Heading for the Precipice? According to the Observor....

[Varky]

The world according to HIC, Jim, The Guardian, The Observer...........We're all doomed, to quote the undertaker in Dad's Army.

Look, get over it. All your griping is a waste of breath. Brexit is going to happen. All you are doing is possibly giving yourself the ability, in 2 or so years the right to bore all your friends and family with the argument that 'I told you so'.

[Jim B]

It's not over till the fat lady sings.

The other Jim

[Firefly]

OMG pass the suicide pills, I didn't get past the first paragraph. Just another editor selling newspapers !

Jackie

[Jimgward]

The world according to HIC, Jim, The Guardian, The Observer...........We're all doomed, to quote the undertaker in Dad's Army.

Look, get over it. All your griping is a waste of breath. Brexit is going to happen. All you are doing is possibly giving yourself the ability, in 2 or so years the right to bore all your friends and family with the argument that 'I told you so'.

I totally accept Brexit is happening, but why should anyone accept they shouldn't disagree with how something is being orchestrated?

I see plenty of posts on here spouting thoughts on all sorts...

If no-one challenges May on policies, we would have all workers rights rescinded, no minimum wage, zero-hour contracts everywhere and no Equality provision. We already see how her Government has screwed up over NI, bedroom tax and much more...

In the UK, we failed to prosecute a single financial services employee or institution over the collapse in the late 2000's.... Look at Iceland. Bankers were jailed and eventually everyone has been repaid and the country is thriving. If no-one complains, we will be 'shagged through oor troosers" as Billy Connelly once said.

[cyprusgrump]

If no-one challenges May on policies, we would have all workers rights rescinded, no minimum wage, zero-hour contracts everywhere and no Equality provision. We already see how her Government has screwed up over NI, bedroom tax and much more...

Where do you remainers get all this from...?

rogertcb seriously claimed the other day that we'd be sending children up chimneys post Brexit!

There are 196 countries in the world. Many, many of the 168 (soon to be 169) that aren't in the EU have all the things that we are constantly told by remainers that we would lose by leaving the union - workers rights, equality, health and safety, clean drinking and bathing water...

Why would that be true?

[smudger]

It's simple Grump, our old friend assumption.

Have to say though that even I find it difficult to find a connection between Brexit and the rescinding of workers rights (seriously????), no minimum wage (what!!!), zero hours contracts all over the place (do you have any idea just how many people want zero hours contracts?? Or how e.g. a supplier of care workers fund their wages if the client goes into hospital, and the LEA funding stops immediately??) No equality?? Where have you been for the last 30 years? Equality is enshrined in EU law, and so will equally be enshrined in UK Law when the Great Repeal Bill passes. Do you truly imagine there is a single MP who would vote against that! How ridiculous!! H & S?? Drinking water, bathing water??? In case you hadn't noticed the UK has moved on since Charles Kingsley!!!

Come on JimG, get real, stop trying to suggest that the government would even think of repealing any of this law. Words fail me on your comments on NI and bedroom tax.

Jim, you're living in the unionista past, come into the real world and face reality instead of Union dogma.

Did you used to be a teacher, or am I mixing you up with someone else?

[Varky]

I totally accept Brexit is happening, but why should anyone accept they shouldn't disagree with how something is being orchestrated?

I see plenty of posts on here spouting thoughts on all sorts...

If no-one challenges May on policies, we would have all workers rights rescinded, no minimum wage, zero-hour contracts everywhere and no Equality provision. We already see how her Government has screwed up over NI, bedroom tax and much more...

In the UK, we failed to prosecute a single financial services employee or institution over the collapse in the late 2000's.... Look at Iceland. Bankers were jailed and eventually everyone has been repaid and the country is thriving. If no-one complains, we will be 'shagged through oor troosers" as Billy Connelly once said.

I can go along with all and any comments that are intended to ensure the best outcome for the British people as a whole during this period of uncertainty but many comments appear to be under the impression that the Brexit referendum is about to be re-run and are trying to change people's way of voting. That race has been run.

[josef k]

The plain fact is that the referendum question was very simplistic. Do you want in or out? There was no information on what "out" would look like, and no opportunity for people to put in riders or "red lines". This gives the government carte blanche to do what they want, as long as the UK ends up out of the EU.

I note that some people on here are suggesting we just let the government get on with it, what ever that means. Would we take this approach with any other subject the government deals with? I don't think we would. I think people would lobby, write to the papers, perhaps even demonstrate, to get their views on the subject across.

Yes, the majority voted to leave the EU, but I don't think that means we have to keep silent regarding our worries and concerns.

[Pete G]

I don't know of anyone who voted to leave, or even generally support leave, are saying that remainders should just shut up, just that they should restrict their protests to the usual methods of political discourse, as those of us who opposed joining the EEC have been doing for the last 40 years or so. When the UK finally ceded overall UK sovereignty to the EU at Maastricht, all we did was say 'see we told you so, all those assurances we received in 1975 about EEC membership not effecting sovereignty were exactly the lies we said they were, now the real trouble is going to start'. No engineering of a constitutional crisis, no expensive legal challenges committing HMG to massive pointless expenditure in an attempt to poison the well, and certainly no 'NO' politicians gleefully appearing on TV to reveal that their political manoeuvrings are deliberate spoilers simply dressed as democratic objections as they would rather see the attempt of the UK to be successfully independent fail, with all the financial fallback that would entail, rather than that they should be proved wrong.

So, please, keep up the political discourse, but try and make sure that that is what it is.

Simply saying that people who voted for leave are low-information [middle class code for 'stupid'] bigots, xenophobes and racists isn't an argument for example, especially as no one [as far as I'm aware] has rationally explained why those accusations of racism, even of the most incendiary 'leave' material, is valid by any reasonable definition of the word. In fact the only truly racist comments seem to be coming from the other side, especially the 'we need to import people from poor [and therefore presumably BAME] countries to do the poorly paid jobs that the [predominantly white] population consider [quite appropriately, apparently] beneath their dignity to do. How do you get a statement more racist than that?

The advantages of being in the EU model of a single market/customs union are a completely valid argument, but you can't just assert it and expect leavers to simply fold and give up without some empirical data to back it up. If it is not possible to have access to the free market without accepting the EU four pillars, then how come in 2016 The Ukraine and Macedonia did exactly that? If it is not possible to trade with the EU without a trade agreement that why have China, Canada, the US, India etc., etc., all managed it perfectly well since Maastricht? If moving from a free market to standard WTO rules is such a disaster, then how come the Ukraine moving the other way was a complete disaster for them, tripling their trading deficit? How do you know the reverse for the UK wouldn't have exactly the reverse effect? If the EU is the only mechanic for the UK to make trade deals with major EU partners, then how come the EU has completely failed in every attempt to make any trade agreement with anyone, whilst all of the other major players, acting as independent operators have made and modified multiple trade agreements? If you are so keen on the people having full visibility of trade agreements as the only valid way to progress, how come we heard nothing when the EC gleefully informed EU citizens that the details of TTIP were secret, none of our business, and any MEP who revealed the details would be removed from the chamber? Where was your outrage then?

You see, a whole host of issues we definitely don't want you to shut up about, but all of this simple assertion stuff is going to be treated [quite rightly] with the same respect as the 'immediate recession after a brexit vote' one was.

And as for the 'argument' made on Saturday by middle class metropolitan remoaners on the demonstation, that their petulant rantings made a suitable replacement for a memorial to a brave man who sacrificed his life to save others from the effects of exactly the same multicultural 'tolerance' they are advocating, then I personally find that 'argument' beneath contempt and yes, they should definitely just 'shut up'

[Jimgward]

Pete G, a good, eloquent post... I disagree with much of it, but it is well thought and useful....

Last evening, at 8:30pm UK, the BBC ran a special Question Time on Brexit.

The panel were;

David Davis(Con) , Sir Keir Starmer (Lab), Nick Clegg (LD), Alex Salmond (SNP), Suzanne Evans ( journo associated with UKIP ) and Melanie Phillips (Times)

It was supposedly a balanced panel, although I count 4 Brexiteers and 2 retainers.....

However, I found some of the debate very interesting. David Davis speaks well and if he was left to run Brexit, I'm sure most would feel more secure, rather than interference from May's hardline stance. I thought Nick Clegg was excellent, although I disagree with his stance on another Referendum, as the decision has been made and we are leaving.... I though Salmond was excellent. Phillips is boring.... Evans was ok for a UKIP person, but her arguments poor. Starmer was poor and didn't do himself or the labour party any favours.

The audience seemed well split and some good discussions.

I thought the most overriding support came for Salmond's assertion that we need to take the EU residents in Britain out of the equation, not use them as bargaining chips and come out and state that their jobs, pensions and future is secure.

It is apparent that the stance of "No deal is better than a poor deal" is too hard line.... (see below)

[Jimgward]

Telegraph Article they Morning;

Brexit: Theresa May is backing away from threat to leave EU with 'no deal', believe European diplomats

'They have realised that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' won't fly. The civil service has told them it would create havoc'

Theresa May is backing away from her threat to crash out of the EU with ‘no deal’ as she realises the huge economic damage it would cause, EU diplomats believe.

The Government now realises the hardline stance went too far by bolstering the confidence of Brexit supporters with the “intention of creating chaos”, they say.

In private, British officials are ready to discuss the UK remaining in the EU’s customs union as part of a transitional arrangement, one told the BBC.

Allowing the European Court of Justice some sway over British law and high immigration – despite Ms May’s supposed ‘red lines’ on the issues – are also said to be on the table.

A Government spokesman told the BBC it “did not recognise” the claims being made by the EU diplomats, who are based in this country.

But there is speculation that the Article 50 letter – to be delivered in Brussels tomorrow – will not repeat Ms May’s warning that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal”.

It was issued in January, winning loud cheers from many Conservative MPs and the Tory press, apparently setting Britain on course for a ‘hard Brexit’.

But EU diplomats believe it lacks credibility, because of the huge costs likely to be imposed on the British economy if no agreement – even a transitional one – is reached.

Under World Trade Organisation rules, firms would face tariffs on most goods and more ‘red tape’, if the EU refuses to recognise the UK’s regulatory standards.

“They have realised that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' won't fly,” one diplomat told the BBC.

“They are worried about people in this country who have an ideological and political intention of creating chaos. The civil service has told them it would create havoc.”

The number of customs checks on goods would soar from 17m each year to 350m, he pointed out.

Another diplomat added: “The British do realise that [immigration curbs] are a bad idea for British society and economy. They will focus more on control and not quantitative limits.”

Earlier this month, Brexit Secretary David Davis stunned MPs by admitting the Government has done no economic assessment of crashing out of the EU with ‘no deal’.

But Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s lead Brexit negotiator, has warned that leaving with no agreed trading arrangements would “undoubtedly leave the UK worse off”.

“Severe disruption to air transport and long queues at the Channel port of Dover are just some of the many examples of the negative consequences of failing to reach a deal,” he wrote this week.

“Others include the disruption of supply chains, including the suspension of the delivery of nuclear material to the UK.”

This week, the manufacturers' lobbying organisation, EEF, urged the PM to drop her no deal, describing it as a “risky and expensive blow”.

Meanwhile, the former head of the Foreign Office has ridiculed the Prime Minister’s hopes of reaching a comprehensive trade deal within the two years of the Article 50 talks.

Sir Simon Fraser said “transitional arrangements” would be necessary, adding: “It's certain that we won't have resolved everything in the period before the expiry of the Article 50 process.”

[cyprusgrump]

Pete G, a good, eloquent post... I disagree with much of it, but it is well thought and useful....

Last evening, at 8:30pm UK, the BBC ran a special Question Time on Brexit.

The panel were;

David Davis(Con) , Sir Keir Starmer (Lab), Nick Clegg (LD), Alex Salmond (SNP), Suzanne Evans ( journo associated with UKIP ) and Melanie Phillips (Times)

It was supposedly a balanced panel, although I count 4 Brexiteers and 2 retainers.....

However, I found some of the debate very interesting. David Davis speaks well and if he was left to run Brexit, I'm sure most would feel more secure, rather than interference from May's hardline stance. I thought Nick Clegg was excellent, although I disagree with his stance on another Referendum, as the decision has been made and we are leaving.... I though Salmond was excellent. Phillips is boring.... Evans was ok for a UKIP person, but her arguments poor. Starmer was poor and didn't do himself or the labour party any favours.

The audience seemed well split and some good discussions.

I thought the most overriding support came for Salmond's assertion that we need to take the EU residents in Britain out of the equation, not use them as bargaining chips and come out and state that their jobs, pensions and future is secure.

It is apparent that the stance of "No deal is better than a poor deal" is too hard line.... (see below)

It was of course the EU that turned down an early, bilateral deal on expats.

[Jimgward]

Pete G, a good, eloquent post... I disagree with much of it, but it is well thought and useful....

Last evening, at 8:30pm UK, the BBC ran a special Question Time on Brexit.

The panel were;

David Davis(Con) , Sir Keir Starmer (Lab), Nick Clegg (LD), Alex Salmond (SNP), Suzanne Evans ( journo associated with UKIP ) and Melanie Phillips (Times)

It was supposedly a balanced panel, although I count 4 Brexiteers and 2 retainers.....

However, I found some of the debate very interesting. David Davis speaks well and if he was left to run Brexit, I'm sure most would feel more secure, rather than interference from May's hardline stance. I thought Nick Clegg was excellent, although I disagree with his stance on another Referendum, as the decision has been made and we are leaving.... I though Salmond was excellent. Phillips is boring.... Evans was ok for a UKIP person, but her arguments poor. Starmer was poor and didn't do himself or the labour party any favours.

The audience seemed well split and some good discussions.

I thought the most overriding support came for Salmond's assertion that we need to take the EU residents in Britain out of the equation, not use them as bargaining chips and come out and state that their jobs, pensions and future is secure.

It is apparent that the stance of "No deal is better than a poor deal" is too hard line.... (see below)

It was of course the EU that turned down an early, bilateral deal on expats.

Yes, but the point made, was that we should rise above that and make the statement. Davis almost did, but he hasn't the power.... Britain 100% needs the EU immigrants currently there, in vital NHS jobs and elsewhere. Our economy would be shot if they all left and as stated, the number of EU nurses currently coming to Britain is down 75% because of uncertainty. That can't wait for prevarication.

[cyprusgrump]

Pete G, a good, eloquent post... I disagree with much of it, but it is well thought and useful....

Last evening, at 8:30pm UK, the BBC ran a special Question Time on Brexit.

The panel were;

David Davis(Con) , Sir Keir Starmer (Lab), Nick Clegg (LD), Alex Salmond (SNP), Suzanne Evans ( journo associated with UKIP ) and Melanie Phillips (Times)

It was supposedly a balanced panel, although I count 4 Brexiteers and 2 retainers.....

However, I found some of the debate very interesting. David Davis speaks well and if he was left to run Brexit, I'm sure most would feel more secure, rather than interference from May's hardline stance. I thought Nick Clegg was excellent, although I disagree with his stance on another Referendum, as the decision has been made and we are leaving.... I though Salmond was excellent. Phillips is boring.... Evans was ok for a UKIP person, but her arguments poor. Starmer was poor and didn't do himself or the labour party any favours.

The audience seemed well split and some good discussions.

I thought the most overriding support came for Salmond's assertion that we need to take the EU residents in Britain out of the equation, not use them as bargaining chips and come out and state that their jobs, pensions and future is secure.

It is apparent that the stance of "No deal is better than a poor deal" is too hard line.... (see below)

It was of course the EU that turned down an early, bilateral deal on expats.

Yes, but the point made, was that we should rise above that and make the statement. Davis almost did, but he hasn't the power.... Britain 100% needs the EU immigrants currently there, in vital NHS jobs and elsewhere. Our economy would be shot if they all left and as stated, the number of EU nurses currently coming to Britain is down 75% because of uncertainty. That can't wait for prevarication.

A bilateral deal was on the table and the EU refused it.

Faced with intransigence from the EU the best negotiating position is clearly not to say, 'your 3M migrants can stay in the UK and we'll worry about our 1M in the EU later'...

[Jimgward]

Sorry, Grump, but you're wrong. We need the 3m to be secure, more than we need the 1m to be secure.... the 1m are largely self-funding in countries where they would not be excluded. We are losing EU migrants and not attracting enough others.... Our NHS is suffering badly as a result.

Sometimes, one needs to take the initiative, otherwise stalemate occurs.

You want them as a bargaining chip. The audience last night, pretty representative, whole heartily disagree with you.

[cyprusgrump]

Sorry, Grump, but you're wrong. We need the 3m to be secure, more than we need the 1m to be secure.... the 1m are largely self-funding in countries where they would not be excluded. We are losing EU migrants and not attracting enough others.... Our NHS is suffering badly as a result.

Sometimes, one needs to take the initiative, otherwise stalemate occurs.

You want them as a bargaining chip. The audience last night, pretty representative, whole heartily disagree with you.

Given the strong language, the intransigence and the desire to 'punish' the UK for Brexit which is coming from the EU, I think most expats would be somewhat disappointed by a unilateral deal that excluded them.

The stalemate will only occur due to the negotiating stance of the EU - the UK has already offered a bilateral deal which they refused. It is the EU not the UK who 'wants them as a bargaining chip'.

[Jimgym]

pete G that is an excellent post, the best I have read on here, ever. Many thanks for taking the time to compose and post it.

[Mark]

If there is no deal, then all the pensioner expats, who cannot afford to live in the UK, will have to return.
They May have to take up the jobs that the indigenous population apparently will not do, picking tattles etc.
Unfortunately most cannot return, as the housing stock is depleted thanks to immigration, there is no room at the Inn.
No reciprocal deal will cause chaos.

[Jimgward]

If there is no deal, then all the pensioner expats, who cannot afford to live in the UK, will have to return.
They May have to take up the jobs that the indigenous population apparently will not do, picking tattles etc.
Unfortunately most cannot return, as the housing stock is depleted thanks to immigration, there is no room at the Inn.
No reciprocal deal will cause chaos.

Then let the expats who vote Remain return with a fat bonus....

bitey-bitey HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jimgward]

Sorry, Grump, but you're wrong. We need the 3m to be secure, more than we need the 1m to be secure.... the 1m are largely self-funding in countries where they would not be excluded. We are losing EU migrants and not attracting enough others.... Our NHS is suffering badly as a result.

Sometimes, one needs to take the initiative, otherwise stalemate occurs.

You want them as a bargaining chip. The audience last night, pretty representative, whole heartily disagree with you.

Given the strong language, the intransigence and the desire to 'punish' the UK for Brexit which is coming from the EU, I think most expats would be somewhat disappointed by a unilateral deal that excluded them.

The stalemate will only occur due to the negotiating stance of the EU - the UK has already offered a bilateral deal which they refused. It is the EU not the UK who 'wants them as a bargaining chip'.

Negotiators know, when stalemate is occurring, or no movement, sometimes you have to concede something to get trust back.... this would be ideal....

It could also be tinged with "and I'm sure the EU will reciprocate with protection for UK citizens in the EU...." - to put pressure on....