The lack or otherwise of a plan is down to the government of David Cameron. The CS Would automatically have options worked out unless they were specifically told not to. The only person who could stop them has the initials DC.
as we have seen, if they had come up with any plan it would have been trashed by the Brexiteers as not having sufficient unicorns
Perhaps we are seeing now that David Cameron could have offered the referendum once the Leave campaigns had unanimously agreed a green paper on what Leave should look like. We'd probably still be waiting.
Oh, not this again. Any Leave prospectus would have been completely meaningless since what is achievable depends largely on what the EU are prepared to accommodate. The EU would (presumably) not have agreed to negotiate without Article 50 being invoked (since that is what happened following the referendum), so there was simply no prospect of a meaningful prospectus ever being achieved.
It wouldn't have been meaningless but it would have torpedoed the Leave campaign because it would not have won the support of a majority of voters.
It could never have existed in the first place. It would have required the EU's co-operation, which would not have been forthcoming.
True. The EU could not have co-operated with the free-unicorns offer.
But I'm not staying long - Brexit is exciting in a oh-my-God-it's-a-car-crash-happening-in-slow-motion way, and I've found my productivity has markedly increased in the last couple of weeks.
I even managed to avoid commenting on a thread that mentioned HS2.
Listened to a report on 5 live this morning and the banned subject in the EU is how they deal with the Irish border in a no deal scenario. They do not discuss it with Varadkar as they know that customs checks would have to happen on mainland Europe and Ireland would be effectively a second tier member by default
They seem so confident in taking this to the wire but underneath there is huge disquiet over no deal and they will do anything to stop it
Where "anything" doesn't include canning the backstop.....
Give it time
If they were sensible (planet sized "if"), the EU would make an offer to time-limit the backstop. They don't want us to use it all (they say), so they certainly don't want us to use it indefinitely. So after maybe five years, either side can terminate it on 12 months notice. If 6 years isn't enough to sort out our trading relationship, then we really should just give up and accept WTO terms (but with proper preparations this time).
It gets over the ERG's Hotel California Brexit argument. It also demonstrates that the EU is not going to be acting in bad faith in the Trade Agreement negotaitions (or cuts them off if they try).
It really isn't that difficult.
You would think so? A minor admendment that has now become a proxy for the whole process. It’s akin to the location of the play area on a 200 property planning application. Something that most people wouldn’t even think about.
The uncertainty that no deal creates is difficult to quantify, but even if it all goes as good as it could possibly do, there’s going to be difficulties and delays and contracts cancelled and costs increased. It seems much of the Eurozone is either in recession or heading to it, and our growth is weak and volatile.
The whole continent and us could end up with an economic harm scenario of millions of lost jobs.
EU still not in listening...not brexit, the terrible article 13
After a short hiatus, discussions on the new EU copyright law proposals are moving forward again. France and Germany have reached a deal on which services should be bound to Article 13. Opponents fear that the plan will lead to broad upload filters, but the EU's copyright rapporteur notes that it's necessary to defend copyright holders from large US platforms
Surely a second referendum should be on two types of Leave?
We've already had a run-off between Leave and Remain and Remain was eliminated?
Edit: Its what the man on the Clapham omnibus will think.
Remain is much more popular than any other individual option under consideration. It would be a democratic atrocity to hold a referendum that excluded the most popular option.
EU still not in listening...not brexit, the terrible article 13
After a short hiatus, discussions on the new EU copyright law proposals are moving forward again. France and Germany have reached a deal on which services should be bound to Article 13. Opponents fear that the plan will lead to broad upload filters, but the EU's copyright rapporteur notes that it's necessary to defend copyright holders from large US platforms
A lot of people who think about this sort of stuff seem to think that it will benefit large US platforms the most, as they will be more able to comply with such silly ideas than smaller EU companies.
Mr. Urquhart, from what I've heard it does sound horrendous.
But then, so was the EU's cunning plan to gouge tax from Amazon with the #VATmess, or stopping evil terrorists by harming legitimate booksellers with excessive red tape.
Just logging in to see the wonders of this new Vanilla system, and to give a public service announcement:
If you have a modern car and use electronic locking, always check your doors are locked after pressing the fob.
An acquaintance has just discovered this to his cost - and the company's as a work laptop was stolen.
Sometimes the old-fashioned systems are the best. Convenience is not a friend of security ...
You can't if your car self locks and opens. It has always bothered me. OK it beeps, lights flash and the mirrors go in (well one does the other is broken), but I'm never convinced. I can only check if I leave my keys some distance away.
A good point - we don't have that sort of keyless system on our new car, thank goodness.
My dad was very proud of the one on his new (and very expensive) car until I started to tell him about the problems. He didn't quite believe me - he was sure the new systems *must* be more secure. After all, they're electronic ...
The more modern keyfobs seem to be eminently interceptable too, with ne'er do wells capturing the signal that locked the car as you walked away from it - to come back an hour later to unlock and start the car.
Surely a second referendum should be on two types of Leave?
We've already had a run-off between Leave and Remain and Remain was eliminated?
Edit: Its what the man on the Clapham omnibus will think.
Remain is much more popular than any other individual option under consideration. It would be a democratic atrocity to hold a referendum that excluded the most popular option.
NB The man on the Clapham omnibus voted Remain.
You already had your choice of Remain or Leave and Leave won. The only legitimate question now would be about the form of Leave.
Mr. Meeks, whilst Remain had very many advantages in the referendum, it is worth noting the rather odd decision by Cameron not to have either an independent body or the official Leave campaign outline their preferred arrangements for the UK should we leave.
Maybe he was too confident and thought it was a done-deal. After all, the opinion polls at the time showed a Remain lead. (pretty much all from Jan 2015 to the election when Mr Cameron promised the referendum (to swing UKIP voters - he won the battle but lost the war).
And of course once you start asking the other side what their opinions should be then it would suggest that he wasn't confident of winning. ( I mean at 10.00pm on Referendum night how many people thought the vote would go to Leave?)
Surely a second referendum should be on two types of Leave?
We've already had a run-off between Leave and Remain and Remain was eliminated?
At the moment we have three options:
1) Revoke - This has legal certainty 1) Ratify the deal - This has legal certainty 1) No deal - What is it precisely? To what extent does it tie the hands of the government after exit day?
Another Remainer myth. No Deal has a very clear legal definition. It means that we Leave on the 29th March without a formal Withdrawal Agreement as set out in Article 50. It does not prevent other limited agreements nor does it in any way tie the Government's hands except to prevent the current Withdrawal Agreement being signed off.
Mr. Meeks, whilst Remain had very many advantages in the referendum, it is worth noting the rather odd decision by Cameron not to have either an independent body or the official Leave campaign outline their preferred arrangements for the UK should we leave.
Maybe he was too confident and thought it was a done-deal. After all, the opinion polls at the time showed a Remain lead. (pretty much all from Jan 2015 to the election when Mr Cameron promised the referendum (to swing UKIP voters - he won the battle but lost the war).
And of course once you start asking the other side what their opinions should be then it would suggest that he wasn't confident of winning. ( I mean at 10.00pm on Referendum night how many people thought the vote would go to Leave?)
As I've said many times before, any proposal Cameron came up with for leave would have been showered by ordure by leavers. Which is fair enough, as they wanted to win.
It wasn't Cameron's job or responsibility to do leave's work: that was up to leavers. They chose not to come up with a consistent and workable proposal because they wanted a broad church that would get them over the finish line.
They did this, and they are responsible for the consequences we are seeing. They should man up and take responsibility.
"It wasn't Cameron's job or responsibility to do leave's work: that was up to leavers."
It was the responsibility of the CS, and one they were stopped from doing. It's likely that the Leavers might have complained that the CS was being too pessimistic (as they could well have been) but the line of responsibility is clear. The PM is responsible.
Surely a second referendum should be on two types of Leave?
We've already had a run-off between Leave and Remain and Remain was eliminated?
Edit: Its what the man on the Clapham omnibus will think.
Remain is much more popular than any other individual option under consideration. It would be a democratic atrocity to hold a referendum that excluded the most popular option.
NB The man on the Clapham omnibus voted Remain.
You already had your choice of Remain or Leave and Leave won. The only legitimate question now would be about the form of Leave.
Continuing to repeat this nonsense makes it no less untrue
"It wasn't Cameron's job or responsibility to do leave's work: that was up to leavers."
It was the responsibility of the CS, and one they were stopped from doing. It's likely that the Leavers might have complained that the CS was being too pessimistic (as they could well have been) but the line of responsibility is clear. The PM is responsible.
I disagree. Cameron didn't want to Brexit, and argued against it. If the government had come up with a proposal, then leave would have to have argued against it, as it would have disappointed one or more strands of Brexit. They wanted to win - and Cameron would just have been giving them ammunition.
The responsibility lies with those who spent decades screeching for a referendum and then failed to tell the public exactly what Brexit meant.
It was the massive central lie behind Brexit (as I said at the time), and the direct cause of this mess.
Surely a second referendum should be on two types of Leave?
We've already had a run-off between Leave and Remain and Remain was eliminated?
Edit: Its what the man on the Clapham omnibus will think.
Remain is much more popular than any other individual option under consideration. It would be a democratic atrocity to hold a referendum that excluded the most popular option.
NB The man on the Clapham omnibus voted Remain.
You already had your choice of Remain or Leave and Leave won. The only legitimate question now would be about the form of Leave.
Continuing to repeat this nonsense makes it no less untrue
Of course it is true. I know you are one of those who only likes democracy when you are winning but as has been pointed out many times before asking a question and then failing to act on the result is not democratic. You should just be honest enough to admit your disdain for democracy.
I always have a wry smile when I hear the "Leavers did no work and did not have a clue what they wanted argument."
Well here is a detailed analysis of the UK's relationship with the EU and detailed analysis of how to move forward and the deal the UK should negotiate from the leavers. It concluded a British Option is best.
The boss of this organisation then went on to head Vote Leave and this British option was distilled down to "our own deal based on free trade."
One of the simple reasons that remain lost was they had done very little to no prep, did not know why people may support being in the EU, why staying in the EU would be good for the future, etc.
Basically a vacuous campaign with the message of "The EU is good" met a bunch of hard nosed professionals, very well prepared over a number of years who were determined to win.
Remember the scenes with Craig Oliver in the C4 doc, when he was berating the focus group for not understanding how good his messages were or the other scene where he admits Cummings is mullerring them.
Amateurs versus professionals, only ever one result.
I agree Cameron was determined to win which is why he took active steps to prevent the CS doing its job.
Harold Wilson, at least, had the good grace to step to one side. You can call it statesmanlike or you could call it canny.
Any unilateral plan by Leave in 2016 would have been picked on as being 'wildly optimistic' and 'the work of amateurs' by the CS whatever it was. Had the CS done its job, one of those criticisms would have been invalid and leave options could have received publicity.
I missed out the fact that a non-CS plan would have been widely ignored too.
Leave would have used it as a massive thing to argue against.
Brexiteers wanted to win. To do that, they had to build a big church, as it's fairly safe to say as no single option had full support - and with their broad church they only scraped over the line. Therefore they had to try to attract out-and-out racists, free marketeers, the disgruntled, and the EEAers - and all the intersections thereof.
Accepting a single plan would have prevented that broad church from coalescing, and would therefore would have to be destroyed. They needed leave to appear everything to all people.
And that was the central lie. Such a plan would have been ammunition: "Look, they're not serious in addressing concerns a,b or c!"
And if Cameron and the CS had come up with a plan, there's no reason why the EU would (or should) have accepted it, so we would have gone through this entire mess anyway.
Surely a second referendum should be on two types of Leave?
We've already had a run-off between Leave and Remain and Remain was eliminated?
Edit: Its what the man on the Clapham omnibus will think.
Remain is much more popular than any other individual option under consideration. It would be a democratic atrocity to hold a referendum that excluded the most popular option.
NB The man on the Clapham omnibus voted Remain.
The man on the Clapham omnibus certainly voted Remain.
But, Clapham is very unrepresentative of the country as a whole these days. Arguably, so are bus users too, and those who used them in London would be a rather different demographic than those who, say, used them in Derbyshire.
Surely a second referendum should be on two types of Leave?
We've already had a run-off between Leave and Remain and Remain was eliminated?
Edit: Its what the man on the Clapham omnibus will think.
Remain is much more popular than any other individual option under consideration. It would be a democratic atrocity to hold a referendum that excluded the most popular option.
NB The man on the Clapham omnibus voted Remain.
You already had your choice of Remain or Leave and Leave won. The only legitimate question now would be about the form of Leave.
Continuing to repeat this nonsense makes it no less untrue
Isn't it a case of "We have decided who we are, we are merely haggling over the price".
Comments
But I'm not staying long - Brexit is exciting in a oh-my-God-it's-a-car-crash-happening-in-slow-motion way, and I've found my productivity has markedly increased in the last couple of weeks.
I even managed to avoid commenting on a thread that mentioned HS2.
I can close out on the Ref at a nice profit and I think I will.
The JC position, though, I am stuck with for now.
The uncertainty that no deal creates is difficult to quantify, but even if it all goes as good as it could possibly do, there’s going to be difficulties and delays and contracts cancelled and costs increased. It seems much of the Eurozone is either in recession or heading to it, and our growth is weak and volatile.
The whole continent and us could end up with an economic harm scenario of millions of lost jobs.
After a short hiatus, discussions on the new EU copyright law proposals are moving forward again. France and Germany have reached a deal on which services should be bound to Article 13. Opponents fear that the plan will lead to broad upload filters, but the EU's copyright rapporteur notes that it's necessary to defend copyright holders from large US platforms
NB The man on the Clapham omnibus voted Remain.
But then, so was the EU's cunning plan to gouge tax from Amazon with the #VATmess, or stopping evil terrorists by harming legitimate booksellers with excessive red tape.
But No Deal is also a unicorn. As is the EU caving on the backstop. Absolute most will be a 5 year sunshine clause.
Leaving 2 things that are not unicorns -
- she gets the deal through.
- if she can't she calls a GE.
And JC is highly relevant to her calculations, of course he is.
And of course once you start asking the other side what their opinions should be then it would suggest that he wasn't confident of winning. ( I mean at 10.00pm on Referendum night how many people thought the vote would go to Leave?)
The other day you told me you had 'no clue' what her last resort move would be if at the end of the day she couldn't get her deal through.
But, OK, a GE is now ruled out, so IYO what will it be -
Revoke?
Referendum?
Adopt Labour BINO?
Has to be one of those, surely?
It wasn't Cameron's job or responsibility to do leave's work: that was up to leavers. They chose not to come up with a consistent and workable proposal because they wanted a broad church that would get them over the finish line.
They did this, and they are responsible for the consequences we are seeing. They should man up and take responsibility.
"It wasn't Cameron's job or responsibility to do leave's work: that was up to leavers."
It was the responsibility of the CS, and one they were stopped from doing. It's likely that the Leavers might have complained that the CS was being too pessimistic (as they could well have been) but the line of responsibility is clear. The PM is responsible.
And I think it will.
I also think the deal will eventually pass if for no other reason than the no-deal option has been thoroughly project-feared.
The EU will remain in control with the WA, and delay is always their friend.
The responsibility lies with those who spent decades screeching for a referendum and then failed to tell the public exactly what Brexit meant.
It was the massive central lie behind Brexit (as I said at the time), and the direct cause of this mess.
Well here is a detailed analysis of the UK's relationship with the EU and detailed analysis of how to move forward and the deal the UK should negotiate from the leavers. It concluded a British Option is best.
https://brexitcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ChangeorGo.pdf
The boss of this organisation then went on to head Vote Leave and this British option was distilled down to "our own deal based on free trade."
One of the simple reasons that remain lost was they had done very little to no prep, did not know why people may support being in the EU, why staying in the EU would be good for the future, etc.
Basically a vacuous campaign with the message of "The EU is good" met a bunch of hard nosed professionals, very well prepared over a number of years who were determined to win.
Remember the scenes with Craig Oliver in the C4 doc, when he was berating the focus group for not understanding how good his messages were or the other scene where he admits Cummings is mullerring them.
Amateurs versus professionals, only ever one result.
I agree Cameron was determined to win which is why he took active steps to prevent the CS doing its job.
Harold Wilson, at least, had the good grace to step to one side. You can call it statesmanlike or you could call it canny.
Any unilateral plan by Leave in 2016 would have been picked on as being 'wildly optimistic' and 'the work of amateurs' by the CS whatever it was. Had the CS done its job, one of those criticisms would have been invalid and leave options could have received publicity.
I missed out the fact that a non-CS plan would have been widely ignored too.
Brexiteers wanted to win. To do that, they had to build a big church, as it's fairly safe to say as no single option had full support - and with their broad church they only scraped over the line. Therefore they had to try to attract out-and-out racists, free marketeers, the disgruntled, and the EEAers - and all the intersections thereof.
Accepting a single plan would have prevented that broad church from coalescing, and would therefore would have to be destroyed. They needed leave to appear everything to all people.
And that was the central lie. Such a plan would have been ammunition: "Look, they're not serious in addressing concerns a,b or c!"
And if Cameron and the CS had come up with a plan, there's no reason why the EU would (or should) have accepted it, so we would have gone through this entire mess anyway.
Mr. 4u, the solar death ray was what I had in mind.
But, Clapham is very unrepresentative of the country as a whole these days. Arguably, so are bus users too, and those who used them in London would be a rather different demographic than those who, say, used them in Derbyshire.
"Look, they're trying to put roadblocks against us leaving! It's all a stitch-up! Don't trust 'em!"
etc,etc. Especially by the unofficial leave side.
And worse: it would have been pointless because there is no guarantee - or indeed probability - that the Eu would have accepted it.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/2193800#Comment_2193800Both, aiui. It is amendable.