In November 1918, the German generals realised that strategically they were lost. Prudently they surrendered to the Allies, rather than see Germany conquered and crushed.
The unforeseen consequence was that they had run ahead of much of German opinion which was unprepared for this. From this emerged the stab-in-the-back myth, which did so much to fuel a second more dangerous bout of German nationalism.
Similarly, Britain's position in Brexit is strategically awful. But the Leavers are wholly unprepared for it. Advocating anything constructive at present is not just pointless but would be actively harmful. The illogic and disastrousness of the position needs to be fully explored and understood by the meanest Leaver intellects. The damage has to be done.
Once that is widely understood, Britain can proceed forwards, though it will undoubtedly be weaker morally, economically and socially than it would otherwise be. Planning before that point is reached, however, is futile.
I look forward to the "Continent cut off by Brexit" headlines.
(1) Campaign to rescind the vote and stay on current terms (what I suspect you want - getting public opinion to change - but I doubt you're going about it in the most convincing way. To do it regardless would effectively amount to ignoring the vote - dangerous) (2) Campaign to stay but with Dave's deal+ (recognising that the original one wasn't good enough, and seeing if you can get Macron to lead a concession inside the EU on free movement) (3) Campaign for the UK to re-apply to a New Europe with the euro, schengen, and federalism (what Verhofstadht has said) (4) Campaign for a soft EFTA-EEA arrangement (mitigating the vote) (5) Support various forms of hard Brexit (thinking that since the decision has been made, we may as well go the whole hog)
Which one is it for you?
A reasonable question to which there is no reasonable answer.
a. Stay on current (renegotiated) terms. Economically best, politically impossible b. EEA/EFTA. Pisses off both sides c. Hard Brexit. Economic suicide, but maybe the only way to expunge the Brexit virus from the body politic.
Thank you. That's a generous response which I sincerely appreciate.
I'd much rather we engaged with each other at such a level.
It's a small group, I feel, and I'd like to see an independent repetition, but of the following options:
Option C (comprehensive trade deal with favourable arrangements short of Free Movement) was preferred, but if time ran out or it could not be negotiated, then B (Stay in Single Market and use existing controls over Free Movement) was the second choice.
The interviews I watched with Leadsom in them gave me the impression that she was someone who appeared to have almost no grasp of reality.
She was a leading Brexiteer. She has no grasp of reality.
That is a bit of a strong comment Scott, but I can understand the general thrust of your argument.
Given some of the comments on here today and yesterday, it does seem that some Leavers find it inconceivable that anyone would not want just sole British citizenship and the UK at the top table for everything, everywhere. It is almost like they have grown up on "Boys Own" novels and Commando war comics.
As it is, it is becoming more obvious that Brexit is not leading to a glorious sunny upland. "Leave" has sold us a dud.
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
The Civil Servicd should have scenario planned for all of them. This isn't about making judgements about what choices politicians should make, but about issues arising from and outcomes of choices
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
But what would be in these scenarios, except the obvious general points which you or I could write down in five minutes and which were extensively discussed here before the referendum?
This particular criticism makes absolutely no sense - neither we nor our EU friends can plan even now in any detail, for heaven's sake. How on earth could the civil service have come up with five different detailed plans, all of which would have required input from the EU? The problem wasn't and isn't lack of planning, it's not knowing what we're planning for.
I think that, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a good idea for Cameron to offer civil service help to the Leave campaign. so that they could put together a plan for what they were advocating. However, they probably wouldn't have fallen for that wheeze.
I think most said we would leave the SM (although I could be wrong on that). Sensible government would have been to model for both scenarios.
Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market, and that it would be economically disastrous
Brexiteers cried project fear.
He was right, they were wrong.
Shows you how thick Cameron really is, staking his political reputation on a referendum which he pushed for, where the options were (to him) a) no change, b) disaster.
He should have asked John Howard (ex Australian PM) how to call a referendum but make sure the status quo wins.
1) set up a assembly to come up with exactly what type of Brexit the brexiteers want. 2) Hold a referendum to chose between the proposed Brexit model and remaining.
This means that the Brexiteers spend 2 years infighting for their preferred type of Brexit: hard, soft or sqidgy. When the referendum comes a large chunk of leavers can't bring them selves to vote for the "wrong type of brexit"
Absolutely. I've been arguing this for some time. So clear in hindsight - how did we miss it in advance?
Because, for some time the top of the Remain camp thought it couldn’t posssibly lose. The fact that UKIP PCC candidates got 12.%, approx of the first preferences in May, while including some obvious fruitcakes, should have been a wake-up call. There didn’t appear, round here anyway to be the sort of local organisation that there was in 1975.
I normally walk through Nice airport with one cursory glance at my passport. Today it was checked three times with a lengthy queue at each. What's more it's the first time that I remember those in Schengen getting preferential treatment to those outside. I sncerely hope this is an abberation and not the shape of things to come.
So what do you put this down to?
Perhaps we're going to become the new 'Palestinians' of Europe where are passports are practically useless
Or perhaps they're concerned about nutters blowing up public places. Just a thought.
In November 1918, the German generals realised that strategically they were lost. Prudently they surrendered to the Allies, rather than see Germany conquered and crushed.
The unforeseen consequence was that they had run ahead of much of German opinion which was unprepared for this. From this emerged the stab-in-the-back myth, which did so much to fuel a second more dangerous bout of German nationalism.
Similarly, Britain's position in Brexit is strategically awful. But the Leavers are wholly unprepared for it. Advocating anything constructive at present is not just pointless but would be actively harmful. The illogic and disastrousness of the position needs to be fully explored and understood by the meanest Leaver intellects. The damage has to be done.
Once that is widely understood, Britain can proceed forwards, though it will undoubtedly be weaker morally, economically and socially than it would otherwise be. Planning before that point is reached, however, is futile.
Alistair compares being in the EU to being engaged in a war - perhaps a bit strong but the allegory rings true.
I think most said we would leave the SM (although I could be wrong on that). Sensible government would have been to model for both scenarios.
Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market, and that it would be economically disastrous
Brexiteers cried project fear.
He was right, they were wrong.
Shows you how thick Cameron really is, staking his political reputation on a referendum which he pushed for, where the options were (to him) a) no change, b) disaster.
He should have asked John Howard (ex Australian PM) how to call a referendum but make sure the status quo wins.
1) set up a assembly to come up with exactly what type of Brexit the brexiteers want. 2) Hold a referendum to chose between the proposed Brexit model and remaining.
This means that the Brexiteers spend 2 years infighting for their preferred type of Brexit: hard, soft or sqidgy. When the referendum comes a large chunk of leavers can't bring them selves to vote for the "wrong type of brexit"
Absolutely. I've been arguing this for some time. So clear in hindsight - how did we miss it in advance?
Because, for some time the top of the Remain camp thought it couldn’t posssibly lose. The fact that UKIP PCC candidates got 12.%, approx of the first preferences in May, while including some obvious fruitcakes, should have been a wake-up call. There didn’t appear, round here anyway to be the sort of local organisation that there was in 1975.
That approach sounds fine on paper, but when you consider that the 2 years of infighting would have dragged in half the Tory party, you can see why it wasn't pursued.
We really should give Northern Ireland away to the EU/Ireland, name me anything positive to come out of Northern Ireland in the last 400 years. Even if you can think of anything, it doesn't offset the troubles.
The police have said they believe two hate crimes which happened within the last week in County Down, could be linked.
Racist graffiti was daubed on a wall at Seapatrick Avenue, Banbridge, some time between Monday and Tuesday.
It said "EU rats out" along with a swastika. The wall has since been repainted.
In a video on social media, police said it may be linked to an attack last week at nearby Lincoln walk.
A Bulgarian family had the tyres of their car slashed and the word "out" painted on the side of the vehicle.
Cameron committed to a referendum that I suspect he never expected he'd have a majority to deliver. Having won the majority, he clearly had to hold the referendum but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant. If they thrashed around for years unable to agree that, so be it, Leave could be blamed for a lack of a referendum. I think Leave would have come to a consensus tbh and they may well still have won... but at least we'd now know exactly what the parameters are.
" ... but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant."
How could he? How could he, a half-hearted Eurosceptic, be expected to reconcile the drastic split in leavers' views that even this leavecentric government cannot close?
Just wargame what you're saying for a moment. Say Cameron has tried that: the first thing Farage et al would have said is : "he's kicking it into the long grass." The conversations from fanatical leavers on here after the GE in 2015 about the timing of the referendum were hilarious.
*Any* agreement that Cameron had managed to get - in the unlikely event he got any - would have been immediately disowned by uninvolved leavers, or by Labour, amidst claims of trying to 'rig' the result. After all, there was a referendum to win.
No, any mess coming out of Brexit will be firmly nailed to leavers' doors, not Cameron's. But I hope there is no mess.
There are only about 5 basic options:
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
The Civil Servicd should have scenario planned for all of them. This isn't about making judgements about what choices politicians should make, but about issues arising from and outcomes of choices
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
Of course, there was nothing to stop the Brexiteers currently sitting around the cabinet table and on the government backbenches from having at least having a passing familiarity with the issues. But none do - they could not be bothered to do the hard yards, they just wanted to make speeches citing Churchill and the UK's glorious destiny. As it turns out, there is only one Brexiteer who seems to have taken any detailed interest in how the EU works, the complexities of leaving and what drives FTAs. Unfortunately for us, it is Richard Tyndall, who is not in government, but a poster on Political Betting.
the Tories are being torn apart by the contradictions and impossible choices forced on them by the Brexit process and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Labour have the same problem. If they were in government that would be more apparent.
Labour's divisions do exist but they are not as deep as the Tories. In their heart of hearts most MPs, and almost all party members, would like to find a way of reversing the referendum decision. However if Labour were to come to power in the near future I think the party would go for an EEA "transition" period and in practice this would evolve into a permanent arrangement.
What will Labour's policy be once we have left
(a) assuming a transition deal has been agreed and HMG is trying to agree a FTA by 2021?
(b) we have crashed out and trade is being conducted via WTO rules and there is a land border across Ireland?
(A) If a transition deal had been signed and sealed then a future government would be bound by it. It could, I suppose, attempt to reopen the issue but that would only be possible if the EU agreed and that seems unlikely. In terms of the future I think Labour would want to get as close to the EEA as possible whilst being able to say there is a greater degree of control over immigration.
(B) I think crashing out would cause major economic and political upheaval and a national crisis the like of which has not been seen since 1940. The government of the day, whoever it was, would collapse and whatever new administration came in would be faced with either going on its knees to the EU to ask for a delay or presiding over a precipitate drop in living standards, an exodus of EU workers and a flood of returning retirees from the costas as they lost their free medical care and their pensions evaporated due to the further devaluation in sterling which a hard Brexit would bring. My guess is that in those circumstances a majority of MPs (of all parties) would take the knees option but it is hard to be sure about that.
We really should give Northern Ireland away to the EU/Ireland, name me anything positive to come out of Northern Ireland in the last 400 years. Even if you can think of anything, it doesn't offset the troubles.
The police have said they believe two hate crimes which happened within the last week in County Down, could be linked.
Racist graffiti was daubed on a wall at Seapatrick Avenue, Banbridge, some time between Monday and Tuesday.
It said "EU rats out" along with a swastika. The wall has since been repainted.
In a video on social media, police said it may be linked to an attack last week at nearby Lincoln walk.
A Bulgarian family had the tyres of their car slashed and the word "out" painted on the side of the vehicle.
I'm surprised it takes @Richard_Nabavi to point out the bleeding obvious. Any post-Brexit settlement is contingent upon the EU. It's of course why we can't make trade deals with non-EU countries before the terms of Brexit are determined. Some kind of bonkers scenario analysis by the civil service would have been blown away on Day 1 of Brexit negotiations, and, as has been pointed out frequently, used by both sides in their campaign to prove something that was not provable.
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
The Civil Servicd should have scenario planned for all of them. This isn't about making judgements about what choices politicians should make, but about issues arising from and outcomes of choices
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
But what would be in these scenarios, except the obvious general points which you or I could write down in five minutes and which were extensively discussed here before the referendum?
This particular criticism makes absolutely no sense - neither we nor our EU friends can plan even now in any detail, for heaven's sake. How on earth could the civil service have come up with five different detailed plans, all of which would have required input from the EU? The problem wasn't and isn't lack of planning, it's not knowing what we're planning for.
I think that, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a good idea for Cameron to offer civil service help to the Leave campaign. so that they could put together a plan for what they were advocating. However, they probably wouldn't have fallen for that wheeze.
You have it the wrong way round I think... the reason we don't know what we want - is because we didn't plan first. So we think we want x... then when we hear some of the ramifications of x, we decide maybe y would be better.
Civil servants should have been ready the day after the referendum with documents that, for instance, discussed how we need to do a lot of building in Dover for customs checks if we leave customs union, implications of leaving Euratom, or that we need to start negotiating Open Skies Agreements immediately, or a million other things...
Instead they were scrambling after the vote to work out the implications.
I suspect also a document explaining all of the consequences of cutting out the ECJ would have stopped TM making it a red line.
What really did for Mrs May was chickening out of the debates, it just gave rise to this whole narrative that she wasn't very good and that she was frit.
For someone projecting herself as the Iron Lady Mark II, she must have known Mrs Thatcher wouldn't have dodged the debate.
Ironically the terrorist attacks didn't help her against Corbyn, as it brought to the fore the cut in the number of police.
But Thatcher did dodge the debates. She declined to debate with Callaghan in 1979.For some reason, however, the Broadcasters failed to respond by setting up a Debate between Callaghan , Steel and the SNP/Plaid leaders.
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
The Civil Servicd should have scenario planned for all of them. This isn't about making judgements about what choices politicians should make, but about issues arising from and outcomes of choices
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
But what would be in these scenarios, except the obvious general points which you or I could write down in five minutes and which were extensively discussed here before the referendum?
This particular criticism makes absolutely no sense - neither we nor our EU friends can plan even now in any detail, for heaven's sake. How on earth could the civil service have come up with five different detailed plans, all of which would have required input from the EU? The problem wasn't and isn't lack of planning, it's not knowing what we're planning for.
I think that, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a good idea for Cameron to offer civil service help to the Leave campaign. so that they could put together a plan for what they were advocating. However, they probably wouldn't have fallen for that wheeze.
You have it the wrong way round I think... the reason we don't know what we want - is because we didn't plan first. So we think we want x... then when we hear some of the ramifications of x, we decide maybe y would be better.
Civil servants should have been ready the day after the referendum with documents that, for instance, discussed how we need to do a lot of building in Dover for customs checks if we leave customs union, implications of leaving Euratom, or that we need to start negotiating Open Skies Agreements immediately, or a million other things...
Instead they were scrambling after the vote to work out the implications.
I suspect also a document explaining all of the consequences of cutting out the ECJ would have stopped TM making it a red line.
What was to stop leading Brexiteers knowing these things already?
We really should give Northern Ireland away to the EU/Ireland, name me anything positive to come out of Northern Ireland in the last 400 years.
George Best John Hume Lord Trimble James Galway Roy Walker Seamus Heaney Hurricane Higgins Frank Carson Martin O'Neill Nadine Coyle Rory McIlroy James Nesbitt Liam Neeson Eddie Irvine Brian Mawhinney Brendan Rogers Mary Peters
Cameron committed to a referendum that I suspect he never expected he'd have a majority to deliver. Having won the majority, he clearly had to hold the referendum but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant. If they thrashed around for years unable to agree that, so be it, Leave could be blamed for a lack of a referendum. I think Leave would have come to a consensus tbh and they may well still have won... but at least we'd now know exactly what the parameters are.
" ... but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant."
How could he? How could he, a half-hearted Eurosceptic, be expected to reconcile the drastic split in leavers' views that even this leavecentric government cannot close?
Justwere hilarious.
*Any* agreement to win.
No, any mess coming out of Brexit will be firmly nailed to leavers' doors, not Cameron's. But I hope there is no mess.
There are only about 5 basic options:
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
The Civil Servicd should have scenario planned for all of them. This isn't about making judgements about what choices politicians should make, but about issues arising from and outcomes of choices
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
Of course, there was nothing to stop the Brexiteers currently sitting around the cabinet table and on the government backbenches from having at least having a passing familiarity with the issues. But none do - they could not be bothered to do the hard yards, they just wanted to make speeches citing Churchill and the UK's glorious destiny. As it turns out, there is only one Brexiteer who seems to have taken any detailed interest in how the EU works, the complexities of leaving and what drives FTAs. Unfortunately for us, it is Richard Tyndall, who is not in government, but a poster on Political Betting.
To clarify: the "us" in "unfortunately for us" refers to the UK-based British citizens among us, not us as readers of Political Betting!
You have it the wrong way round I think... the reason we don't know what we want - is because we didn't plan first. So we think we want x... then when we hear some of the ramifications of x, we decide maybe y would be better.
Civil servants should have been ready the day after the referendum with documents that, for instance, discussed how we need to do a lot of building in Dover for customs checks if we leave customs union, implications of leaving Euratom, or that we need to start negotiating Open Skies Agreements immediately, or a million other things...
Instead they were scrambling after the vote to work out the implications.
I suspect also a document explaining all of the consequences of cutting out the ECJ would have stopped TM making it a red line.
All those points were made, but dismissed as 'Project Fear'.
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
The Civil Servicd should have scenario planned for all of them. This isn't about making judgements about what choices politicians should make, but about issues arising from and outcomes of choices
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
But what would be in these scenarios, except the obvious general points which you or I could write down in five minutes and which were extensively discussed here before the referendum?
This particular criticism makes absolutely no sense - neither we nor our EU friends can plan even now in any detail, for heaven's sake. How on earth could the civil service have come up with five different detailed plans, all of which would have required input from the EU? The problem wasn't and isn't lack of planning, it's not knowing what we're planning for.
I think that, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a good idea for Cameron to offer civil service help to the Leave campaign. so that they could put together a plan for what they were advocating. However, they probably wouldn't have fallen for that wheeze.
You have it the wrong way round I think... the reason we don't know what we want - is because we didn't plan first. So we think we want x... then when we hear some of the ramifications of x, we decide maybe y would be better.
Civil servants should have been ready the day after the referendum with documents that, for instance, discussed how we need to do a lot of building in Dover for customs checks if we leave customs union, implications of leaving Euratom, or that we need to start negotiating Open Skies Agreements immediately, or a million other things...
Instead they were scrambling after the vote to work out the implications.
I suspect also a document explaining all of the consequences of cutting out the ECJ would have stopped TM making it a red line.
Thing is, we would only have got 50% of the ramifications of x. The remaining 50% would have been in the EU's gift and I can't see that they would have agreed to wargame any number of scenarios which would, in effect, have been, er, negotiations.
That would have been a million miles from their approach and a moment considering it from their perspective makes the idea of any certainty, or scenario-analysis pre-vote as ludicrous as it was.
We really should give Northern Ireland away to the EU/Ireland, name me anything positive to come out of Northern Ireland in the last 400 years. Even if you can think of anything, it doesn't offset the troubles.
The police have said they believe two hate crimes which happened within the last week in County Down, could be linked.
Racist graffiti was daubed on a wall at Seapatrick Avenue, Banbridge, some time between Monday and Tuesday.
It said "EU rats out" along with a swastika. The wall has since been repainted.
In a video on social media, police said it may be linked to an attack last week at nearby Lincoln walk.
A Bulgarian family had the tyres of their car slashed and the word "out" painted on the side of the vehicle.
And that list misses historical people like Annie Maunder, Lord Kelvin and his brother James Thompson and James Burke the science journalist (born in Stroke City)
Alistair compares being in the EU to being engaged in a war - perhaps a bit strong but the allegory rings true.
No, Mr TGOHF, not at all. Mr Meeks is comparing the empty vainglorious boasting of the German generals and their abrupt volte-face when they realised they were heading for defeat and destruction, on the one hand; with the empty vainglorious boasting of the Conservative Leave politicians and their incipient volte-face now the penny is starting to drop and they realise that they are taking our country, the economy and society as a whole straight towards defeat and destruction.
In neither case were these people honest enough or capable enough of explaining the situation to the general public. So, in the case of Germany, the public sought and identified for itself those who could be held responsible for the climb-down - viz peacefully inclined politicians and no doubt the Jews.
And similarly, they will now blame Liberals and the EU for the consequences of the utter folly and irresponsibility of the likes of Johnson, Gove, Davies, Leadsome and Farage. And the cowardice of Corbyn, of course.
Our being in the Eu is a safeguard for many things we hold dear. We are not at war with them.
Thing is, we would only have got 50% of the ramifications of x. The remaining 50% would have been in the EU's gift and I can't see that they would have agreed to wargame any number of scenarios which would, in effect, have been, er, negotiations.
That would have been a million miles from their approach and a moment considering it from their perspective makes the idea of any certainty, or scenario-analysis pre-vote as ludicrous as it was.
I am reminded of the Big Bang Theory. where the boys invite Penny to join their team and she refuses
"Sheldon, we role-played this"
"Yes, but you didn't role-play her as completely irrational"
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
But what would be in these scenarios, except the obvious general points which you or I could write down in five minutes and which were extensively discussed here before the referendum?
This particular criticism makes absolutely no sense - neither we nor our EU friends can plan even now in any detail, for heaven's sake. How on earth could the civil service have come up with five different detailed plans, all of which would have required input from the EU? The problem wasn't and isn't lack of planning, it's not knowing what we're planning for.
I think that, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a good idea for Cameron to offer civil service help to the Leave campaign. so that they could put together a plan for what they were advocating. However, they probably wouldn't have fallen for that wheeze.
You have it the wrong way round I think... the reason we don't know what we want - is because we didn't plan first. So we think we want x... then when we hear some of the ramifications of x, we decide maybe y would be better.
Civil servants should have been ready the day after the referendum with documents that, for instance, discussed how we need to do a lot of building in Dover for customs checks if we leave customs union, implications of leaving Euratom, or that we need to start negotiating Open Skies Agreements immediately, or a million other things...
Instead they were scrambling after the vote to work out the implications.
I suspect also a document explaining all of the consequences of cutting out the ECJ would have stopped TM making it a red line.
What was to stop leading Brexiteers knowing these things already?
Probably they should have known more - but it isn't realistic to expect them to know about all the different pieces of EU legislation that would be affected. Some of this required legal advice after the referendum to work out what would actually happen.
In your field for instance - how many politicians knew about the UPC before it made some news in the Daily Express?
Civil servants should have been planning, stopping them from doing so was very irresponsible. When we change governments - we do lots of planning on how to implement manifestos, that's just good governance and it helps the country not to have chaotic transitions.
Civil servants should have been planning, stopping them from doing so was very irresponsible. When we change governments - we do lots of planning on how to implement manifestos, that's just good governance and it helps the country not to have chaotic transitions.
The key word there. manifesto.
Which manifesto should they have planned for, given the EU controls most of the levers?
The more often you repeat this, the more ridiculous it gets.
In neither case were these people honest enough or capable enough of explaining the situation to the general public. So, in the case of Germany, the public sought and identified for itself those who could be held responsible for the climb-down - viz peacefully inclined politicians and no doubt the Jews.
And similarly, they will now blame Liberals and the EU for the consequences of the utter folly and irresponsibility of the likes of Johnson, Gove, Davies, Leadsome and Farage. And the cowardice of Corbyn, of course.
Brexiteers blaming those who warned and voted against it started early and shows no signs of abating.
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
But what would be in these scenarios, except the obvious general points which you or I could write down in five minutes and which were extensively discussed here before the referendum?
Thiswe're planning for.
I think for that wheeze.
You have it the wrong way round I think... the reason we don't know what we want - is because we didn't plan first. So we think we want x... then when we hear some of the ramifications of x, we decide maybe y would be better.
Civilother things...
Instead they were scrambling after the vote to work out the implications.
I suspect also a document explaining all of the consequences of cutting out the ECJ would have stopped TM making it a red line.
What was to stop leading Brexiteers knowing these things already?
Probably they should have known more - but it isn't realistic to expect them to know about all the different pieces of EU legislation that would be affected. Some of this required legal advice after the referendum to work out what would actually happen.
In your field for instance - how many politicians knew about the UPC before it made some news in the Daily Express?
Civil servants should have been planning, stopping them from doing so was very irresponsible. When we change governments - we do lots of planning on how to implement manifestos, that's just good governance and it helps the country not to have chaotic transitions.
Some basic understanding of the complexity of leaving should not have been beyond them, along with a passing knowledge of how FTAs are done. They wanted Brexit. They should have known how to do it.
Alistair compares being in the EU to being engaged in a war - perhaps a bit strong but the allegory rings true.
No, Mr TGOHF, not at all. Mr Meeks is comparing the empty vainglorious boasting of the German generals and their abrupt volte-face when they realised they were heading for defeat and destruction, on the one hand; with the empty vainglorious boasting of the Conservative Leave politicians and their incipient volte-face now the penny is starting to drop and they realise that they are taking our country, the economy and society as a whole straight towards defeat and destruction.
In neither case were these people honest enough or capable enough of explaining the situation to the general public. So, in the case of Germany, the public sought and identified for itself those who could be held responsible for the climb-down - viz peacefully inclined politicians and no doubt the Jews.
And similarly, they will now blame Liberals and the EU for the consequences of the utter folly and irresponsibility of the likes of Johnson, Gove, Davies, Leadsome and Farage. And the cowardice of Corbyn, of course.
Our being in the Eu is a safeguard for many things we hold dear. We are not at war with them.
Civil servants should have been planning, stopping them from doing so was very irresponsible. When we change governments - we do lots of planning on how to implement manifestos, that's just good governance and it helps the country not to have chaotic transitions.
The key word there. manifesto.
Which manifesto should they have planned for, given the EU controls most of the levers?
The more often you repeat this, the more ridiculous it gets.
The civil service also plans for coalitions, no overall control etc.
I really think you are underestimating the level of detailed planning that has to happen for Brexit. It should have started way before we got the referendum result.
I imagine most had no idea what Euratom did before it became a thing in the press... I certainly didn't. We had a ludicrous situation where some MPs clearly didn't even know they had voted to leave it. That's just dreadful planning and preparation.
I imagine most had no idea what Euratom did before it became a thing in the press... I certainly didn't. We had a ludicrous situation where some MPs clearly didn't even know they had voted to leave it. That's just dreadful planning and preparation.
So why not get angry at the nutters who said leaving was simple, painless and quick, instead of the poor saps now tasked with cleaning up their mess, or the team who said "This is a really, really, bad idea" before the vote?
I imagine most had no idea what Euratom did before it became a thing in the press... I certainly didn't. We had a ludicrous situation where some MPs clearly didn't even know they had voted to leave it. That's just dreadful planning and preparation.
So why not get angry at the nutters who said leaving was simple, painless and quick, instead of the poor saps now tasked with cleaning up their mess, or the team who said "This is a really, really, bad idea" before the vote?
The people who said it would be easy were pretty obviously wrong and I said so at the time. I voted Remain and would much rather Remain had won.
I'm not getting annoyed with those 'cleaning up the mess' - I'm getting annoyed with the Cameron government who deliberately made us unprepared for what is an enormous policy challenge.
Cameron committed to a referendum that I suspect he never expected he'd have a majority to deliver. Having won the majority, he clearly had to hold the referendum but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant. If they thrashed around for years unable to agree that, so be it, Leave could be blamed for a lack of a referendum. I think Leave would have come to a consensus tbh and they may well still have won... but at least we'd now know exactly what the parameters are.
" ... but he could have made the Leave supporting parties/factions work together to come to an agreed view of what leave meant."
How could he? How could he, a half-hearted Eurosceptic, be expected to reconcile the drastic split in leavers' views that even this leavecentric government cannot close?
Just wargame what you're saying for a moment. Say Cameron has tried that: the first thing Farage et al would have said is : "he's kicking it into the long grass." The conversations from fanatical leavers on here after the GE in 2015 about the timing of the referendum were hilarious.
*Any* agreement that Cameron had managed to get - in the unlikely event he got any - would have been immediately disowned by uninvolved leavers, or by Labour, amidst claims of trying to 'rig' the result. After all, there was a referendum to win.
No, any mess coming out of Brexit will be firmly nailed to leavers' doors, not Cameron's. But I hope there is no mess.
There are only about 5 basic options:
1. WTO 2. FTA (Canada) 3. EFTA (Norway) 4. A Customs Union with the Custons Union (Turkey) 5. Full Single Market/Customs Union membership
The Civil Servicd should have scenario planned for all of them. This isn't about making judgements about what choices politicians should make, but about issues arising from and outcomes of choices
It's really not that difficult. That single decision moves Cameron from being a goodish PM to a political hack in my view
The government did outline the implication of each of those in its documentation published for why we should stay in the EU.
The problem is not that there is no contingency planning, its that there is no political will to commit to any of these options.
The biggest lie told in the Referendum campaign was by Remainers. They never told the British people the truth of their current position: that it is now just far too difficult to leave the EU.
I wonder how that would have played out, if they had been honest?
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
I disagree entirely. I recall plenty of tories unhappy with it. And at that point I'd never voted tory before and I'd supported it.
The Conservatives can't complain about the Dementia Tax monicker given that they came up with the equally unfair Death Tax nickname in 2010. Politics is a rough trade.
Oh it's fair to stick a name on your opponents policy. They have to overcome that.
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
I disagree entirely. I recall plenty of tories unhappy with it. And at that point I'd never voted tory before and I'd supported it.
I thought it a reasonable policy too, despite ever having anything positive to say about the Tories.
The biggest lie told in the Referendum campaign was by Remainers. They never told the British people the truth of their current position: that it is now just far too difficult to leave the EU.
I wonder how that would have played out, if they had been honest?
Its easy to leave the EU. What's impossible is to leave the EU but not do any damage to the UK's economy, cohesion or world standing.
Its just a shame that Leave made a promise that we could have our cake and eat it.
There were several factors why people voted Leave, immigration and sovereignty being the most obvious. I'm not often right but before the Referendum I predicted a large number of Labour voters with little interest in the EU saw it as an opportunity to give Cameron and Osborne a kicking, and they got the result they wanted.
Unfair or not, so many Conservatives have no idea how large swathes of people, mainly in large cities, despise them. I don't feel that way at all but a little humility from time to time would do them a massive favour.
Re the thread header, if the egotists were to concentrate on governing rather than posturing they might make a better job of it.
One of the reasons the AV referendum went the way it did was because Labour, unofficially, wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking. I recall the leaflets.
Correct, and I can't think of a single issue where Clegg and Cameron disagreed. The two main thread writers on here are TSE and MS, its difficult to tell the difference even though one is a fanatical Lib Dem and the other a Cameron worshipper.
Well that says more about you and then anything else. here's somethings Cameron and Clegg disagreed on
i) AV ii) House of Lords reform iii) Drug policy
I could list more, but I don't want to embarrass you any further.
Please feel free to embarrass me, after all you do it to yourself on a daily basis. I'm sure the Cleggs and Camerons had many heated discussions in the nice restaurants in which they dined together.
Why would them on a personal level getting along be relevant? Even corbyn woukd not suggest that is sinister, I am sure, given he is apparently a friendly chap on a personal level.
There were several factors why people voted Leave, immigration and sovereignty being the most obvious. I'm not often right but before the Referendum I predicted a large number of Labour voters with little interest in the EU saw it as an opportunity to give Cameron and Osborne a kicking, and they got the result they wanted.
Unfair or not, so many Conservatives have no idea how large swathes of people, mainly in large cities, despise them. I don't feel that way at all but a little humility from time to time would do them a massive favour.
Re the thread header, if the egotists were to concentrate on governing rather than posturing they might make a better job of it.
One of the reasons the AV referendum went the way it did was because Labour, unofficially, wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking. I recall the leaflets.
Indeed so, he was all over them. I still think it woukd have list though, and I voted yes.
The biggest lie told in the Referendum campaign was by Remainers. They never told the British people the truth of their current position: that it is now just far too difficult to leave the EU.
I wonder how that would have played out, if they had been honest?
Bollocks
They said leaving would cause massive economic disruption. They were right.
Parent, to Brexiteer: "Don't touch the stove, it's hot"
Brexiteer, after touching stove: "Why didn't you plan for me to burn myself?"
Cameron was captain of the ship and wanted to stay at port, but to ward off mutiny decided to have a vote on whether to sail out onto the stormy Brexit waters in search of a better harbour.
Having lost the vote, he set sail. Cameron then revealed he hadn't brought supplies as he didn't know how long the voyage would take, indeed he forbade the crew from bringing any, and he took a lifeboat back to shore.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
The biggest lie told in the Referendum campaign was by Remainers. They never told the British people the truth of their current position: that it is now just far too difficult to leave the EU.
No it isn't - unless we've been lied to this whole time about them not needing a deal or even caring to, since they have the upper hand. If that were true they wouldn't care to chide us about the ball being in our court, since they won't be playing with us anyway.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
I am more concerned about the customs transactional issues than actual tariff levels.
Can anyone explain how WTO rules and no customs agreement will not end up with a massive lorry park in Dover and shortages of all sorts of stuff, at least initially?
The dementia tax showed pb at its worst during the election -- there was relentless spin on pb that it was the finest, most magnificent policy since the repeal of the Corn Laws. I realise it is essential to pb that we have activists from all sides but sometimes it descends into targeted astroturfing -- presumably with the intention of influencing visiting journalists.
I disagree entirely. I recall plenty of tories unhappy with it. And at that point I'd never voted tory before and I'd supported it.
Indeed. I was quite vehement at the time that the dementia tax was a colossal vote loser.
The example I used was one of how a working class family 'done good' could end up with 90% of their assets tied up in their main (and only) home, which they hoped to pass on to or divide between their children to help them on the property ladder.
I think it is these aspirational voters and their offspring who were relying on the inheritance as their only chance of getting on the property ladder who were turned off in droves.
At the same time, the richer, more liberally minded 'natural' Tories saw the chance to give TMay and co a free kicking for playing the awful 'small minded / little Englander' card, because they didn't think Corbyn was in with a hope in hell.
The combination of these factors led to no overall majority, as we all remember. But I was quite vehement about this utterly awful policy at the time, trading out of my Con positions on BF Exchange as soon as the dementia tax story hit. I bought back in a little in the final week due to the London Bridge terror attack - thinking the 'Corbyn and his IRA friends' attack ad would have more resonance than it did. But more fool me.
I have never found this site to be an echo chamber. Which is why I like it.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
Err, I've repeatedly posted links to how bad WTO is for the country.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
Err, I've repeatedly posted links to how bad WTO is for the country.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
Conversely, if WTO is so good, why do countries spend time (years!!) negotiating FTAs?
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
Yes. I (for one) would be absolutely delighted. Seriously. I would be overjoyed. I want to be wrong about WTO because I do not want an economic disaster.
So if I am wrong about WTO it is champagne all round. If you are wrong about WTO then we are about to wallop our economy.
Do you want to guess which of our views carries the lesser risk?
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
Err, I've repeatedly posted links to how bad WTO is for the country.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
I am more concerned about the customs transactional issues than actual tariff levels.
Can anyone explain how WTO rules and no customs agreement will not end up with a massive lorry park in Dover and shortages of all sorts of stuff, at least initially?
There is an obvious need to invest significant amounts in customs - this should have started the day after the referendum. The reality is that customs are quite capable of dealing with imports and exports to/from WTO trading nations, they do it all the time. There is no technical difference at all. So it is a question of scale, which should be achievable, with resources and proper project management. Since it is probably the most important issue facing the nation there really should not be any shortage of either.
The problem is that we are not preparing because we are wasting time pretending there is going to be a deal with the EU. There will be a deal one day, but it cannot happen now, so we need to move on.
There is an obvious need to invest significant amounts in customs - this should have started the day after the referendum. The reality is that customs are quite capable of dealing with imports and exports to/from WTO trading nations, they do it all the time. There is no technical difference at all. So it is a question of scale, which should be achievable, with resources and proper project management. Since it is probably the most important issue facing the nation there really should not be any shortage of either.
How many JIT manufacturing supply lines include countries that we are not currently in the customs union with?
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
Conversely, if WTO is so good, why do countries spend time (years!!) negotiating FTAs?
FTAs are more optimal than WTO, nobody denies that. But the fact that so many countries are prepared to use WTO and don't hurry along to FTAs probably indicates that in the real World it does not make that much difference. If it does, why is the EU so desperately slow in agreeing WTOs with major economies? I suggest because they know it is not all that critical.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
What I find amazing is how many people still do not get that the biggest problem with moving to a WTO scenario is not the tariffs, it's the multiple time efficiencies that leaving the single market and customs union with no replacements would end - and which so many business strategies are based on.
There is an obvious need to invest significant amounts in customs - this should have started the day after the referendum. The reality is that customs are quite capable of dealing with imports and exports to/from WTO trading nations, they do it all the time. There is no technical difference at all. So it is a question of scale, which should be achievable, with resources and proper project management. Since it is probably the most important issue facing the nation there really should not be any shortage of either.
How many JIT manufacturing supply lines include countries that we are not currently in the customs union with?
That's the issue
How about the Nissan plant in Sunderland as an obvious example. Loads of Japanese parts obviously.
' Our research shows that the supply chain from this plant spans hundreds of separate companies in 24 different countries.'
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
Conversely, if WTO is so good, why do countries spend time (years!!) negotiating FTAs?
FTAs are more optimal than WTO, nobody denies that. But the fact that so many countries are prepared to use WTO and don't hurry along to FTAs probably indicates that in the real World it does not make that much difference. If it does, why is the EU so desperately slow in agreeing WTOs with major economies? I suggest because they know it is not all that critical.
Is there any other example ever of a major economy leaving a single market to go to WTO rules?
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
I am more concerned about the customs transactional issues than actual tariff levels.
Can anyone explain how WTO rules and no customs agreement will not end up with a massive lorry park in Dover and shortages of all sorts of stuff, at least initially?
There is an obvious need to invest significant amounts in customs - this should have started the day after the referendum. The reality is that customs are quite capable of dealing with imports and exports to/from WTO trading nations, they do it all the time. There is no technical difference at all. So it is a question of scale, which should be achievable, with resources and proper project management. Since it is probably the most important issue facing the nation there really should not be any shortage of either.
The problem is that we are not preparing because we are wasting time pretending there is going to be a deal with the EU. There will be a deal one day, but it cannot happen now, so we need to move on.
The "We" being the Brexiters, of course (I know...we are all Brexiters...)
I don't think many of us said it would be a disaster, although the probability of it being one is far from trivial, just that the NPV of the various costs would be significant and would result in a diminution in our economic well-being. I thought we had moved on ages ago from whether this was the case and that the issue was whether it was a price worth paying.
Out of curiosity, how many PBers in their day jobs are doing Brexit planning?
I am and it is almost complete. There is a major milestone due today.
Is my day job too.
I'm just waiting on Theresa and the leadbangers.
We're hoping for the best, but planned for the worst (and for everything else in between)
I'll add the customs tariffs onto the job cost sheets if it comes to that. We deal with a significant amount of non EU stuff anyway tbh. We're not JIT.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
What I find amazing is how many people still do not get that the biggest problem with moving to a WTO scenario is not the tariffs, it's the multiple time efficiencies that leaving the single market and customs union with no replacements would end - and which so many business strategies are based on.
And you don't think that business could adapt to that? Of course they can, if they have enough leadtime which is currently being wasted.
Supply chains include both EU nations and WTO nations (eg Japan, US, China etc). They can plan for these eventualities as they deal with them already. And how much is the loss of some 'time efficiency' going to affect the economy? Is it really going to cost more than the 10billion a year we pay for the privilege?
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
Conversely, if WTO is so good, why do countries spend time (years!!) negotiating FTAs?
FTAs are more optimal than WTO, nobody denies that. But the fact that so many countries are prepared to use WTO and don't hurry along to FTAs probably indicates that in the real World it does not make that much difference. If it does, why is the EU so desperately slow in agreeing WTOs with major economies? I suggest because they know it is not all that critical.
The reason it takes so much time is because it is not a simple process. It is incredibly complex. Many smaller countries lack the govt capable of doing the negotiations or they may lack the export capital to make it worth anyone else's time to involve in a decade of negotiations.
The fact is that larger economies do find it worth their while to spend years creating FTAs
Parent, to Brexiteer: "Don't touch the stove, it's hot"
Brexiteer, after touching stove: "Why didn't you plan for me to burn myself?"
Cameron was captain of the ship and wanted to stay at port, but to ward off mutiny decided to have a vote on whether to sail out onto the stormy Brexit waters in search of a better harbour.
Having lost the vote, he set sail. Cameron then revealed he hadn't brought supplies as he didn't know how long the voyage would take, indeed he forbade the crew from bringing any, and he took a lifeboat back to shore.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
Conversely, if WTO is so good, why do countries spend time (years!!) negotiating FTAs?
FTAs are more optimal than WTO, nobody denies that. But the fact that so many countries are prepared to use WTO and don't hurry along to FTAs probably indicates that in the real World it does not make that much difference. If it does, why is the EU so desperately slow in agreeing WTOs with major economies? I suggest because they know it is not all that critical.
Is there any other example ever of a major economy leaving a single market to go to WTO rules?
No. So how can you proclaim it will be a disaster?
However, the evidence shows that the establishment of the SM had no measurable impact on the level of intra-EU trade and that the countries that have had the most success trading with the EU are pretty much an even mix of EU and WTO nations.
I imagine most had no idea what Euratom did before it became a thing in the press... I certainly didn't. We had a ludicrous situation where some MPs clearly didn't even know they had voted to leave it. That's just dreadful planning and preparation.
So why not get angry at the nutters who said leaving was simple, painless and quick, instead of the poor saps now tasked with cleaning up their mess, or the team who said "This is a really, really, bad idea" before the vote?
I'm not getting annoyed with those 'cleaning up the mess' - I'm getting annoyed with the Cameron government who deliberately made us unprepared for what is an enormous policy challenge.
Agree 100% re: Cameron. Feel sorry for May having inherited such a busy, complex set of problems. Can't believe the chutzpah of Osborne carping on at her from the sidelines after helping to create this mess (his own reservations about the referendum notwithstanding).
I think this is a huge part of why Theresa May seemed so popular before the election. Her government looked and felt like a different one to the Cameron-Osborne government, and people were (and still are to an extent) willing to 'give her a chance' to deal with the difficult situation she inherited. She had all the advantages of a new government honeymoon period without having fought an election.
"Theresa May will attempt to seize the initiative on Brexit today by publishing outline legislation on Britain’s post-withdrawal customs and trading relationships with the EU.
The Prime Minister will try to “focus minds” in Brussels by setting out fresh details of the Government’s expectations even before talks on trade have begun.
The aggressive move comes after Mrs May told the EU “the ball is in their court” and is intended to show EU negotiators that Britain is getting on with its preparations for withdrawal at a time when Brussels is stalling over trade talks."
Parent, to Brexiteer: "Don't touch the stove, it's hot"
Brexiteer, after touching stove: "Why didn't you plan for me to burn myself?"
Cameron was captain of the ship and wanted to stay at port, but to ward off mutiny decided to have a vote on whether to sail out onto the stormy Brexit waters in search of a better harbour.
Having lost the vote, he set sail. Cameron then revealed he hadn't brought supplies as he didn't know how long the voyage would take, indeed he forbade the crew from bringing any, and he took a lifeboat back to shore.
How about the Nissan plant in Sunderland as an obvious example. Loads of Japanese parts obviously.
Really?
That seems unlikely
So you seriously think that the Nissan's built in Sunderland have 0 Japanese parts? Last estimate I saw had 80% EU sourced parts, so 20% outside the customs Union.
When a part from Japan arrives do you really think it's stuck in customs for weeks?
This whole argument around customs delays is just ridiculous. 50+% of all our imports are from outside the customs Union. How are they processed?
How do we manage to get fruit and veg in winter from outside the customs Union when they're stuck in customs for weeks waiting for a man a clipboard to check them though.
Comments
I look forward to the "Continent cut off by Brexit" headlines.
It's a small group, I feel, and I'd like to see an independent repetition, but of the following options:
Option C (comprehensive trade deal with favourable arrangements short of Free Movement) was preferred, but if time ran out or it could not be negotiated, then B (Stay in Single Market and use existing controls over Free Movement) was the second choice.
Given some of the comments on here today and yesterday, it does seem that some Leavers find it inconceivable that anyone would not want just sole British citizenship and the UK at the top table for everything, everywhere. It is almost like they have grown up on "Boys Own" novels and Commando war comics.
As it is, it is becoming more obvious that Brexit is not leading to a glorious sunny upland. "Leave" has sold us a dud.
This particular criticism makes absolutely no sense - neither we nor our EU friends can plan even now in any detail, for heaven's sake. How on earth could the civil service have come up with five different detailed plans, all of which would have required input from the EU? The problem wasn't and isn't lack of planning, it's not knowing what we're planning for.
I think that, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a good idea for Cameron to offer civil service help to the Leave campaign. so that they could put together a plan for what they were advocating. However, they probably wouldn't have fallen for that wheeze.
There didn’t appear, round here anyway to be the sort of local organisation that there was in 1975.
The police have said they believe two hate crimes which happened within the last week in County Down, could be linked.
Racist graffiti was daubed on a wall at Seapatrick Avenue, Banbridge, some time between Monday and Tuesday.
It said "EU rats out" along with a swastika. The wall has since been repainted.
In a video on social media, police said it may be linked to an attack last week at nearby Lincoln walk.
A Bulgarian family had the tyres of their car slashed and the word "out" painted on the side of the vehicle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41505935#
Tesco launches bizarre candy cane flavoured crisps in time for Christmas
https://www.standard.co.uk/shopping/esbest/food-drink/tesco-launches-bizarre-candy-cane-flavoured-crisps-in-time-for-christmas-a3653636.html
(B) I think crashing out would cause major economic and political upheaval and a national crisis the like of which has not been seen since 1940. The government of the day, whoever it was, would collapse and whatever new administration came in would be faced with either going on its knees to the EU to ask for a delay or presiding over a precipitate drop in living standards, an exodus of EU workers and a flood of returning retirees from the costas as they lost their free medical care and their pensions evaporated due to the further devaluation in sterling which a hard Brexit would bring. My guess is that in those circumstances a majority of MPs (of all parties) would take the knees option but it is hard to be sure about that.
SLF?
Ok, struggling a bit now.
Civil servants should have been ready the day after the referendum with documents that, for instance, discussed how we need to do a lot of building in Dover for customs checks if we leave customs union, implications of leaving Euratom, or that we need to start negotiating Open Skies Agreements immediately, or a million other things...
Instead they were scrambling after the vote to work out the implications.
I suspect also a document explaining all of the consequences of cutting out the ECJ would have stopped TM making it a red line.
Is it me, or The Donald starting to sound a bit more desperate. I guess the Deep State are not doing his bidding on NK.
John Hume
Lord Trimble
James Galway
Roy Walker
Seamus Heaney
Hurricane Higgins
Frank Carson
Martin O'Neill
Nadine Coyle
Rory McIlroy
James Nesbitt
Liam Neeson
Eddie Irvine
Brian Mawhinney
Brendan Rogers
Mary Peters
Hammond to FCO
BoJo to Party Chairman and Lancaster
That would have been a million miles from their approach and a moment considering it from their perspective makes the idea of any certainty, or scenario-analysis pre-vote as ludicrous as it was.
And that list misses historical people like Annie Maunder, Lord Kelvin and his brother James Thompson and James Burke the science journalist (born in Stroke City)
In neither case were these people honest enough or capable enough of explaining the situation to the general public. So, in the case of Germany, the public sought and identified for itself those who could be held responsible for the climb-down - viz peacefully inclined politicians and no doubt the Jews.
And similarly, they will now blame Liberals and the EU for the consequences of the utter folly and irresponsibility of the likes of Johnson, Gove, Davies, Leadsome and Farage. And the cowardice of Corbyn, of course.
Our being in the Eu is a safeguard for many things we hold dear. We are not at war with them.
"Sheldon, we role-played this"
"Yes, but you didn't role-play her as completely irrational"
In your field for instance - how many politicians knew about the UPC before it made some news in the Daily Express?
Civil servants should have been planning, stopping them from doing so was very irresponsible. When we change governments - we do lots of planning on how to implement manifestos, that's just good governance and it helps the country not to have chaotic transitions.
Which manifesto should they have planned for, given the EU controls most of the levers?
The more often you repeat this, the more ridiculous it gets.
I really think you are underestimating the level of detailed planning that has to happen for Brexit. It should have started way before we got the referendum result.
I imagine most had no idea what Euratom did before it became a thing in the press... I certainly didn't. We had a ludicrous situation where some MPs clearly didn't even know they had voted to leave it. That's just dreadful planning and preparation.
@IanDunt: So we keep on not preparing for the default outcome, because to do so would concede that the default outcome is catastrophic.
Brexiteer, after touching stove: "Why didn't you plan for me to burn myself?"
I voted Remain and would much rather Remain had won.
I'm not getting annoyed with those 'cleaning up the mess' - I'm getting annoyed with the Cameron government who deliberately made us unprepared for what is an enormous policy challenge.
The problem is not that there is no contingency planning, its that there is no political will to commit to any of these options.
PM: "Brexit means Brexit!"
PS: "Right-oh, then"
I wonder how that would have played out, if they had been honest?
Not as good as the LD proposals natch!
That explains a lot.
REMAIN 48%
Its just a shame that Leave made a promise that we could have our cake and eat it.
They said leaving would cause massive economic disruption. They were right.
REMAIN = 16,141,241
Having lost the vote, he set sail. Cameron then revealed he hadn't brought supplies as he didn't know how long the voyage would take, indeed he forbade the crew from bringing any, and he took a lifeboat back to shore.
Not the best metaphor but I gave it a go!
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
Can anyone explain how WTO rules and no customs agreement will not end up with a massive lorry park in Dover and shortages of all sorts of stuff, at least initially?
What Statesmen and women we have elected.
The example I used was one of how a working class family 'done good' could end up with 90% of their assets tied up in their main (and only) home, which they hoped to pass on to or divide between their children to help them on the property ladder.
I think it is these aspirational voters and their offspring who were relying on the inheritance as their only chance of getting on the property ladder who were turned off in droves.
At the same time, the richer, more liberally minded 'natural' Tories saw the chance to give TMay and co a free kicking for playing the awful 'small minded / little Englander' card, because they didn't think Corbyn was in with a hope in hell.
The combination of these factors led to no overall majority, as we all remember. But I was quite vehement about this utterly awful policy at the time, trading out of my Con positions on BF Exchange as soon as the dementia tax story hit. I bought back in a little in the final week due to the London Bridge terror attack - thinking the 'Corbyn and his IRA friends' attack ad would have more resonance than it did. But more fool me.
I have never found this site to be an echo chamber. Which is why I like it.
Including on this very thread.
I asked a Leaver to rebut it, there was silence.
So if I am wrong about WTO it is champagne all round. If you are wrong about WTO then we are about to wallop our economy.
Do you want to guess which of our views carries the lesser risk?
https://twitter.com/OliverNorgrove/status/917304939059253248
The problem is that we are not preparing because we are wasting time pretending there is going to be a deal with the EU. There will be a deal one day, but it cannot happen now, so we need to move on.
That's the issue
I'm just waiting on Theresa and the leadbangers.
We're hoping for the best, but planned for the worst (and for everything else in between)
' Our research shows that the supply chain from this plant spans hundreds of separate companies in 24 different countries.'
I don't think many of us said it would be a disaster, although the probability of it being one is far from trivial, just that the NPV of the various costs would be significant and would result in a diminution in our economic well-being. I thought we had moved on ages ago from whether this was the case and that the issue was whether it was a price worth paying.
That seems unlikely
We're not JIT.
For anyone wanting to escape yet another tedious Brexit thread, a Falcon 9 will take off in ten minutes or so from the US. Watch coverage here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB4N4xF2B2w&feature=youtu.be
Supply chains include both EU nations and WTO nations (eg Japan, US, China etc). They can plan for these eventualities as they deal with them already. And how much is the loss of some 'time efficiency' going to affect the economy? Is it really going to cost more than the 10billion a year we pay for the privilege?
The fact is that larger economies do find it worth their while to spend years creating FTAs
However, the evidence shows that the establishment of the SM had no measurable impact on the level of intra-EU trade and that the countries that have had the most success trading with the EU are pretty much an even mix of EU and WTO nations.
I think this is a huge part of why Theresa May seemed so popular before the election. Her government looked and felt like a different one to the Cameron-Osborne government, and people were (and still are to an extent) willing to 'give her a chance' to deal with the difficult situation she inherited. She had all the advantages of a new government honeymoon period without having fought an election.
No wonder Davis isn't turning up until Thursday
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/09/theresa-may-seizes-brexit-initiative-customs-trade-white-papers/
"Theresa May will attempt to seize the initiative on Brexit today by publishing outline legislation on Britain’s post-withdrawal customs and trading relationships with the EU.
The Prime Minister will try to “focus minds” in Brussels by setting out fresh details of the Government’s expectations even before talks on trade have begun.
The aggressive move comes after Mrs May told the EU “the ball is in their court” and is intended to show EU negotiators that Britain is getting on with its preparations for withdrawal at a time when Brussels is stalling over trade talks."
Last estimate I saw had 80% EU sourced parts, so 20% outside the customs Union.
When a part from Japan arrives do you really think it's stuck in customs for weeks?
This whole argument around customs delays is just ridiculous. 50+% of all our imports are from outside the customs Union.
How are they processed?
How do we manage to get fruit and veg in winter from outside the customs Union when they're stuck in customs for weeks waiting for a man a clipboard to check them though.
via @OpiniumResearch
Latest @OpiniumResearch survey, 04 - 06 Oct.