Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Jon the Hat]

Well seeing as the Cameron Government made literally no plans for BREXIT despite calling the referendum, I think it is a little unrealistic for you to expect a newly formed Government to develop a BREXIT plan or negotiating strategy in less than 5 months.  A year sounds pretty sensible to me.  In my experience, large businesses spend a couple of years and tens of millions of pounds on consultants developing such plans.

[Strokes]

I agree Jon, we haven't triggered article 50 yet, I wouldn't expect a full plan to be in place yet. We have seen how different people view in the public and how it divided politics across the spectrum. So the cabinet has two or three different ideas amongst them that they can't agree on. So long as it is agreed when necessary what does it matter? 

[yorkie1999]

Kin'ell how hard is it? Surely it's a case of "so long and thanks for all the fish". We stop giving you money and you stop giving it us back. We'll carry on buying your cheese if you carry on buying our pork pies.

 

[Alf Bentley]

48 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Well seeing as the Cameron Government made literally no plans for BREXIT despite calling the referendum, I think it is a little unrealistic for you to expect a newly formed Government to develop a BREXIT plan or negotiating strategy in less than 5 months.  A year sounds pretty sensible to me.  In my experience, large businesses spend a couple of years and tens of millions of pounds on consultants developing such plans.

 

Fair comment in part. But there's a big difference between not having a full plan/strategy ready yet and having 500 uncoordinated projects, needing 30,000 extra staff, having no strategy and your leadership being riven with divisions......4 months before you set a 2-year time bomb ticking under the British economy and British society.

 

Anyway, shouldn't people like Boris, Fox and Davis have a rough strategy, at least? Five months ago, they persuaded the nation to vote for this - so surely they have some sort of plan? They hold key positions now.

Maybe they do have a plan but May and Hammond won't accept it? I'm sure there'll be adaptations as the negotiations progress, anyway, but the negotiating priorities and strategy need to be clear before triggering Article 50, surely? 

 

 

35 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Kin'ell how hard is it? Surely it's a case of "so long and thanks for all the fish". We stop giving you money and you stop giving it us back. We'll carry on buying your cheese if you carry on buying our pork pies.

 

 

I won't piss people off by posting them again, but if you're interested, Google "Michael Dougan" and watch the 2 videos that he did just before and just after the referendum.

He's a professor of European law and explains all the complexities - how half of our national legislation will need to be rewritten by the Government, minor details like that.

[Innovindil]

Of course it's going to be hard to figure all this nonsense out, especially considering everyone has their own agenda. Scotland bleating on and on isn't helping, they are saying "the UK doesn't have a plan at all!" and in their very next breath it's "wait, what's our plan?!" 

 

Then you have the deluded labour cucks going "oh that's not how I'd do it at all! I'd drag this country into even more debt and use immigrants to raise the economy!" 

 

Time and clear heads are needed. But right now we have neither. The options are either to get all the mp's in on it, or hold a second referendum, but follow what America does and allow people to vote on multiple issues, which will give a rough overall idea of what the people want. 

[davieG]

The government says it "does not recognise" a leaked memo suggesting it has no overall plan for Brexit.

A government source said the document was an unsolicited pitch for work from a consultancy firm.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Grayling said the document was not a government memo and rejected its contents.

"My own experience is very different to that," he said, describing the Brexit project as a "team effort".

Mr Grayling said negotiations would be "complex but by no means the challenge that is set out in today's newspaper story".

He rejected the memo's estimate of an extra 30,000 civil servants, saying: "I do not know what 30,000 people would do in this process."

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

59 minutes ago, davieG said:

The government says it "does not recognise" a leaked memo suggesting it has no overall plan for Brexit.

A government source said the document was an unsolicited pitch for work from a consultancy firm.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Grayling said the document was not a government memo and rejected its contents.

"My own experience is very different to that," he said, describing the Brexit project as a "team effort".

Mr Grayling said negotiations would be "complex but by no means the challenge that is set out in today's newspaper story".

He rejected the memo's estimate of an extra 30,000 civil servants, saying: "I do not know what 30,000 people would do in this process."

 

 

 

As Mandy Rice-Davies said in the Profumo case: "He would [say that], wouldn't he?" 

 

The Telegraph say that the memo was produced by a "consultant working for the Cabinet Office" (though, of course, the consultants may have their own agenda).

The Guardian suggests that it was Deloitte, one of the leading global consultancy firms.

 

It'll all come out in the wash - though the laundry may be a bit dirty when it finally becomes public (mixing metaphors).

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Fair comment in part. But there's a big difference between not having a full plan/strategy ready yet and having 500 uncoordinated projects, needing 30,000 extra staff, having no strategy and your leadership being riven with divisions......4 months before you set a 2-year time bomb ticking under the British economy and British society.

 

Anyway, shouldn't people like Boris, Fox and Davis have a rough strategy, at least? Five months ago, they persuaded the nation to vote for this - so surely they have some sort of plan? They hold key positions now.

Maybe they do have a plan but May and Hammond won't accept it? I'm sure there'll be adaptations as the negotiations progress, anyway, but the negotiating priorities and strategy need to be clear before triggering Article 50, surely? 

 

 

 

I won't piss people off by posting them again, but if you're interested, Google "Michael Dougan" and watch the 2 videos that he did just before and just after the referendum.

He's a professor of European law and explains all the complexities - how half of our national legislation will need to be rewritten by the Government, minor details like that.

Well why don't they just get on and do it instead of just talking about how hard it is. It's not as though there is just one old lady typing everything up, there's 10's of thousands of em.

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As Mandy Rice-Davies said in the Profumo case: "He would [say that], wouldn't he?" 

 

The Telegraph say that the memo was produced by a "consultant working for the Cabinet Office" (though, of course, the consultants may have their own agenda).

The Guardian suggests that it was Deloitte, one of the leading global consultancy firms.

 

It'll all come out in the wash - though the laundry may be a bit dirty when it finally becomes public (mixing metaphors).

Consultants are no more believable than governments as you say they have their own agenda. My experience of them through out my working life is they come in make suggestions often off the back of people working there offer them up as their own ideas add in a few redundancies and bugger off. I can't think of one instance out of many where we ended up better off and in lots of cases ended up back where we were courtesy of another set of consultants sometimes re-employing the people that were made redundant.

 

They're bleeding local councils dry.

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, davieG said:

Consultants are no more believable than governments as you say they have their own agenda. My experience of them through out my working life is they come in make suggestions often off the back of people working there offer them up as their own ideas add in a few redundancies and bugger off. I can't think of one instance out of many where we ended up better off and in lots of cases ended up back where we were courtesy of another set of consultants sometimes re-employing the people that were made redundant.

 

They're bleeding local councils dry.

 

I agree, Davie. Consultants are no more believable than ministers - and ministers are no more believable than consultants.

These consultants may be exaggerating to suit their own interests and/or the govt may be understating the problem to suit their interests....probably both, at a guess. 

 

I'm certainly not praising consultants, btw.

I don't have a lot of experience of them myself, but still have friends in the civil service from when I worked there in the 80s and their accounts are very similar to yours. They loathe them.

One mate (now a fairly senior civil servant) asked how you can spot a consultant in a civil service office. Apparently he's the one with the posh suit on his mobile in the stairwell who nobody talks to. 

[Guest MattP]

As Jon as says, no real surprise given the last government basically planned for one outcome and then did a runner when they didn't get the result they want.

This is a massive project so if this document is true it doesn't come as any surprise, it's why we shouldn't even be rushing to invoke Article 50, we should do it at a time convienient to us, probably even in the Autumn this year right after the German election, the idiotic idea from Corbyn and Farage who said we should have invoked it the next day is the sort of moronic gung ho politics we need far less of in 2016.

[Webbo]

Quote

Downing Street has "wholeheartedly" rejected comments in a memorandum leaked to the press describing cabinet "divisions" over Brexit.
The document, compiled by consultancy firm Deloitte and obtained by the Times newspaper, says Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff.
But the prime minister's spokeswoman said the work had been "unsolicited".
And Deloitte said there had been no "access" to Number 10 for the report.
No "input from any other government departments" had been received, the company added.

BBC

Shocking that the Times and BBC would spread lies #stopfundinghate

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Webbo said:

BBC

Shocking that the Times and BBC would spread lies #stopfundinghate

[foxinexile]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

As Jon as says, no real surprise given the last government basically planned for one outcome and then did a runner when they didn't get the result they want.

This is a massive project so if this document is true it doesn't come as any surprise, it's why we shouldn't even be rushing to invoke Article 50, we should do it at a time convienient to us, probably even in the Autumn this year right after the German election, the idiotic idea from Corbyn and Farage who said we should have invoked it the next day is the sort of moronic gung ho politics we need far less of in 2016.

I very much agree with this point. Whatever opinions are taken of Theresa May and her government, it's irrational and unfair to expect her to have drafted a detailed plan of a) invoking A50, b)what our negotiating strategy will be and c)what our plan upon leaving the EU is. It would be impossible (or near enough) to devise this since June. And that is where Cameron and his missives really do have a lot to answer for. They should have planned for a vote to Leave, they should have ensured that this was at the very least drafted before the referendum was held. This would at the very least enabled the current government to say they have outlines of a plan which would have appeased a lot of people, myself included.

 

Part of me feels sorry for a lot of people who voted Leave on issues such as curbing immigration, spending more money on the NHS etc. Because if these were the issues that some people voted on, there was never a guarantee that they would be actually upheld or implemented. If we retain membership of the single market for example, that is effectively sticking two fingers up to a lot of people which could have severe political repercussions.

 

I do think that Johnson, Fox, Davies etc should assume some of the accountability as they were major players in the Leave campaign and, unless I'm mistaken, never stated what their own plans were. Even if they were unlikely to be adopted, they should still have offered something tangible to say, 'This is what we intend to do, here's our plan'. A lot of people (from both "sides") are going to be left very disappointed for very different reasons, I think, and all the while Cameron has slipped into the shadows with no real accountability either. Despite never even considering that I could vote Tory in the past, present, or future, I did having a begrudging admiration for him. But not any more. He has to take a lot of responsibility for all that has (and hasn't happened) since June and seems to have successfully dodged that particular bullet.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well why don't they just get on and do it instead of just talking about how hard it is. It's not as though there is just one old lady typing everything up, there's 10's of thousands of em.

Go back to sleep, Yorkie.

21 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

That's a bloody big point you've just made.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

One thought has just come to me on this Brexit position and that is "how awkward a position this is for a government"

 

If I explain further;

 

* the UK national voting public split pretty much 50/50 but with the decisive slither of margin in favour of leaving the EU

* Although leaving the EU is viewed as 'the popular choice' right now, those who voted for leaving have different ideas of what leaving would look like - it won't be possible to keep all on this side happy with any exit terms that are eventually agreed.

* There are lots of complexities to leaving, which will have knock on effects for the population in different areas - creating further disgruntled people

* Those who voted to remain could end up feeling largely unrepresented by the current government 

 

When you consider this, you can see that the government has been given a monumental decision, which in terms of re-election prospects has a lot more potential for down side than up side. Chances are, whatever route is chosen, the government will piss of a larger proportion of the voting public than they will please and face a lot of criticism from a lot of areas?

 

The only way I could see the current government coming out of this smelling of roses would be if it could somehow find a reason not to exit the EU, but also successfully pin the blame on someone else.

 

 

 

 

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

One thought has just come to me on this Brexit position and that is "how awkward a position this is for a government"

 

If I explain further;

 

* the UK national voting public split pretty much 50/50 but with the decisive slither of margin in favour of leaving the EU

* Although leaving the EU is viewed as 'the popular choice' right now, those who voted for leaving have different ideas of what leaving would look like - it won't be possible to keep all on this side happy with any exit terms that are eventually agreed.

* There are lots of complexities to leaving, which will have knock on effects for the population in different areas - creating further disgruntled people

* Those who voted to remain could end up feeling largely unrepresented by the current government 

 

When you consider this, you can see that the government has been given a monumental decision, which in terms of re-election prospects has a lot more potential for down side than up side. Chances are, whatever route is chosen, the government will piss of a larger proportion of the voting public than they will please and face a lot of criticism from a lot of areas?

 

The only way I could see the current government coming out of this smelling of roses would be if it could somehow find a reason not to exit the EU, but also successfully pin the blame on someone else.

 

 

 

 

I don't there is a perfect brexit, we all know we won't get everything we want. Most people will be happy with a workable compromise.

[Great Boos Up]

Just wondering what actually article 50 actaullly (sorry Vardy jst sred) actually says.

[bovril]

8 minutes ago, Great Boos Up said:

Just wondering what actually article 50 actaullly (sorry Vardy jst sred) actually says.

 

"Listen, I wanted to speak to you this morning but you'd already gone out. You know I've loved every second we've been together but I just felt things were getting a bit stale at the end. I can accept you don't like my friends, but you were always so negative about everything I did. It's not just you though, I'm sorry my Grandad hates you and called you those things. Maybe it's for the best we don't see each other for a while. Hopefully we can be friends in the future.

Sorry again.

UK

 

PS I've taken Gibraltar, didn't think you'd need it. Slovakia's yours, left it on the table next to the Article of Rome and your Bob Marley collection".

[Webbo]

 That's brilliant.

[Barky]

It's the lack of coherence that concerns me. There's nothing wrong with not having a fully detailed plan at this stage, but to not even have a clue as to how they're going to formulate a plan is ridiculous. It's not rocket science and they've got plenty of manpower and have had plenty of time. They should be way further along than they appear to be at the moment. These people would get eaten alive in any industry that relies heavily on planning. And if they can't even work out an outline plan of how they're going to approach the idea of leaving in nearly six months you have to wonder how they're going cope with the much quicker paced job of running the country after brexit. 

[GazzinderFox]

6 minutes ago, Barky said:

It's the lack of coherence that concerns me. There's nothing wrong with not having a fully detailed plan at this stage, but to not even have a clue as to how they're going to formulate a plan is ridiculous. It's not rocket science and they've got plenty of manpower and have had plenty of time. They should be way further along than they appear to be at the moment. These people would get eaten alive in any industry that relies heavily on planning. And if they can't even work out a plan to leave in nearly six months you have to wonder how they're going cope with running the country after brexit. 

Just chill. It's gonna be fine. We're gonna be fine. Da country's gonna be fine. Boris got dis.

[Barky]

7 hours ago, GazzinderFox said:

Just chill. It's gonna be fine. We're gonna be fine. Da country's gonna be fine. Boris got dis.

Hope so. I'm looking forward so much to them making Britain great again that it concerns me to see them struggling so much with the basics. Boris 'the divider' Johnson can't be helping, yet again he's taking up a fake position to give himself a shot at the top job. When solidly self-serving career politicians like that are in important positions with actual work to do it's no surprise the whole thing has turned into a shambles. 

[Jon the Hat]

9 hours ago, Barky said:

It's the lack of coherence that concerns me. There's nothing wrong with not having a fully detailed plan at this stage, but to not even have a clue as to how they're going to formulate a plan is ridiculous. It's not rocket science and they've got plenty of manpower and have had plenty of time. They should be way further along than they appear to be at the moment. These people would get eaten alive in any industry that relies heavily on planning. And if they can't even work out an outline plan of how they're going to approach the idea of leaving in nearly six months you have to wonder how they're going cope with the much quicker paced job of running the country after brexit. 

 

If you are basing your assessment of the current status of our BREXIT preparations on a report from Deloitte whose author had no access to number 10 then you are not well informed. Deloitte are quite capable of coming up with utter shit after 12 months of full access for a start.  Also it isn't nearly 6 months is it?  Theresa became PM 4 months and 2 days ago.  Ministers have to get to grips with their brief, and then you need to build early consensus between key players.  You are massively misguided if you think any industry that relies heavily on planning would have demonstrated anything you would want to share publicly 4 months after appointing a project team.  They would just about define the project charter and agree who did what by then.

[davieG]

The government has prepared a short three-line bill to begin the Brexit process - so Theresa May can meet her March deadline, it is understood.

Sources say they believe the legislation is so tightly drawn it will be difficult for critical MPs to amend.

Ministers have drawn up the legislation in case they lose their appeal to the Supreme Court - which would force them to consult Parliament.

The High Court ruled against the government earlier this month.

• Politics live: Brexit latest

Sources say the government would plan to introduce the bill in the Commons immediately after the Supreme Court ruling.

The hope would be to push the bill through the Commons in two weeks.

It would then go to the House of Lords where it is understood the government hopes peers would back down.

They believe peers would not dare defy MPs - if the Commons had approved the legislation.

Sources say they have devised the bill to be "bomb-proof" to amendments.

This would mean Mrs May could meet her March deadline for triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which begins the formal negotiation process.

Sources say although they looked at allowing Parliament a vote through "a substantive motion" rather than legislation, they dec