Brexit: Article 50 Has Been Triggered !

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Osem

They've never convinced me about anything except that they can't be trusted - the last election and what has happened since is further proof of that if any were needed.

https://order-order.com/2017/08/29/m...ng-referendum/

John McDonnell claiming that what his party is suggesting now is not respecting the referendum. Well it's what he was saying before the last election anyway...

Rather than leaving options, considering what's best for the country and giving themselves, on both sides, latitude to monitor the situation and adjust position appropriately. May eliminated a bunch of options unnecessarily to score UKIP votes and then having done nothing to prepare triggered Article 50 according to an arbitrary timescale. McDonnell and the Corbyn posse blagged to try and keep the young, and overwhelmingly favourable to the EU, vote, while simultaneously trying to ward off the nationalist vote the Tories are going after.

Davis and Fox's departments being created have both had the unsurprising impact of sticking functions that should be handled in tandem in silos, and caused extensive overlap with existing departments. We lost a bunch of time trying to ramp the civil service up to properly staff those departments, and it has shown in that it's taken until this month to start producing 'position papers', and those that have been produced are half-arsed and basically come down to, in the short term at least, trying to remain in the EEA under a different name.

It's ended up in that ridiculous situation because politicians couldn't keep their mouths shut in an attempt to win as much support from the 52% as they could, and wasted time on internal party and civil service squabbles, in between urinating away a couple of months on a pointless election.

The EU have made their positions abundantly clear - http://jackofkent.com/brexit-negotia...resource-page/

The UK politicians continue to negotiate with one eye on the Express, Mail and Sun, and most of the other on 2022.

We need to get serious. The EU are being inflexible. We need to make it easier for them to show some flexibility by actually telling them in which direction we want them to bend. For them to break away from the positions set out in the documents will take months of agreement and ratification as, contrary to popular belief, the EU isn't a dictatorship and those documents were agreed by rEU-27 and must be modified by consensus too.

The clock's ticking. If we aren't going to make a serious attempt it's time to stop wasting taxpayers' time and money and stop feeding further uncertainty into the economy, take the hit and jump off the cliff. The current situation is demeaning to the UK and diminishing our reputation for stability, diplomacy and pragmatism even further abroad. A reputation we will be relying on worldwide if we don't either join EFTA or remain in the CU.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

There weren't millions. Transfers from UKIP to Labour comprised about 5% of the total Labour vote. They mostly went to the Tories as they were far less equivocal.

There was a small shift balancing that to an extent of Tories desiring EEA / EFTA membership moving from Conservative to Labour.

I'm working at the moment but might find the graph showing the movements later.

I was confused by this as in 2015 Election, UKIP had 3,881,099 total votes. In the snap election in June, they had lost millions taking their final total vote tally to just 594,068.

I read previous analysis that that loss of over 3 million UKIP votes, that Labour were the major beneficiaries, but I now admit after reading the FT article linked below, it seems that the UKIP collapse, that it was the Tories that did.

https://www.ft.com/content/dac3a3b2-...a-1e14ce4af89b

I do remember on Election result night that many of the key seats, saw Labour get a wrath of surprise big swings from UKIP and I naturally assumed they were the big earners that night. As they say, assumptions are the mother of all...

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But then there is the Culture differences - I have worked with/opened up outsourcing in India, China, and Vietnam, and the challenge with the Chinese and Indian outsourced resource is "face"; they don't want to contradict you/let you know things aren't going well, so you have to have lots of resources involved in checking/planning/rechecking.

That's why most companies don't outsource their Project Managers/Solution Architects/Network Engineers/Business Analysts - keep the management/oversight in the country, coding outside (and there are still issues with that model).

I agree with your cultural point to a degree. Most of my team are in India, some are in China and the rest in the US. There are some higher level "Project Managers/Solution Architects/Network Engineers/Business Analysts" in India (less so in China) and as you point out, the most are in the US (HQ specifically).

However, the majority of the senior managers, etc. in the US are of Indian and Chinese origin ..

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

I was confused by this as in 2015 Election, UKIP had 3,881,099 total votes. In the snap election in June, they had lost millions taking their final total vote tally to just 594,068.

I read previous analysis that that loss of over 3 million UKIP votes, that Labour were the major beneficiaries, but I now admit after reading the FT article linked below, it seems that the UKIP collapse, that it was the Tories that did.

https://www.ft.com/content/dac3a3b2-...a-1e14ce4af89b

I do remember on Election result night that many of the key seats, saw Labour get a wrath of surprise big swings from UKIP and I naturally assumed they were the big earners that night. As they say, assumptions are the mother of all...

I think the Ukip voters defecting to the Conservatives explain why Theresa May is taking the position she is taking. A softer approach to Brexit could result in the Conservative vote being threatened in some constituencies in the event of a by-election. And every seat counts as the DUP knows.
But the Government also knows that the current approach could lead to companies leaving the UK, and not just the banks which attract less public sympathy than car workers. That is why the UK Government is working hard behind the scenes to try and keep manufacture of the next Astra in Ellesmere Port. Closure of this factory blamed on Brexit could influence public opinion towards Brexit negatively. It has an impossible job.
Labour needs to take a different approach particularly if it wants to hold onto the younger pro-EU electorate.

Originally Posted by ianch99

I agree with your cultural point to a degree. Most of my team are in India, some are in China and the rest in the US. There are some higher level "Project Managers/Solution Architects/Network Engineers/Business Analysts" in India (less so in China) and as you point out, the most are in the US (HQ specifically).

However, the majority of the senior managers, etc. in the US are of Indian and Chinese origin ..

I had the same in the UK - Indians/Chinese who,had become acculturated; they had adapted to our methods of working/managing, so rose up the management ladder.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I presume they've been attending the same school of wishful thinking the Conservatives have with their thinking that the EU would be fine with our leaving the EEA and CU while simultaneously continuing to have the benefits of both.

The same one that supplies a train of thought tying the length of any UK transition to the UK's election cycle rather than the needs of UK businesses.

Neither party is especially bothered with negotiation with the European Union or the welfare of our economy and businesses here, both care far more about negotiation with the UK electorate and, especially, media.

I'm just reading comments from a former Vote Leave staffer indicating that, in his opinion, Vote Leave did not advocate leaving the EEA and their literature made a point of making examples of Iceland and Switzerland.

There was also mention of being in a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey. Iceland is an EEA nation, Turkey is mostly within the Customs Union.

Individuals associated with the campaign advocated as such, the campaign as a whole did not.

Obviously this is the same campaign that was running from the 350 million bus, though.

I suppose it's good the debate is happening however I fully imagine a destructive cliff-edge end to the negotiations. The UK has amazing people but has so far utterly failed to achieve anything notable, and the EU has made if a point of being transparent, but in turn weaponised bureaucracy.

The ultimate solution must involve getting back our sovereignty, taking back control of immigration, no more excessive payments to be wasted by the EU and making our own trade deals.

All this talk of remaining in the common market or customs union is irrelevant if any of these cannot be achieved by so doing, because those were the main points made by the Leave campaigners and are what resonated with the public.

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think the Ukip voters defecting to the Conservatives explain why Theresa May is taking the position she is taking. A softer approach to Brexit could result in the Conservative vote being threatened in some constituencies in the event of a by-election. And every seat counts as the DUP knows.
But the Government also knows that the current approach could lead to companies leaving the UK, and not just the banks which attract less public sympathy than car workers. That is why the UK Government is working hard behind the scenes to try and keep manufacture of the next Astra in Ellesmere Port. Closure of this factory blamed on Brexit could influence public opinion towards Brexit negatively. It has an impossible job.
Labour needs to take a different approach particularly if it wants to hold onto the younger pro-EU electorate.

Andrew, we cannot have a 'sofr' or 'softer' approach to Brexit if it means we cannot make our own trade deals. We cannot make Brexit work without this.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The ultimate solution must involve getting back our sovereignty, taking back control of immigration, no more excessive payments to be wasted by the EU and making our own trade deals.

All this talk of remaining in the common market or customs union is irrelevant if any of these cannot be achieved by so doing, because those were the main points made by the Leave campaigners and are what resonated with the public.

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 ----------



Andrew, we cannot have a 'sofr' or 'softer' approach to Brexit if it means we cannot make our own trade deals. We cannot make Brexit work without this.

I prescribe 1 of these to be taken as required:

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Osem

I prescribe 1 of these to be taken as required:

there is no cure for the Klingon plague

The terms "hard" and "soft" Brexit are Orwellian in the truest sense. They condition the debate and make it almost impossible to examine the issue clearly.

There is no such thing as "soft" Brexit. "Soft" as defined by the continuity remain campaign is remaining in the principal structures of the EU whilst relinquishing what direct influence we presently have over those structures. We will have left the EU in name only.

In order to achieve repatriation of parliamentary and judicial sovereignty and freedom to negotiate with the rest of the world on equal terms, we have to get entirely out of the EU, and then consider forming a relationship with the bloc, from outside.

That is the position outlined by HMG and it is one I entirely support.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

there is no cure for the Klingon plague

'Klingon' to the EU no matter what presumably...

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The ultimate solution must involve getting back our sovereignty, taking back control of immigration, no more excessive payments to be wasted by the EU and making our own trade deals.

We never lost our sovereignty and the home office was too busy trying to impress the press with pointless fights with the ECHR to use the control we did have over immigration.

As far as making our own trade deals go, apparently we're going to copy/paste the EU's and as we've taken back control amend them as we see fit.

This is ridiculous, but if taken on face value this woman appears to think it's entirely within the UK's gift to make trade deals with other nations on terms they agreed with the EU then amend them as we see fit.

If this is the best we can do after 14 months we're in some strife.

If I may, the idea that 98% of leave voters voted to leave the EEA seems at odds with polls from before the referendum indicating that 2/3rds of all voters supported EEA membership, this taking in about 25% of eventual leave voters.

However, from the moment Gove and Johnson faced the cameras ashen-faced, and Boris realised his plan to go down in flames and use it to launch his leadership ambitions had gone completely pear-shaped things changed.

On a slight tangent it's actually pretty amusing. You look at the look on Trump's face when it became clear he was going to win and Johnson's face when leave won and you can happily tell they were two men having to do something they really didn't want to.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

If I may, the idea that 98% of leave voters voted to leave the EEA seems at odds with polls from before the referendum indicating that 2/3rds of all voters supported EEA membership, this taking in about 25% of eventual leave voters.

All this said you mentioned sovereignty. In the UK Parliament in sovereign and have done a number of things in the past that were not favoured by the majority, so it wouldn't be unprecedented.

We'll see what happens, those are old arguments endlessly recycled as an attempt to make the case to remain in the EU and very tiresome.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

The terms "hard" and "soft" Brexit are Orwellian in the truest sense. They condition the debate and make it almost impossible to examine the issue clearly.

There is no such thing as "soft" Brexit. "Soft" as defined by the continuity remain campaign is remaining in the principal structures of the EU whilst relinquishing what direct influence we presently have over those structures. We will have left the EU in name only.

In order to achieve repatriation of parliamentary and judicial sovereignty and freedom to negotiate with the rest of the world on equal terms, we have to get entirely out of the EU, and then consider forming a relationship with the bloc, from outside.

That is the position outlined by HMG and it is one I entirely support.

You'll have to take the use of "soft" up with Old Boy. I used the term "softer" but for some reason he decided to use the term "soft" in a response to my post.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

The terms "hard" and "soft" Brexit are Orwellian in the truest sense. They condition the debate and make it almost impossible to examine the issue clearly.

There is no such thing as "soft" Brexit. "Soft" as defined by the continuity remain campaign is remaining in the principal structures of the EU whilst relinquishing what direct influence we presently have over those structures. We will have left the EU in name only.

In order to achieve repatriation of parliamentary and judicial sovereignty and freedom to negotiate with the rest of the world on equal terms, we have to get entirely out of the EU, and then consider forming a relationship with the bloc, from outside.

That is the position outlined by HMG and it is one I entirely support.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

In order to achieve repatriation of parliamentary and judicial sovereignty and freedom to negotiate with the rest of the world on equal terms, we have to get entirely out of the EU, and then consider forming a relationship with the bloc, from outside.
That is the position outlined by HMG and it is one I entirely support.

How can you get equal terms if the country or trading bloc you are negotiating with is significantly larger than you?

---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

It's gone from talks of the third world war to the web wide war.

Pro-Brexit Twitter account with 100,000 followers could be part of Russian 'disinformation campaign'
The user, who claims to be from “Southampton/Isle of Wight” has sent more than 137,000 tweets, followed 97,000 accounts and gathered 102,000 followers.
The bio describes “Jones” as “Pro UK, Pro USA”, adding: “I am a passionate Brexit supporter. I like Europe but dislike the EU. I want the UK to be a free sovereign nation.”
The account was set to private following a report by The Times, with a tweet claiming that allegations of Russian connections were false and “completely defamatory”, adding: “I am not pro Kremlin at all, I am just a Brexit supporter.”
But attempts by journalists and analysts to verify “Jones’s” identity have so far failed and the person running the account has not responded to contact from The Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7920181.html

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

How can you get equal terms if the country or trading bloc you are negotiating with is significantly larger than you?

Size is hardly an issue when almost every country in the world has a smaller economy than us.

In any case, it isn't the overall size of the economy that's most important, it's the parts of their economy we're well placed to exploit and vice versa to mutual benefit.