Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Voll Blau]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

Okay - I'll blame the BBC for that info that they are alleging is only an hour old!

Sorry, I thought you were on about the ordinary selling rate to average punters. They're probably right about the actual rate.

[Rincewind]

interesting piece from The New Statesman which I believe will be an acceptable source. Written by two university professor. To me the findings seem obvious and I have said the same many times and told I was wrong.

First post for a while. Enjoy as I do not know when I shall post again.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/10/broadcasters-were-biased-during-eu-referendum-campaign-not-way-you-think

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

interesting piece from The New Statesman which I believe will be an acceptable source. Written by two university professor. To me the findings seem obvious and I have said the same many times and told I was wrong.

First post for a while. Enjoy as I do not know when I shall post again.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/10/broadcasters-were-biased-during-eu-referendum-campaign-not-way-you-think

It doesn't say why most of the spokesmen were conservative. It seemed to me that the TV people wanted blue on blue in fighting and the other parties were happy to let them. As the conservatives were both for and against I don't see how it gives them any electoral advantage.

[Rincewind]

the reply I expected

[Guest MattP]

The conspiracy theories from the Corbynistas are getting nuttier by the week.

[davieG]

The problem wasn't  who was  saying things and who they represented  the problems was,  and it was a massive one was what they were and weren't  telling us. Politicians views on Brexit was stronger in most cases then their party political allegiance. 

[Webbo]

14 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

the reply I expected

Enlighten us then Ken, what do you think it proves and what are the implications?

[Rincewind]

10 minutes ago, davieG said:

The problem wasn't  who was  saying things and who they represented  the problems was,  and it was a massive one was what they were and weren't  telling us. Politicians views on Brexit was stronger in most cases then their party political allegiance. 

 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

 

The reply I expected.

[bovril]

6 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

 

Finally a post in this thread I can understand.

[Guest MattP]

16 hours ago, Rincewind said:

interesting piece from The New Statesman which I believe will be an acceptable source. Written by two university professor. To me the findings seem obvious and I have said the same many times and told I was wrong.

First post for a while. Enjoy as I do not know when I shall post again.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/10/broadcasters-were-biased-during-eu-referendum-campaign-not-way-you-think

 

15 hours ago, Rincewind said:

the reply I expected

 

14 hours ago, Rincewind said:

 

I enjoyed the next two posts more.

[davieG]

Labour has renewed pressure on ministers to set out their Brexit strategy to MPs before formal negotiations begin.

Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said Labour would stage a Commons vote on Wednesday on a motion calling for "proper scrutiny".

Ahead of the debate, it asked Brexit Minister David Davis 170 questions, including on trade and migration.

The Conservatives said there would be "no running commentary" on their plans.

The government has faced calls to set out more detail on what it wants Brexit to look like, with little known so far about its plans for migration and trade with the EU.

Labour's 170 questions - one for each day before the end of March, the government's self-imposed deadline for triggering formal exit talks - come from the new shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, and Ms Thornberry.

[Guest MattP]

Can anyone explain to me why it was absolutely fine for the Prime Minister/Government just ten months ago to ignore all of parliament when setting out the terms that we were going to stay in the European Union on, but now it's not OK for the Prime Minister/Government ten months later to set out the terms of our exit?

[Strokes]

Can anyone explain to me why labour are demanding to know the governments postion on brexit, without making their own position clear?

[davieG]

The pound has recovered some of its losses after Prime Minister Theresa May agreed to a Commons debate on the Brexit process.

The pound was trading 1% higher against the dollar at close to $1.23.

Sterling has been sliding since Mrs May announced on 2 October that the formal Brexit negotiation process would start by the end of March 2017.

Traders sold the pound, fearing the effects of a UK exit from the single market.

However, MPs have been demanding to scrutinise the plan to leave the European Union before that date, and on Wednesday the government agreed there should be a "full and transparent debate".

But it added that the process should not "undermine" the government's negotiating position.

"It's not a formal vote on the issue, but it's better than nothing, and has momentarily put to bed the fears of a hard exit from the EU," said Connor Campbell, financial analyst at SpreadEx.

"The pound may have, potentially, just about found its bottom this Wednesday morning," he added.'

But other analysts warned of further volatility ahead.

"It would appear that trying to find a floor for the pound is going to be difficult in the short term, simply due to the amount of political uncertainty being generated on both sides of the Channel, as both sides dance on the edge of the volcano, in laying out their negotiating positions, which for now appear a long way apart," said Michael Hewson, chief market analyst at CMC Markets.

Neil Wilson, markets analyst at ETX Capital said: "If traders think the mood is turning bullish for the pound, they're mistaken. The bears are still very much in control and this relief rally looks like a dead cat bounce. It could just be a short pause before sterling takes another leg lower towards $1.20."

 

Share this story About sharing

[Jon the Hat]

The job of the opposition is to hold the Government to account.  No issue with that, (even if Thornberry sounds like she thinks everyone in Government is an idiot), however they seem to think because the terms of negotiation will be public once we get there, that we should publicly discuss the negotiation strategy now and along the way.  Sounds like a daft idea to me.  This is a major political and commercial negotiation; maybe the largest ever for the UK, for gods sake lets keep some cards in our pocket.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The job of the opposition is to hold the Government to account.  No issue with that, (even if Thornberry sounds like she thinks everyone in Government is an idiot), however they seem to think because the terms of negotiation will be public once we get there, that we should publicly discuss the negotiation strategy now and along the way.  Sounds like a daft idea to me.  This is a major political and commercial negotiation; maybe the largest ever for the UK, for gods sake lets keep some cards in our pocket.

If the powers that be thought the vote on leaving the EU should be transparent and public, and trusted the public for it to be so, then the minutiae of the mechanics of leaving should be equally open and transparent to the public. 

 

If they don't trust the public with that information, they shouldn't have made the vote public.

 

Edit: no, I'm not trying to see how many times I can get the word "public" in one post.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

If the powers that be thought the vote on leaving the EU should be transparent and public, and trusted the public for it to be so, then the minutiae of the mechanics of leaving should be equally open and transparent to the public. 

 

If they don't trust the public with that information, they shouldn't have made the vote public.

 

Edit: no, I'm not trying to see how many times I can get the word "public" in one post.

Even if making those points public undermines our negotiation, resulting in a worse outcome for Britain?

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Even if making those points public undermines our negotiation, resulting in a worse outcome for Britain?

Yes. They made the decision to make this a plebiscite and take the public into their confidence for the duration, they live with the consequences, whatever they are.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If the powers that be thought the vote on leaving the EU should be transparent and public, and trusted the public for it to be so, then the minutiae of the mechanics of leaving should be equally open and transparent to the public. 

 

If they don't trust the public with that information, they shouldn't have made the vote public.

 

Edit: no, I'm not trying to see how many times I can get the word "public" in one post.

Why weren't the negotiations to try and make us stay in the European Union made transparent and public and why didn't you call for it be so?

 

Also, why did no one on your side not tell us you were going to demand this, and why did a lot of people on your side make it clear during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU meant we would leave the single market, only to demand now after a leave vote that you want parliamentary debates to try and avoid us leaving the single market?

[Jon the Hat]

59 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yes. They made the decision to make this a plebiscite and take the public into their confidence for the duration, they live with the consequences, whatever they are.

Who is they?  And when did they decide to do this?  If I recall there was a pretty clear question on the voting form, and it didn't say "Leave, but consult me every step of the way, or at least in the form of a parliamentary vote in which my elected representative can represent my views on any subsequent negotiations on what form that leaving of the EU might take".  Its possible I wasn't reading the small print.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why weren't the negotiations to try and make us stay in the European Union made transparent and public and why didn't you call for it be so?

 

Also, why did no one on your side not tell us you were going to demand this, and why did a lot of people on your side make it clear during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU meant we would leave the single market, only to demand now after a leave vote that you want parliamentary debates to try and avoid us leaving the single market?

 Up until now, the process of negotiating our position in the EU had been entirely left to our elected officials (Common market vote aside).

 

If the result of this vote had been Remain and subsequent negotiations had to take place to reshape our position (and I totally agree that it was required) then I would have asked for them to be public in the same way.

 

Regarding the potential parliamentary debates, I'm not with those on the remain side who want to tie up the procedure in parliament in that way in a (probably fruitless) attempt to stave off what's coming. The people have had their say, so let's see what Brexit looks like...but with everything open to see for public consumption, to justify the trust in the public that having the vote in the first place granted. 

 

Yes, I think it's a mistake, but I'm interested to see if those in charge and those who think we are better off outside the EU can prove me wrong under scrutiny. For what it's worth I hope they do, because the die is cast.

[Strokes]

You are being ridiculous. You wouldnt ask a friend for advice on career prospects and then take him to the interview with you.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

You are being ridiculous. You wouldnt ask a friend for advice on career prospects and then take him to the interview with you.

I'm not really sure how well that analogy suits, but fair enough. It's not like your friend has control over whether or not you get the job, after all.

 

As far as I'm concerned, in politics public decision = public scrutiny of the consequences of that decision. If there's going to be a vote on something, at least let folks know exactly what they voted for.

 

I can understand why others might think differently, though.

[Alf Bentley]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

why did a lot of people on your side make it clear during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU meant we would leave the single market, only to demand now after a leave vote that you want parliamentary debates to try and avoid us leaving the single market?

 

Leaving the EU never inevitably meant leaving the single market - and still doesn't. That is 100% clear from the fact that Norway, Iceland & Liechtenstein are in the single market but outside the EU.

 

What I do recall is Remainers saying that we would have to leave the single market if we wanted free movement / control over EU migration. Some dishonest people on the Leave side claimed that we could have our cake and eat it - control our own borders but stay in the single market. Others were more honest and felt leaving the single market was a price worth paying for an end to free movement.

 

During the campaign there was much debate about our status if we voted Leave - "the Norway model", "the Swiss model" etc. Certain individuals on the Leave side made their preferences clear, but Leave as a whole did not. I wouldn't support efforts to get the referendum result overturned by parliament, as the decision to leave was clear. But there was no clear decision to leave the single market - so it's quite valid to campaign for a "soft Brexit" whereby the UK stays in the single market. That's just as valid as the stance apparently taken by the government - that it's worth losing preferential access to our main market and risking serious damage to economy and society in order to control the number of foreigners entering the country.