BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

joelsim

Couple of things from the last few mins.

Hilary Benn elected (Remainers choice) easily against Hoey (Leavers choice) as chair of Brexit Select Committee which will have substantial influence.

And this.

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/statu ... 8454439937

TheBigBean

As someone said upthread the "four freedoms" is becoming something of a religion. If it is said enough people might start believing it.

joelsim

By the way there seems to be an awful lot of unity within the EU 27 so as I've been saying for months there will be no free access to any sector within the SM without paying in to the pot AND Freedom of Movement.

None.

Jez mon

TheBigBean wrote:

As someone said upthread the "four freedoms" is becoming something of a religion. If it is said enough people might start believing it.

Huh? They're the club rules. There's no belief required. They are the rules. it doesn't mean you can't be a prosperous happy country without the four freedoms, just that you can't be a member of the Eu.

rick_chasey

Coopster the 1st wrote:

An now the lower pound is hurting the EU's budget.

As the UK pay their contributions to the EU in sterling, it means that our contribution for 2017 is worth £2.5bn less than it was in 2016. So every time a Euro politician opens their mouth to try and damage the UK, they make their own lives harder by reducing our EU budget contribution. You could not make it up!

So who is going to make up this shortfall even before we have served A50?

'Don't bit the hand that feeds you' is a pretty appropiate quote for this. And remoaners continually say we have no hands to our negotiation. The reality will be somewhat different to those who only aim is to undermine the Brexit process

There's some validity in this argument, but I reckon you overstate its importance.

In the same way there was little rational play in the Brexit vote, I wouldn't expect the politicians (some of whom will be fighting elections during the negotiations) of other countries to be rational too.

If both side of the referendum were lying, what's to say those on the continent will suddenly tell the truth about the UK?

TheBigBean

Jez mon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

As someone said upthread the "four freedoms" is becoming something of a religion. If it is said enough people might start believing it.

Huh? They're the club rules. There's no belief required. They are the rules. it doesn't mean you can't be a prosperous happy country without the four freedoms, just that you can't be a member of the Eu.

The freedom of services isn't exactly implemented nor will it be any time soon, but the belief point is more that that is the only way that the EU can function and that there is no alternative. It may be the only way it wants to function, but that is different.

joelsim

TheBigBean wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

As someone said upthread the "four freedoms" is becoming something of a religion. If it is said enough people might start believing it.

Huh? They're the club rules. There's no belief required. They are the rules. it doesn't mean you can't be a prosperous happy country without the four freedoms, just that you can't be a member of the Eu.

The freedom of services isn't exactly implemented nor will it be any time soon, but the belief point is more that that is the only way that the EU can function and that there is no alternative. It may be the only way it wants to function, but that is different.

It's quite clear that it is the only way it wants to function. It's seen as a privilege by most nations, not a problem. Just for us, the islanders.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

The big picture is a combination of things. My point still stands - overall, you can think Brexit is a bad thing, but if you have any balance at all you will see some upsides.

Of course.

So what upsides do you see from BREXIT?

None mate. The downsides heavily outweigh anything else, but I'm sure there will be a minor win or two.

I think this demonstrates BigBean's case about balance. I happen to agree with him...

Are you really going to spend the next few years posting on this thread on a daily basis that we are doomed?

you mean as you do about the Labour party and Corbyn?

anyhow, what meaningful upsides do you see Steve? convince me and Joel there are some........

Referendums come and go but leftiebollox is eternal

So all I have to do is give a couple of upsides? Nobody will ever change Joel's mind, he's so far off the end of the pro euro spectrum. But I think you may be more open minded

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

The big picture is a combination of things. My point still stands - overall, you can think Brexit is a bad thing, but if you have any balance at all you will see some upsides.

Of course.

So what upsides do you see from BREXIT?

None mate. The downsides heavily outweigh anything else, but I'm sure there will be a minor win or two.

I think this demonstrates BigBean's case about balance. I happen to agree with him...

Are you really going to spend the next few years posting on this thread on a daily basis that we are doomed?

you mean as you do about the Labour party and Corbyn?

anyhow, what meaningful upsides do you see Steve? convince me and Joel there are some........

Referendums come and go but leftiebollox is eternal

So all I have to do is give a couple of upsides? Nobody will ever change Joel's mind, he's so far off the end of the pro euro spectrum. But I think you may be more open minded

Not really, my view is that leaving the EU without full access to the single market will be disaster for the UK, our kids and our reputation.
of course they ll be opportunities, just like some in Greece have done well out their crisis but for the uk as a whole.... no, so i hope that we ll never trigger Art 50 and i suspect that as the eco data starts to gather, it ll become politically impossible to do so, depend on who is running the country though, i dont think May is a keeper.

so anyway, fire away with a few meaningful advantages to brexit and i m not talking solar panels or staycations lol!

briantrumpet

mamba80 wrote:

Not really, my view is that leaving the EU without full access to the single market will be disaster for the UK, our kids and our reputation.
of course they ll be opportunities, just like some in Greece have done well out their crisis but for the uk as a whole.... no, so i hope that we ll never trigger Art 50 and i suspect that as the eco data starts to gather, it ll become politically impossible to do so, depend on who is running the country though, i dont think May is a keeper.

I read that the looniest Brexiteers would prefer to exit without even bothering with Art50 - just pull up the drawbridge and say "stuff you". It starts to make me wonder whether the speed that they wish for is so that no-one has really realised the scale of the impending economic sh1tstorm until it's too late. Why the hurry? If it's the right thing to do, then there's no harm in taking the time to get it right... unless your intent is not driven by pragmatism... or realism.

verylonglegs

briantrumpet wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Not really, my view is that leaving the EU without full access to the single market will be disaster for the UK, our kids and our reputation.
of course they ll be opportunities, just like some in Greece have done well out their crisis but for the uk as a whole.... no, so i hope that we ll never trigger Art 50 and i suspect that as the eco data starts to gather, it ll become politically impossible to do so, depend on who is running the country though, i dont think May is a keeper.

I read that the looniest Brexiteers would prefer to exit without even bothering with Art50 - just pull up the drawbridge and say "stuff you". It starts to make me wonder whether the speed that they wish for is so that no-one has really realised the scale of the impending economic sh1tstorm until it's too late. Why the hurry? If it's the right thing to do, then there's no harm in taking the time to get it right... unless your intent is not driven by pragmatism... or realism.

That's the most baffling thing about this for me, there is a lot of anger out there but when you question where it comes from and why it's directed at the EU it's really hard to get what seems a rational answer.

I questioned a couple of leave voters before the vote as to why they were voting the way they were because they were essentially bulletproof to the outcome but still seemingly nursing some sort of grudge. Both in their late 60's, had no real economic stake in the outcome (retired, owned more than one house outright and tidy pensions) and yet it was just a stream of the usual slogans spoken with venom, 'sovereignty, ruled by foreigners' etc. I asked one quite specifically that he'd lived in the most peaceful period of Europe's existence with the greatest freedoms and best healthcare available as well as free education and food at historically low prices yet he was still so angry with the EU...why? He was one of many in the older generation who felt that way and I have no idea why.

joelsim

briantrumpet wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Not really, my view is that leaving the EU without full access to the single market will be disaster for the UK, our kids and our reputation.
of course they ll be opportunities, just like some in Greece have done well out their crisis but for the uk as a whole.... no, so i hope that we ll never trigger Art 50 and i suspect that as the eco data starts to gather, it ll become politically impossible to do so, depend on who is running the country though, i dont think May is a keeper.

I read that the looniest Brexiteers would prefer to exit without even bothering with Art50 - just pull up the drawbridge and say "stuff you". It starts to make me wonder whether the speed that they wish for is so that no-one has really realised the scale of the impending economic sh1tstorm until it's too late. Why the hurry? If it's the right thing to do, then there's no harm in taking the time to get it right... unless your intent is not driven by pragmatism... or realism.

Of course it is. They know full well that as time passes the sh!t will hit the fan more and more. The best tactic for the Remain camp is to delay it, we will still get very damaged but it will be retrievable if we can show the morons up for what they are.

Steve, regarding your comment, I'm not pro-EU to anywhere near the degree you talk, I'm simply anti screwing the country up for no apparent reason against all the advice of economists, business, public services etc. You are the one who has his fingers in his ears, most Brexiteers are pretty thick, you at least have a brain even if you're choosing not to listen to what's actually starting to happen.

joelsim

Btw, just bought a new washing machine and dishwasher Steve. The former a distress purchase, the latter would have looked stupid as a crappy silver in between two white appliances so also a distress purchase.

German brands of course.

They'll be more expensive soon.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

The big picture is a combination of things. My point still stands - overall, you can think Brexit is a bad thing, but if you have any balance at all you will see some upsides.

Of course.

So what upsides do you see from BREXIT?

None mate. The downsides heavily outweigh anything else, but I'm sure there will be a minor win or two.

I think this demonstrates BigBean's case about balance. I happen to agree with him...

Are you really going to spend the next few years posting on this thread on a daily basis that we are doomed?

you mean as you do about the Labour party and Corbyn?

anyhow, what meaningful upsides do you see Steve? convince me and Joel there are some........

Referendums come and go but leftiebollox is eternal

So all I have to do is give a couple of upsides? Nobody will ever change Joel's mind, he's so far off the end of the pro euro spectrum. But I think you may be more open minded

Not really, my view is that leaving the EU without full access to the single market will be disaster for the UK, our kids and our reputation.
of course they ll be opportunities, just like some in Greece have done well out their crisis but for the uk as a whole.... no, so i hope that we ll never trigger Art 50 and i suspect that as the eco data starts to gather, it ll become politically impossible to do so, depend on who is running the country though, i dont think May is a keeper.

so anyway, fire away with a few meaningful advantages to brexit and i m not talking solar panels or staycations lol!

OK, here are a few off the top of my head:
- Weaker sterling makes exports more competitive, esp services where the cost base is largely UK/Sterling
- No financial transaction tax levied on the City
- No being drawn into a common European taxation system. Contrary to what you thought above, this is going ahead:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/common-consolidated-corporate-tax-base-ccctb_en
- Less likelihood that the UK population will rise to unacceptable levels in the long term (See my posts from quite a few pages back).
-Ability to take in people with skills we need and not just anyone regardless of whether they have a criminal record.
- Opportunities to cut our own trade deals with other large and emerging economies outside of the EU.
- More freedom to become the low tax, flexible labour market economy that attracts business.

I can probably think of a few others.

joelsim

Oh dear. Posting the tax system thing is somewhat disingenuous given the tax avoidance problems with large corporations. Unbelievable.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Oh dear. Posting the tax system thing is somewhat disingenuous given the tax avoidance problems with large corporations. Unbelievable.

Such as? Be more specific and explain how that is disingenuous. And maybe quantify the issue.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Oh dear. Posting the tax system thing is somewhat disingenuous given the tax avoidance problems with large corporations. Unbelievable.

Such as? Be more specific and explain how that is disingenuous. And maybe quantify the issue.

Because this is absolutely what's needed to stop the Googles of this world from taking the p!ss. To try to label that as a negative is disingenuous.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Oh dear. Posting the tax system thing is somewhat disingenuous given the tax avoidance problems with large corporations. Unbelievable.

Such as? Be more specific and explain how that is disingenuous. And maybe quantify the issue.

Because this is absolutely what's needed to stop the Googles of this world from taking the p!ss. To try to label that as a negative is disingenuous.

So you can quantify it and I am guessing you might even struggle to properly define it, unless you care to prove me wrong.

Maybe you could start by explaining how a EU common tax base will stop a US headquartered multinational that operates globally and in many non EU jurisdictions. I'd be interested to know because maybe I'm missing something.

The common consolidated tax base provisions are just another step in the EU efforts of 'ever closer integration' I.e. part of the political project rather than a true anti avoidance measure.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

so anyway, fire away with a few meaningful advantages to brexit and i m not talking solar panels or staycations lol!

OK, here are a few off the top of my head:

- Weaker sterling makes exports more competitive, esp services where the cost base is largely UK/Sterling
- No financial transaction tax levied on the City
- No being drawn into a common European taxation system. Contrary to what you thought above, this is going ahead:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/common-consolidated-corporate-tax-base-ccctb_en
- Less likelihood that the UK population will rise to unacceptable levels in the long term (See my posts from quite a few pages back).
-Ability to take in people with skills we need and not just anyone regardless of whether they have a criminal record.
- Opportunities to cut our own trade deals with other large and emerging economies outside of the EU.
- More freedom to become the low tax, flexible labour market economy that attracts business.

I can probably think of a few others.

weaker sterling benefits some at the expense of others, depends where raw materials are sourced and fuel costs, of which oil is in the $ - we ve had low rates before and it has nt led to an export boom.. see below as to why.

eu wide taxation needs agreement from ALL members, according to the FT.

Population? hammond says he wants a flexible policy for hi skilled workers, no barriers, when asked about no skilled workers, such as agri he had no answer.... how many eu criminals are in the UK ? and if we are no longer in europol, how would we know who has a crim record? we can t even tell the difference between a 14yo and a 24yo lol! our borders are very porous, because we ve no longer the staff or the will to police them.

the tories removed the immigration fund to help effected areas with extra school and health services, money well saved!
People forget that all the issues about schools, housing and nhs services were alive and kicking long before the expansion of the EU.

if we sell and manufacture quality goods (which we dont) then non eu countries will trade with us, so Apple sells plenty of Iphones in the Eu and BMW sell cars all over the world, no trade deals required.

we already have an ever decreasing business tax regime, soon to be 17% how much lower? the issue is lack of investment in services, skills and innovation, though i do agree that hiring people, esp for the self employed, is difficult and has led to the rise of the self employed, who shouldnt be and cash work.

anyhow, we got opt outs and veto's one of which is ever closer union........

rolf_f

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Chancellor admits pre-referendum Treasury analysis on Brexit and possible economic loss now at least partially invalid..

Maybe the remoaners are now going to drop this from their arguments as it cannot be relied on to be factual.

How foolish do you feel for falling for the lies of the establishment regarding brexit economic forecasts?

Have you read his testimony yet? One of the reasons being, well, you know

Two very basic assumptions were made in the analysis
- That A50 would be served the day after the vote
- That their would be no remedial actions taken to assist the economy.

Even before the vote, it is plainly obvious that neither of these assumptions were going to be the case upon a leave vote. So why did they base their analysis on these? How many of the 16m voted because they believed this **** :roll:

You are being lied to, or at least being fed disinformation, by those that you are fully trusting your future with.

Presumably you are equally angry about the £350m NHS funding lies from the Brexit camp? Any intelligent voter, on either side of the argument (I assume that there were some intelligent Brexiters) would have been as contemptuous of the implication that A50 would be implemented the day after the vote as they would have been about the £350m. By making these comments, you are as guilty of dishonesty about the consequences of Brexit as the spin doctors who came up with this crap (on both sides) in the first place.

At least Stevo 666 makes an effort.

wallace_and_gromit

Jez mon wrote:

They are the rules. it doesn't mean you can't be a prosperous happy country without the four freedoms, just that you can't be a member of the Eu.

Try buying a company deemed "strategically important" in France and see how free your movement of capital is.

Whilst I agree that the EU sets the rules for club membership, it would be naive to think that the "free movement" actually means free movement in respect of all 4 areas. It simply means what the EU wants it to mean.

wallace_and_gromit

Rolf F wrote:

Presumably you are equally angry...

Although not aimed at me, my view is that the poor quality of analysis undertaken and the attempts to mislead without actually overtly lying were appalling -l on both sides.

And I'm still mystified as to how the government proposed, and Parliament approved, legislation to allow the referendum to take place with no controls in place to ensure even handed analysis and to prevent "promises" being made in respect of issues over which the UK has no control.

Anyone would think the majority of our politicians are muppets!

FWIW, the single worst aspect of the whole campaign was Osborne instructing the Treasury to produce a totally biased forecast and trying to pass it off as being realistic.

joelsim

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Presumably you are equally angry...

Although not aimed at me, my view is that the poor quality of analysis undertaken and the attempts to mislead without actually overtly lying were appalling -l on both sides.

And I'm still mystified as to how the government proposed, and Parliament approved, legislation to allow the referendum to take place with no controls in place to ensure even handed analysis and to prevent "promises" being made in respect of issues over which the UK has no control.

Anyone would think the majority of our politicians are muppets!

FWIW, the single worst aspect of the whole campaign was Osborne instructing the Treasury to produce a totally biased forecast and trying to pass it off as being realistic.

A totally biased forecast that's already been surpassed on the Sterling crash? A totally biased forecast that found the rise is inflation to be less than is now expected? A totally biased forecast in line with what PWC, LSE, Oxford Economics have also suggested in their independent forecasts? Oh yes, that totally biased forecast.

With regard to muppets in Parliament, there are 160. Which is by far the minority as 490 voted to Remain.

And talking of muppets, what's happening in government now with the 3 Brexiteers is akin to putting 3 paedophiles in charge of school security.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

so anyway, fire away with a few meaningful advantages to brexit and i m not talking solar panels or staycations lol!

OK, here are a few off the top of my head:

- Weaker sterling makes exports more competitive, esp services where the cost base is largely UK/Sterling
- No financial transaction tax levied on the City
- No being drawn into a common European taxation system. Contrary to what you thought above, this is going ahead:
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/common-consolidated-corporate-tax-base-ccctb_en
- Less likelihood that the UK population will rise to unacceptable levels in the long term (See my posts from quite a few pages back).
-Ability to take in people with skills we need and not just anyone regardless of whether they have a criminal record.
- Opportunities to cut our own trade deals with other large and emerging economies outside of the EU.
- More freedom to become the low tax, flexible labour market economy that attracts business.

I can probably think of a few others.

weaker sterling benefits some at the expense of others, depends where raw materials are sourced and fuel costs, of which oil is in the $ - we ve had low rates before and it has nt led to an export boom.. see below as to why.

eu wide taxation needs agreement from ALL members, according to the FT.

Population? hammond says he wants a flexible policy for hi skilled workers, no barriers, when asked about no skilled workers, such as agri he had no answer.... how many eu criminals are in the UK ? and if we are no longer in europol, how would we know who has a crim record? we can t even tell the difference between a 14yo and a 24yo lol! our borders are very porous, because we ve no longer the staff or the will to police them.

the tories removed the immigration fund to help effected areas with extra school and health services, money well saved!
People forget that all the issues about schools, housing and nhs services were alive and kicking long before the expansion of the EU.

if we sell and manufacture quality goods (which we dont) then non eu countries will trade with us, so Apple sells plenty of Iphones in the Eu and BMW sell cars all over the world, no trade deals required.

we already have an ever decreasing business tax regime, soon to be 17% how much lower? the issue is lack of investment in services, skills and innovation, though i do agree that hiring people, esp for the self employed, is difficult and has led to the rise of the self employed, who shouldnt be and cash work.

anyhow, we got opt outs and veto's one of which is ever closer union........

Yes we did, or rather Cameron did. That was one of the concessions that he got which was the basis of the referendum, along with not having to join the Euro.
It was made clear that following an OUT vote, these concessions would be off the table should we eventually stay.
The inference being that there will be closer political union and we will be expected to join the Euro, should we stay.

wallace_and_gromit

Joelsim wrote:

A totally biased forecast...

I was referring to the fact that Ozzy instructed the Treasury to assume that there are no individual benefits from leaving the EU (ignoring the potential to strike trade deals, not charge EU tariffs on imports or any bespoke deal with the EU etc.) and that the UK would take no action in response to adverse developments (contradicted by the reduction in interest rates and additional QE that the BoE has already announced).

The IMF and the OECD were also signing from the Osborne hymn sheet and have already admitted that their short term predictions were wrong. Whilst the currency predictions have come true, the house price, share price and recession immediate doom-laden prediction haven't.

The Treasury scenarios (broadly) were the "Norway option" or "WTO terms", with "Stay in a reformed EU" thrown in for good measure. Ozzy then presented the most pessimistic (the WTO terms scenario) as the central case. The Reformed EU scenario was - surprise, surprise - positive, but there was no attempt made to quantify how (un)likely such reforms are.

I don't think things will be particularly good in the medium term, but Osborne's attempts to mislead by setting biased terms of reference for the Treasury and then mis-representing their results was a grim day for the art of presenting balanced, credible forecasts. I doubt it did the remain cause too many favours. A balanced range of scenarios would have still clearly demonstrated the risks, but by so clearly attempting to mislead, Osborne may well have turned a few moderate remainers into moderate leavers simply because it undermined the remain campaign's claim to be more honest. It didn't help that even Tory supporters generally think Osborne is an odious tw*t.

Joelsim wrote:

With regard to muppets in Parliament, there are 160. Which is by far the minority as 490 voted to Remain.

I actually think the 490 remainers are most likely muppets. These are the ones that glibly passed the legislation allowing the referendum in the form it took into law. They are being very wise after the event wanting to get Parliament involved in the decision to invoke Article 50, but where were they when they actually had the chance to do something meaningful?

bendertherobot

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

I actually think the 490 remainers are most likely muppets. These are the ones that glibly passed the legislation allowing the referendum in the form it took into law. They are being very wise after the event wanting to get Parliament involved in the decision to invoke Article 50, but where were they when they actually had the chance to do something meaningful?

But it was meaningful. The Government lawyer claims that the debate and scrutiny on that piece of legislation is one of the main reasons why a vote on Art 50 is now irrelevant. Seriously...............

wallace_and_gromit

bendertherobot wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

I actually think the 490 remainers are most likely muppets. These are the ones that glibly passed the legislation allowing the referendum in the form it took into law. They are being very wise after the event wanting to get Parliament involved in the decision to invoke Article 50, but where were they when they actually had the chance to do something meaningful?

But it was meaningful. The Government lawyer claims that the debate and scrutiny on that piece of legislation is one of the main reasons why a vote on Art 50 is now irrelevant. Seriously...............

I meant meaningful in terms of helping the remain cause rather than the leave cause!

I think there is some mileage in the government's argument. MPs exist to represent the people, but by the result of the referendum the result is clear in terms of leave or stay: leave. As the only way to leave is to invoke Article 50, what can MPs add to the mix? There's no sliding scale possible - we either observe the result of the referendum and invoke Article 50 or we don't.

There is a good case to be made for involving Parliament in determining the negotiating position to adopt, as the referendum result is no help here, so there is an obvious role for MPs to play here, though I can see why TM et al don't want MPs to get involved until there is a formal offer.

joelsim

I agree with you that the way the emergency budget was presented was awful especially given Gideon's popularity, and I agree that it is likely to have been the referendum loser.

But according to everything we've seen so far the broad forecasts of that are likely to be pretty close (2 years after leaving which after all are what the figures were based on if you actually read the report).

joelsim

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

I actually think the 490 remainers are most likely muppets. These are the ones that glibly passed the legislation allowing the referendum in the form it took into law. They are being very wise after the event wanting to get Parliament involved in the decision to invoke Article 50, but where were they when they actually had the chance to do something meaningful?

But it was meaningful. The Government lawyer claims that the debate and scrutiny on that piece of legislation is one of the main reasons why a vote on Art 50 is now irrelevant. Seriously...............

I meant meaningful in terms of helping the remain cause rather than the leave cause!

I think there is some mileage in the government's argument. MPs exist to represent the people, but by the result of the referendum the result is clear in terms of leave or stay: leave. As the only way to leave is to invoke Article 50, what can MPs add to the mix? There's no sliding scale possible - we either observe the result of the referendum and invoke Article 50 or we don't.

There is a good case to be made for involving Parliament in determining the negotiating position to adopt, as the referendum result is no help here, so there is an obvious role for MPs to play here, though I can see why TM et al don't want MPs to get involved until there is a formal offer.

Catch 22. 59% of people don't want to leave the single market, and that's now. That will increase over the next few months as the realisation reaches the distant outposts of the intelligence scale.

So, to invoke A50 when the only feasible option is a hard Brexit as the EU simply aren't going to move on FoM, goes against the will of the people.

coopster_the_1st

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

There is a good case to be made for involving Parliament in determining the negotiating position to adopt, as the referendum result is no help here, so there is an obvious role for MPs to play here, though I can see why TM et al don't want MPs to get involved until there is a formal offer.

I can see no case for involving parliament in determining the negotiating position. All that does is weaken the UK's side of the negotiation. Those negotiating on the UK's behalf will be negotiating the best deal for the UK, I don't see what discussing that in parliament and weakening our position can add to that.

And there can be a vote by MP's on what has been negotiated but it seems a pointless vote. It will be to either accept the negotiated deal or reject it and go for the 'hard brexit' option so we already know the way the vote will go.