Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott:
“It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere)."
 
Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott:
“It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere)."


Brilliant straight talking from the Aussies. Always rely on them to cut through the Bull.
 
Or to over simplify a hugely complex issue. But, if it fits your existing narrative then I accept that it sounds like sense.

Maybe the problem so far is that we've been over complexifying a hugely simple issue.

We leave and pay what we owe. We'd like to buy stuff from you, would you like to sell it to us? Yes, excellent then let's sort out a trade deal. You'd like to fish in our waters, OK let's negotiate that. Both sides have things that the other side wants but from the tone of the negotiations so far you'd think we have nothing to offer.
 
The paying what we owe or walking away without paying needs careful scrutiny.

The EU have agreed to repay all outstanding loans the UK have made. They've agreed to repay all monies lodged in the ECB. They've agreed to pay the UK's portion of the value of EU assets, based on the % paid by the UK towards those assets. The £39bn that some people bump their gums about isn't really £39bn after the EU has paid their dues back to the UK.

As has been said earlier in the thread, there's a lot of good in deal offered.
 
It always good to hear an independent disconnected person to offer up a view.
But what actually is the state of economy currently and projected? What is feeding it, what is required to feed it?
Answer those questions, and the answer to UK’s state and links will indicate where the European relationship stands.
I have not seen any of this.. just heard a lot of bravado and no substance.. so come on meet the challenge answer the questions then we can make a decision.
It’s crazy, common policy in this country is make a decision, but problem solving requires a number of processes and considering all affected aspects. These are both the same thing and the process should be common.
 
Sounds like sense to me. 😁
If your narrative is to make it as complex and difficult as possible to leave then it probably wouldn’t.
Thankfully, I have no control over it 😉

I am amused by some of the rhetoric though. It seems that people would prefer to believe that there's some huge Political conspiracy involving the entirety of the Civil Service and large sections of the media, rather than accept that "it's a bit more complicated than we thought it would be" 😂😂😂
 
Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott:
“It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere)."

There's a lot of things I disagree with Abbott about, but he certainly has a 'simple and direct' approach to 'solving problems'!

There's a lot in the above that rings true - or, at least, seems reasonable. However Abbott over-simplifies the Irish border issue and makes a very large assumption about 'Europe's' reaction! It MAY be the/a best approach, but it's purely an opinion, worth little more than anyone else's!

I'd really like to see a list of the effects of a 'hard-Brexit'! The UK Civil Service must have at least drawn up a list of them, even just as a starting point! I'm pretty sure that a comparison of those effects against those of the deal that has been 'negotiated' (I'd actually suggest 'imposed'!) would convince many of the 'marginal' Remainers that a 'hard-Brexit' was a better choice! I've certainly moved towards 'Leave' - and not just from my attitude to referendum results!
 
Thankfully, I have no control over it 😉

I am amused by some of the rhetoric though. It seems that people would prefer to believe that there's some huge Political conspiracy involving the entirety of the Civil Service and large sections of the media, rather than accept that "it's a bit more complicated than we thought it would be" 😂😂😂

I don't think there's been any conspiracy. However, lets say you have a firm belief in something being good for the country. And lets say you were put in charge of doing what you think is bad for the country. Would you be able to make decisions on what is the best course of action without either consciously or subconsciously favouring a halfway house at least? It isn't a black and white answer, unless it was trigger Article 50 and leave without a deal. As soon as it became about negotiating something it became about opinions.

I don't know the definitive answer to the above but I'll admit to being sceptical that a Remain PM, ably supported by Ollie Robbins, will be totally unbiased in their views about what is a good deal and what isn't.

The media; we'd hope for unbiased reporting, and certainly expect it from the likes of the Beeb. There's reporting the news, and then there's editorialising the news with opinions. And if those opinions, like those of May and Robbins, are made by firm Remainers just what will those opinions sound like, even the intonations? And if you then add in emotive language... "crash out," and "cliff edge." Does the media know that it will "crash out," or is it "leave without a deal?"

I think that the media are used to sensationalising the news, and often live by using emotive language. Have they done it on purpose? No I don't think they have. But by doing as they have they have coloured their reporting.
 
Last edited:
Thankfully, I have no control over it 😉

I am amused by some of the rhetoric though. It seems that people would prefer to believe that there's some huge Political conspiracy involving the entirety of the Civil Service and large sections of the media, rather than accept that "it's a bit more complicated than we thought it would be" 😂😂😂
When does a political bias become a conspiracy?
 
...
The media; we'd hope for unbiased reporting, and certainly expect it from the likes of the Beeb. There's reporting the news, and then there's editorialising the news with opinions. And if those opinions, like those of May and Robbins, are made by firm Remainers just what will those opinions sound like, even the intonations? And if you then add in emotive language... "crash out," and "cliff edge." Does the media know that it will "crash out," or is it "leave without a deal?"

I think that the media are used to sensationalising the news, and often live by using emotive language. Have they done it on purpose? No I don't think they have. But by doing as they have they have coloured their reporting.
Why would you expect unbiased reporting from the media? In all cases - except the Beeb - theres no requirement, nor expectation to be unbiased! In fact, there's an expectation that reporting would be significantly biased toward the editorial/owner attitude! The BBC, as part of its charter, is 'committed to impartiality'. I'm inclined to believe that its approach is seen as (often unfairly imo) 'too far to the Left' by many - an attitude formed, imo, from its requirement to challenge whoever who has in power, which has, for the most part, been the Conservatives!

To me, the struggles of The Independent indicate the 'lack of interest' in unbiased news compared to 'confirmation and consolidation' of individual attitudes!
 
And that unbiased source of news - the Sunday Mail (never as shockingly biased as it'd weekday stablemate - the Mail - though even the Mail seems to be moving position now that Dacre has gone) has a pretty excoriating whole page leader on those wishing to get rid of May; vote down May's Agreement and go for No Deal chaotic crash out.

And without mentioning any of the ERG, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, McVey etc by name - it concludes '

They must back the Prime Minister. It is the only responsible course. If they do not take it, they will never be forgiven for the chaos they unleash'

This in today's Sunday Mail.

I have no doubt that there will be many continuing their denial - claiming that the Sunday Mail is wrong - it was always a Remainer newspaper. That another better deal is possible - and that if the EU refuse to budge that a No Deal will be just fine and the talk of chaos is Project Fear.

Meanwhile the silence of Johnson is deafening as he schemes behind behind the back of May. What a snake.
 
And of course - one of the most beautiful ironies of this whole shambolic mess is that Hard-line Leavers should be apologising to Gina Miller for the abuse that she has suffered from many in the Leave camp over the last two years - and that abuse and vitriol extended to this forum.

Because without the effort and interventions of Gina Miller it is more than likely that the May Agreement will be being signed without ANY vote in parliament. Hard-Brexit supporters in particular, and Leave supporters as a whole, should be thanking Gina Miller for insisting that parliament had a vote on the eventual agreement. And so they should admit she was right and offer full apologies to her.

But I doubt they will.

It is not so much that the Leave ring-leaders are blinkered over the negative impacts of leaving the EU. Indeed they are probably fully aware of these things. No - the ring-leaders are so utterly and ideologically wedded to an absolutist version of leaving the EU that they will never apologise for anything that might go wrong - because that might dent the belief of those who have followed their every word for years and through this debacle; because for them any wrong or difficulty - no matter how serious or damaging - is worth suffering. They will claim that all such talk is Project Fear - and leaving on such as WTO rules etc will be fine - they will say this whether they believe it or not - because that is what they want the Leave constituency to believe. And such has been the corrosive nature of the right wing reporting of the EU over three decades they will succeed. But for their ends the British public well-being and economy would become the sacrificial lamb on their self-obsessed alter of delusion.

In The Scotsman Friday

Robert Harris – author of the great counter-factual novel Fatherland, among many others – tweeted that “no group of politicians has done more damage to this country than the 50 or so hardline Tory Brexiteers. They have infected the UK with their poison, concealed their real aims, evaded all responsibility, and now knife their own leader for failing to deliver their fantasy.”
 
Last edited:
And of course - one of the most beautiful ironies of this whole shambolic mess is that Hard-line Leavers should be apologising to Gina Miller for the abuse that she has suffered from many in the Leave camp over the last two years - and that abuse and vitriol extended to this forum.

Because without the effort and interventions of Gina Miller it is more than likely that the May Agreement will be being signed without ANY vote in parliament. Hard-Brexit supporters in particular, and Leave supporters as a whole, should be thanking Gina Miller for insisting that parliament had a vote on the eventual agreement. And so they should admit she was right and offer full apologies to her.

But I doubt they will.

It is not so much that the Leave ring-leaders are blinkered over the negative impacts of leaving the EU. Indeed they are probably fully aware of these things. No - the ring-leaders are so utterly and ideologically wedded to an absolutist version of leaving the EU that they will never apologise for anything that might go wrong - because that might dent the belief of those who have followed their every word for years and through this debacle; because for them any wrong or difficulty - no matter how serious or damaging - is worth suffering. They will claim that all such talk is Project Fear - and leaving on such as WTO rules etc will be fine - they will say this whether they believe it or not - because that is what they want the Leave constituency to believe. And such has been the corrosive nature of the right wing reporting of the EU over three decades they will succeed. But for their ends the British public well-being and economy would become the sacrificial lamb on their self-obsessed alter of delusion.

In The Scotsman Friday

Robert Harris – author of the great counter-factual novel Fatherland, among many others – tweeted that “no group of politicians has done more damage to this country than the 50 or so hardline Tory Brexiteers. They have infected the UK with their poison, concealed their real aims, evaded all responsibility, and now knife their own leader for failing to deliver their fantasy.”

No they don't have to apologise. There's extremists that should have a look at themselves. And there are a FEW that should apologise, not many as you say. But no, no apology from the vast, vast majority of Leavers. Its politics, and politics is about opinions. Communism, Republicanism, Conservatism, Marxism etc etc etc are all held up by some as being the pinnacle of politics. Others will say those versions are an abomination.

She decided to get involved in politics, and that comes with a lot of flak. You've only got to listen to John McDonnell and some of the dire, dire things he's said you realise that most things are fair game in politics. I admire her courage, her passion and I agree with some of the things she has said but I don't agree with a lot of what she said because she is towards the far end of Remain. I wouldn't want the far end of either side at my dinner table.

Apology, from some but not many.
 
No they don't have to apologise. There's extremists that should have a look at themselves. And there are a FEW that should apologise, not many as you say. But no, no apology from the vast, vast majority of Leavers. Its politics, and politics is about opinions. Communism, Republicanism, Conservatism, Marxism etc etc etc are all held up by some as being the pinnacle of politics. Others will say those versions are an abomination.

She decided to get involved in politics, and that comes with a lot of flak. You've only got to listen to John McDonnell and some of the dire, dire things he's said you realise that most things are fair game in politics. I admire her courage, her passion and I agree with some of the things she has said but I don't agree with a lot of what she said because she is towards the far end of Remain. I wouldn't want the far end of either side at my dinner table.

Apology, from some but not many.

I am not talking about her Remain and People Vote stance - but her demand in respect of the rights of parliament.

Any Leave voter who lambasted or abused Gina Miller for forcing the government on Art50 and the a parliamentary vote should apologise or at least feel some shame - most specifically the Leave Leaders who were so vocal in the condemnations should be forced to do so publicly. Miller was right in her demands that parliament should have a say - for precisely the sort of reasons that find many leave voters complaining about the May Agreement demanding MPs vote against it.

Not all Leave voters abused Miller on what she did - but very many.

On the Leave Leaders

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opini...4K6n45CxyQCh-l6RxZhqerWx1r0fj0Msc7Sx4iADbtqls
 
Any Leave voter who lambasted Gina Miller for forcing the government on Art50 and the a parliamentary vote should apologise must most specifically the Leave Leaders who were so vocal in the condemnations. She was right in her demands that parliament should have a say - for precisely the sort of reasons that find many leave voters complaining about the May Agreement - not all - but very many.

There's nothing wrong with being vocal in disagreeing. There's nothing wrong with being passionate in a disagreement. Being abusive is where the line is crossed.

Also, your Robert Harris quote; there are some snake-oil salesmen in that bunch, namely Boris. But all 50? Sorry but no that is patently wrong. Some of those who oppose her deal do so because they feel it is the wrong deal for the country. They waited till it was published and had read it before opposing it.

Have you read it? There's a lot of good in it, a hell of a lot of good. It is very fair and equitable in many areas. The EU have been very honourable in those parts. But on the issue of tariffs and subsidies it is appalling and deserves to be thrown out. On the issue of the backstop and the EU's control of that, it should be thrown out.

If there was a people's vote on the deal I would vote against it because of the above. Does that make me as bad as the 50?
 
There's a lot of things I disagree with Abbott about, but he certainly has a 'simple and direct' approach to 'solving problems'!

There's a lot in the above that rings true - or, at least, seems reasonable. However Abbott over-simplifies the Irish border issue and makes a very large assumption about 'Europe's' reaction! It MAY be the/a best approach, but it's purely an opinion, worth little more than anyone else's!

I'd really like to see a list of the effects of a 'hard-Brexit'! The UK Civil Service must have at least drawn up a list of them, even just as a starting point! I'm pretty sure that a comparison of those effects against those of the deal that has been 'negotiated' (I'd actually suggest 'imposed'!) would convince many of the 'marginal' Remainers that a 'hard-Brexit' was a better choice! I've certainly moved towards 'Leave' - and not just from my attitude to referendum results!

As there is no definition of what entails "a hard Brexit" there is no answer and no list - Even if there was a 'list' what on earth would you (or members of the public) do with this information given that much of it would need expert interpretation so it would simply cause more confusion.
 
As there is no definition of what entails "a hard Brexit" there is no answer and no list - Even if there was a 'list' what on earth would you (or members of the public) do with this information given that much of it would need expert interpretation so it would simply cause more confusion.

That would be because there is no definition of what entails Brexit...and so May goes on her Lancaster House speech and declares she is delivering Brexit. And the Sunday Times - whilst not liking the Agreement seems to accept that it is the best that can be achieved now.
 
I am not talking about her Remain and People Vote stance - but her demand in respect of the rights of parliament.

Any Leave voter who lambasted or abused Gina Miller for forcing the government on Art50 and the a parliamentary vote should apologise or at least feel some shame - most specifically the Leave Leaders who were so vocal in the condemnations should be forced to do so publicly. Miller was right in her demands that parliament should have a say - for precisely the sort of reasons that find many leave voters complaining about the May Agreement demanding MPs vote against it.

Not all Leave voters abused Miller on what she did - but very many.

On the Leave Leaders

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opini...4K6n45CxyQCh-l6RxZhqerWx1r0fj0Msc7Sx4iADbtqls

Miller's simply a self-promoting individual with a narrow understanding of international trade/economics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top