrote: »

There is no different view. It was made perfectly clear yesterday that some changes to FoM would be required by the UK.
Just because you didn't understand that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If that cannot be delivered by the EU (as is their right of course) then clearly there will be no agreement.

I did allude to the issue of how this theoretical compromise deal you were all ******* over would go down in other countries, but as per you simply ignored that paricular challenge....

Those changes look like being nothing more than requiring those that come to register within 3 months of arrival.

This is the case in (I think) every other EU country, but not in the UK.

This would have the benefit of ensuring we know who is here and what they're doing, which IMO wouldn't be a bad thing.

Nothing has been said about FoM going as far as I'm aware, just a registration/permit scheme, nor what the conditions for getting these permits will be.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

There's nothing to stop the government issuing a list of 'stretch' targets. Some they'll achieve and some they won't. Most people are grown up enough to realise that's how the world works.

ah yes that tried and tested strategy that worked so well for Dave and Gideon.

Thrugelmir

Rinoa wrote: »

Well, what we'd like to achieve is free access to the single market including financial services, limits to EU immigration, complete control of our fishing waters, the right to make trade deals with whoever we want and not a single penny paid to the EU in contributions.

Withdrawl will be in a structured manner. The UK Government has already provided a commitment to fund the UK participation in EU funded projects entered into before Brexit D-Day. We are currently assuming that this will take the form of reimbursement to the EU. With participating organisations remaining subject to the rules set out contractually at the outset. Therefore under the jurisdiction of the EU until complete.