OFFICIAL EU/UK referendum thread

[Sefton]

There are some massively weird people on here. It borders on alarming.

Everyone has a drum to beat Henners, there's supporting your team, ribbing the supporters of others, a discussion about a good round of golf, or trying to link everything to a minor historical event in,particular trying to correlate almost any historical and any current event to the historical event that vexes the individual I believe it's clinically known as camrocism.

I'd like to think I'd have a pint with everyone on here but one or two individuals, definitely give one pause.

I'd feel uncomfortable taking a beverage within a 100 mile vicinity of Rocketz, he's up there with Silver and WT as a genuine batshit loon.

[piquant]

"A lot of these people would presumably agree with AC Grayling, who may yet find himself in the unfamiliar position of speaking for a substantial body of public opinion: leaving the EU, he recently tweeted, “is obviously such an incredibly bad idea – just stop it."

For many people that kind of talk always triggers a deep ambivalence. If what took the leave side to victory was the support of so-called “left behind” voters who had not been listened to for decades, it still seems to me that arguing they should be ignored may not just be democratically questionable, but a gift to the forces that, even with Ukip apparently imploding, would know a once-in-a-lifetime chance when they saw it, and strike.

I think we have to respect the result of the referendum. But it's not easy as to what comes next, partly it's not easy to see a path forward that doesn't cost a lot of money, partly beyond 'leave the EU' there's no actual mandate set out.

[fisgard792]

the referendum campaign exposed everything wrong about democracy n the uk

on one side you had fear and exaggeration, on the other there were plain and obvious lies, but when as a country you have gone to war on the basis of lies, its hardly surprising thats a possible outcome for accepted campaigning.

whether one agree's with the referendum result or not, imo, it would do untold damage to the UK to hold another referendum

Can't see there being a referendum or general
Election- there's enough upheaval.

I do find this argument amusing when it comes from people who argued passionately that we should leave the EU to become a more democratic nation which makes its own decisions based on the will of the British people. Apparently we needed more democracy but not more elections

you are getting so blinkered you are going round in an incoherent circle nowadays

[Duff Paddy]

"A lot of these people would presumably agree with AC Grayling, who may yet find himself in the unfamiliar position of speaking for a substantial body of public opinion: leaving the EU, he recently tweeted, “is obviously such an incredibly bad idea – just stop it."

For many people that kind of talk always triggers a deep ambivalence. If what took the leave side to victory was the support of so-called “left behind” voters who had not been listened to for decades, it still seems to me that arguing they should be ignored may not just be democratically questionable, but a gift to the forces that, even with Ukip apparently imploding, would know a once-in-a-lifetime chance when they saw it, and strike.

I think we have to respect the result of the referendum. But it's not easy as to what comes next, partly it's not easy to see a path forward that doesn't cost a lot of money, partly beyond 'leave the EU' there's no actual mandate set out.

Fleet Street had a good old laugh at Ireland re-running the Lisbon Treaty referendum but maybe now it is a little more clear that referenda usually aren't the appropriate mechanism to decide on complex issues. Brexit was the wrong decision and there's no shame in admitting that the referendum got it wrong.

[piquant]

"A lot of these people would presumably agree with AC Grayling, who may yet find himself in the unfamiliar position of speaking for a substantial body of public opinion: leaving the EU, he recently tweeted, “is obviously such an incredibly bad idea – just stop it."

For many people that kind of talk always triggers a deep ambivalence. If what took the leave side to victory was the support of so-called “left behind” voters who had not been listened to for decades, it still seems to me that arguing they should be ignored may not just be democratically questionable, but a gift to the forces that, even with Ukip apparently imploding, would know a once-in-a-lifetime chance when they saw it, and strike.

I think we have to respect the result of the referendum. But it's not easy as to what comes next, partly it's not easy to see a path forward that doesn't cost a lot of money, partly beyond 'leave the EU' there's no actual mandate set out.

Fleet Street had a good old laugh at Ireland re-running the Lisbon Treaty referendum but maybe now it is a little more clear that referenda usually aren't the appropriate mechanism to decide on complex issues. Brexit was the wrong decision and there's no shame in admitting that the referendum got it wrong.

I think it's an appalling decision, but I also think the votes went as they did and it's important to respect that.

[SamShark]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

[Duff Paddy]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

The Nissan announcement must be based upon assurances made to them that brexit will not in fact mean brexit and that the UK will remain in the common market. There is surely no way Nissan would proceed without this assurance.

[Sefton]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think the PM would go with the decision that she felt was politically advantageous to her, it was no coincidence that she was the least visible amongst all the senior Conservative politicians during the referendum campaign.

[jorwar]

"A lot of these people would presumably agree with AC Grayling, who may yet find himself in the unfamiliar position of speaking for a substantial body of public opinion: leaving the EU, he recently tweeted, “is obviously such an incredibly bad idea – just stop it."

For many people that kind of talk always triggers a deep ambivalence. If what took the leave side to victory was the support of so-called “left behind” voters who had not been listened to for decades, it still seems to me that arguing they should be ignored may not just be democratically questionable, but a gift to the forces that, even with Ukip apparently imploding, would know a once-in-a-lifetime chance when they saw it, and strike.

I think we have to respect the result of the referendum. But it's not easy as to what comes next, partly it's not easy to see a path forward that doesn't cost a lot of money, partly beyond 'leave the EU' there's no actual mandate set out.

Fleet Street had a good old laugh at Ireland re-running the Lisbon Treaty referendum but maybe now it is a little more clear that referenda usually aren't the appropriate mechanism to decide on complex issues. Brexit was the wrong decision and there's no shame in admitting that the referendum got it wrong.

I think it's an appalling decision, but I also think the votes went as they did and it's important to respect that.

But isn't that denying the sovereignty argument, that parliament calls the tune in this country, it listens and then acts.

[Rugby2023]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

Presumably, the only other route is not leaving, then yes I expect she would press ahead. Apart from anything else, I doubt she would last long if she did not do so.

On the latter point, you can influence the issue by voting for a pro-EU party such as the Lib Dems at the next General Election.

[SamShark]

I don't particularly want to see another referendum anyway - id rather that a very clear 'deal' emerges that parliament can vote on.

There has to be some accountability for the real outcome, not the vague concept of in vs out that was put to people previously.

Let's say we went for a hard brexit "because the people said they wanted to control immigration" and it went horribly tits up, can the people who negotiated the deal just say that it wasn't their fault and they were just interpreting the will of just over half of the population about 3 years ago.

[TranceNRG]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.

[Chuckles1188]

There seems to be something spectacularly British about the way everyone has decided that a terribly-designed referendum result has to be more inviolable and less susceptible to rethinking or checking than any other political decision we have ever made. We are deeply shit at plebiscites, and if we're going to start using them to make decisions on a regular basis then a proofing stage will be inevitable.

[jorwar]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.

It'll have to be quick because she stupidly set a march deadline. Any deal after that will be a bum deal.

[TranceNRG]

I don't particularly want to see another referendum anyway - id rather that a very clear 'deal' emerges that parliament can vote on.

There has to be some accountability for the real outcome, not the vague concept of in vs out that was put to people previously.

Let's say we went for a hard brexit "because the people said they wanted to control immigration" and it went horribly tits up, can the people who negotiated the deal just say that it wasn't their fault and they were just interpreting the will of just over half of the population about 3 years ago.

They have repeatedly said the parliament will have a say on the final deal. What some people want is to pick an option before they go in to negotiations which is absurd. They are going for the best possible deal for the UK (tariff free access for goods and service but with immigration controls) then it's give and take.

[TranceNRG]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.

It'll have to be quick because she stupidly set a march deadline. Any deal after that will be a bum deal.

No the march deadline is to trigger article 50. You don't want to delay that any longer. They haven been working hard behind closed doors since the referendum to come up with a plan for negotiations (I'm sure the naysayers will say there's no plan because the details haven't been released). There won't be a deal put to the parliament before that simply because the final deal depends on the negotiations between UK and EU.

[piquant]

They have repeatedly said the parliament will have a say on the final deal. What some people want is to pick an option before they go in to negotiations which is absurd. They are going for the best possible deal for the UK (tariff free access for goods and service but with immigration controls) then it's give and take.

It's not absurd that Parliament wants a say on what the aims of the negotiations would be, that comes more under having parliamentary democracy than being an absurdity. There are of course many issues which will be driven by the government as set out in their manifesto, but setting out what leaving the EU looks like isn't something the government has an electoral mandate for, and absent of an electoral mandate, and absent of a referendum decision saying anything more than 'leave' I can quite see why given our democracy we'd look to parliament.

[jorwar]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.

It'll have to be quick because she stupidly set a march deadline. Any deal after that will be a bum deal.

No the march deadline is to trigger article 50. You don't want to delay that any longer. They haven been working hard behind closed doors since the referendum to come up with a plan for negotiations (I'm sure the naysayers will say there's no plan because the details haven't been released). There won't be a deal put to the parliament before that simply because the final deal depends on the negotiations between UK and EU.

Too early in March. There are elections in France and Germany next year. Hollande will be gone.
She wants to preserve the uniquely special position we have in the EU, with a few tweaks.

[bimboman]

I don't particularly want to see another referendum anyway - id rather that a very clear 'deal' emerges that parliament can vote on.

There has to be some accountability for the real outcome, not the vague concept of in vs out that was put to people previously.

Let's say we went for a hard brexit "because the people said they wanted to control immigration" and it went horribly tits up, can the people who negotiated the deal just say that it wasn't their fault and they were just interpreting the will of just over half of the population about 3 years ago.

There will be other decisions made and presented as being "democratic" or with a "mandate", mostly that will be wording and presentation and of course be nothing of the sort. I seriously doubt that decisions will be made that are genuinly stupid though if this bunch of intervention lovers possibly assume they can fix things regardless then it may go wrong.

Exciting times.

[TranceNRG]

They have repeatedly said the parliament will have a say on the final deal. What some people want is to pick an option before they go in to negotiations which is absurd. They are going for the best possible deal for the UK (tariff free access for goods and service but with immigration controls) then it's give and take.

It's not absurd that Parliament wants a say on what the aims of the negotiations would be, that comes more under having parliamentary democracy than being an absurdity. There are of course many issues which will be driven by the government as set out in their manifesto, but setting out what leaving the EU looks like isn't something the government has an electoral mandate for, and absent of an electoral mandate, and absent of a referendum decision saying anything more than 'leave' I can quite see why given our democracy we'd look to parliament.

That's why the parliament will get a say on the final deal. You can't have a vote in the parliament because currently there are no deals on the table.

[Rocketz]

A direct result of Brexit. And the EU is not wasting time


EU to approve first ever military budget

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/26/european ... udget.html

[Rocketz]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.

It'll have to be quick because she stupidly set a march deadline. Any deal after that will be a bum deal.

No the march deadline is to trigger article 50. You don't want to delay that any longer. They haven been working hard behind closed doors since the referendum to come up with a plan for negotiations (I'm sure the naysayers will say there's no plan because the details haven't been released). There won't be a deal put to the parliament before that simply because the final deal depends on the negotiations between UK and EU.

Too early in March. There are elections in France and Germany next year. Hollande will be gone.
She wants to preserve the uniquely special position we have in the EU, with a few tweaks.

Can you please elaborate on this statement

She wants to preserve the uniquely special position we have in the EU

[piquant]

Also one we've triggered article 50 then it rather locks us into a process. I happen to view the government as being technically entitled to do just that, but it doesn't feel like a correct procedure of due process. To parliament first to actually secure a mandate seems a much better idea to me, a much more democratic idea (and I'm sure we heard details on bringing decision making back into this country), and hopefully avoids the awful scenario of the government later putting a deal before the commons which gets rejected. Yes going to parliament adds some complications and more negotiations, but to have an unelected PM use the royal prerogative brings us more in line with a decision making process that Mugabe would approve of than I'm comfortable with.

I'm still struck that we're going to spend billions on this process, and that it'll restrict so much else that could be getting worked on as it'll drain governmental and civil service resources in alarming fashion.

[fisgard792]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.

theres a lot of people bitching, but offering no alternative practicable solutions, but because some feel personally aggrieved the result wasnt the one they wanted, they are losing all rationale

if you broadcast your grey and red lines prior to entering into a negotiation, its actually becomes not a negotiation

how many times in a career, does a person get told to pursue and enact policies on behalf of senior management, they dont agree with, its a pretty common event from my experience, but you generally with caveats, you just get on and do it

[TranceNRG]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.

theres a lot of people bitching, but offering no alternative practicable solutions, but because some feel personally aggrieved the result wasnt the one they wanted, they are losing all rationale

if you broadcast your grey and red lines prior to entering into a negotiation, its actually becomes not a negotiation

how many times in a career, does a person get told to pursue and enact policies on behalf of senior management, they dont agree with, its a pretty common event from my experience, but you generally with caveats, you just get on and do it

Nail on head

[dr dre2]

"A lot of these people would presumably agree with AC Grayling, who may yet find himself in the unfamiliar position of speaking for a substantial body of public opinion: leaving the EU, he recently tweeted, “is obviously such an incredibly bad idea – just stop it."

For many people that kind of talk always triggers a deep ambivalence. If what took the leave side to victory was the support of so-called “left behind” voters who had not been listened to for decades, it still seems to me that arguing they should be ignored may not just be democratically questionable, but a gift to the forces that, even with Ukip apparently imploding, would know a once-in-a-lifetime chance when they saw it, and strike.

I think we have to respect the result of the referendum. But it's not easy as to what comes next, partly it's not easy to see a path forward that doesn't cost a lot of money, partly beyond 'leave the EU' there's no actual mandate set out.

Fleet Street had a good old laugh at Ireland re-running the Lisbon Treaty referendum but maybe now it is a little more clear that referenda usually aren't the appropriate mechanism to decide on complex issues. Brexit was the wrong decision and there's no shame in admitting that the referendum got it wrong.

I think it's an appalling decision, but I also think the votes went as they did and it's important to respect that.

But isn't that denying the sovereignty argument, that parliament calls the tune in this country, it listens and then acts.

No, we are talking about the British holding sovereignty and the decisions being made here. Now ordinarily we would expect that to be parliament with a mandate of pre-election promise on bigger issues or parliament through judgement with a mandate to lead, but if the mandate comes direct from the people via a referendum that should take preference. They are all methods in which the people decide with differing levels of mandate and vote is the purest. We have told them to leave the EU full stop.

[piquant]

The problem remains the people haven't set out a mandate other than leave the EU.

To fulfill that mandate we could simply leave the EU, but agree to accept all the rules we're currently signed up to, and to accept new rules as they pass them. And we'd be accepting to keep up our payments into the EU budget. Really the only difference would be we'd have lost our seat at the decision making table, but it would meet the stated action of the referendum result. It's just possible there would be problems stemming from such a move.

[dr dre2]

Also one we've triggered article 50 then it rather locks us into a process. I happen to view the government as being technically entitled to do just that, but it doesn't feel like a correct procedure of due process. To parliament first to actually secure a mandate seems a much better idea to me, a much more democratic idea (and I'm sure we heard details on bringing decision making back into this country), and hopefully avoids the awful scenario of the government later putting a deal before the commons which gets rejected. Yes going to parliament adds some complications and more negotiations, but to have an unelected PM use the royal prerogative brings us more in line with a decision making process that Mugabe would approve of than I'm comfortable with.

I'm still struck that we're going to spend billions on this process, and that it'll restrict so much else that could be getting worked on as it'll drain governmental and civil service resources in alarming fashion.

We have to trigger a50 before we know what the deal will be, we cant possibly know what the deal will be, by the time we do the process is irreversible and the deal we get is the deal we get, what exactly are parliament going to vote on?

[TranceNRG]

The problem remains the people haven't set out a mandate other than leave the EU.

To fulfill that mandate we could simply leave the EU, but agree to accept all the rules we're currently signed up to, and to accept new rules as they pass them. And we'd be accepting to keep up our payments into the EU budget. Really the only difference would be we'd have lost our seat at the decision making table, but it would meet the stated action of the referendum result. It's just possible there would be problems stemming from such a move.

You are talking about EEA membership which is not what UK government want - they couldn't be any clearer about this. They are going for a customised deal for the UK. Nothing wrong with being ambitious and I'm confident they will manage to strike a good deal.

[piquant]

Also one we've triggered article 50 then it rather locks us into a process. I happen to view the government as being technically entitled to do just that, but it doesn't feel like a correct procedure of due process. To parliament first to actually secure a mandate seems a much better idea to me, a much more democratic idea (and I'm sure we heard details on bringing decision making back into this country), and hopefully avoids the awful scenario of the government later putting a deal before the commons which gets rejected. Yes going to parliament adds some complications and more negotiations, but to have an unelected PM use the royal prerogative brings us more in line with a decision making process that Mugabe would approve of than I'm comfortable with.

I'm still struck that we're going to spend billions on this process, and that it'll restrict so much else that could be getting worked on as it'll drain governmental and civil service resources in alarming fashion.

We have to trigger a50 before we know what the deal will be, we cant possibly know what the deal will be, by the time we do the process is irreversible and the deal we get is the deal we get, what exactly are parliament going to vote on?

What are aims are.

Such aims may fail in the negotiations, but it'd be good to get a reasonable mandate established.

[Duff Paddy]

The problem remains the people haven't set out a mandate other than leave the EU.

To fulfill that mandate we could simply leave the EU, but agree to accept all the rules we're currently signed up to, and to accept new rules as they pass them. And we'd be accepting to keep up our payments into the EU budget. Really the only difference would be we'd have lost our seat at the decision making table, but it would meet the stated action of the referendum result. It's just possible there would be problems stemming from such a move.

You are talking about EEA membership which is not what UK government want - they couldn't be any clearer about this. They are going for a customised deal for the UK. Nothing wrong with being ambitious and I'm confident they will manage to strike a good deal.

What's this confidence based on exactly

[piquant]

The problem remains the people haven't set out a mandate other than leave the EU.

To fulfill that mandate we could simply leave the EU, but agree to accept all the rules we're currently signed up to, and to accept new rules as they pass them. And we'd be accepting to keep up our payments into the EU budget. Really the only difference would be we'd have lost our seat at the decision making table, but it would meet the stated action of the referendum result. It's just possible there would be problems stemming from such a move.

You are talking about EEA membership which is not what UK government want - they couldn't be any clearer about this. They are going for a customised deal for the UK. Nothing wrong with being ambitious and I'm confident they will manage to strike a good deal.

If I'd said EEA rather than EU then yes I'd have been talking about the EEA. As it was I said EU, and you should feel happy to infer I meant EU.

[TranceNRG]

piquant do you live in the UK? Theresa May has such high approval rating and Conservatives are currently polling so far above everyone else. Theresa May's government is well aware they have a lot of support behind them despite a vocal few making things difficult for them.

[dr dre2]

The problem remains the people haven't set out a mandate other than leave the EU.

To fulfill that mandate we could simply leave the EU, but agree to accept all the rules we're currently signed up to, and to accept new rules as they pass them. And we'd be accepting to keep up our payments into the EU budget. Really the only difference would be we'd have lost our seat at the decision making table, but it would meet the stated action of the referendum result. It's just possible there would be problems stemming from such a move.

It was clear to the MP's that while campaigning the major issues were recurring in both the GE & referendum. Those form our red lines and they overlap the EU's red lines. The people have spoken.

We will push forward free movement to be removed and they will take something away from us in return, we'll push forward the next thing and they will remove something else. We'll end up with something akin to the Norway deal on worse terms, but free movement etc. removed.

[fisgard792]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.

theres a lot of people bitching, but offering no alternative practicable solutions, but because some feel personally aggrieved the result wasnt the one they wanted, they are losing all rationale

if you broadcast your grey and red lines prior to entering into a negotiation, its actually becomes not a negotiation

how many times in a career, does a person get told to pursue and enact policies on behalf of senior management, they dont agree with, its a pretty common event from my experience, but you generally with caveats, you just get on and do it

Nail on head

perhaps like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amZsdpLXcIo

[TranceNRG]

The problem remains the people haven't set out a mandate other than leave the EU.

To fulfill that mandate we could simply leave the EU, but agree to accept all the rules we're currently signed up to, and to accept new rules as they pass them. And we'd be accepting to keep up our payments into the EU budget. Really the only difference would be we'd have lost our seat at the decision making table, but it would meet the stated action of the referendum result. It's just possible there would be problems stemming from such a move.

You are talking about EEA membership which is not what UK government want - they couldn't be any clearer about this. They are going for a customised deal for the UK. Nothing wrong with being ambitious and I'm confident they will manage to strike a good deal.

If I'd said EEA rather than EU then yes I'd have been talking about the EEA. As it was I said EU, and you should feel happy to infer I meant EU.

The situation you were referring to (being out of the EU but agreeing to all the EU laws plus continuing similar payments in to the EU budget) is being part of the EEA.

[dr dre2]

Also one we've triggered article 50 then it rather locks us into a process. I happen to view the government as being technically entitled to do just that, but it doesn't feel like a correct procedure of due process. To parliament first to actually secure a mandate seems a much better idea to me, a much more democratic idea (and I'm sure we heard details on bringing decision making back into this country), and hopefully avoids the awful scenario of the government later putting a deal before the commons which gets rejected. Yes going to parliament adds some complications and more negotiations, but to have an unelected PM use the royal prerogative brings us more in line with a decision making process that Mugabe would approve of than I'm comfortable with.

I'm still struck that we're going to spend billions on this process, and that it'll restrict so much else that could be getting worked on as it'll drain governmental and civil service resources in alarming fashion.

We have to trigger a50 before we know what the deal will be, we cant possibly know what the deal will be, by the time we do the process is irreversible and the deal we get is the deal we get, what exactly are parliament going to vote on?

What are aims are.

Such aims may fail in the negotiations, but it'd be good to get a reasonable mandate established.

It's ridiculous to enter negotiations with a voted on list of demands you cant really bend on.

[piquant]

The problem remains the people haven't set out a mandate other than leave the EU.

To fulfill that mandate we could simply leave the EU, but agree to accept all the rules we're currently signed up to, and to accept new rules as they pass them. And we'd be accepting to keep up our payments into the EU budget. Really the only difference would be we'd have lost our seat at the decision making table, but it would meet the stated action of the referendum result. It's just possible there would be problems stemming from such a move.

You are talking about EEA membership which is not what UK government want - they couldn't be any clearer about this. They are going for a customised deal for the UK. Nothing wrong with being ambitious and I'm confident they will manage to strike a good deal.

If I'd said EEA rather than EU then yes I'd have been talking about the EEA. As it was I said EU, and you should feel happy to infer I meant EU.

The situation you were referring to (being out of the EU but agreeing to all the EU laws plus continuing similar payments in to the EU budget) is being part of the EEA.

This is true, and I have no pithy comeback for it.

[piquant]

Also one we've triggered article 50 then it rather locks us into a process. I happen to view the government as being technically entitled to do just that, but it doesn't feel like a correct procedure of due process. To parliament first to actually secure a mandate seems a much better idea to me, a much more democratic idea (and I'm sure we heard details on bringing decision making back into this country), and hopefully avoids the awful scenario of the government later putting a deal before the commons which gets rejected. Yes going to parliament adds some complications and more negotiations, but to have an unelected PM use the royal prerogative brings us more in line with a decision making process that Mugabe would approve of than I'm comfortable with.

I'm still struck that we're going to spend billions on this process, and that it'll restrict so much else that could be getting worked on as it'll drain governmental and civil service resources in alarming fashion.

We have to trigger a50 before we know what the deal will be, we cant possibly know what the deal will be, by the time we do the process is irreversible and the deal we get is the deal we get, what exactly are parliament going to vote on?

What are aims are.

Such aims may fail in the negotiations, but it'd be good to get a reasonable mandate established.

It's ridiculous to enter negotiations with a voted on list of demands you cant really bend on.

Meh. This government was elected on a manifesto to amongst cut the deficit in specific fashion, and yet they've happily just scrapped that detail on the back of a new PM no one voted for.

Clearly it's not that tricky to bend even when you've said you will not. And too if they meet such problems then go back to parliament. These don't have to be one time can never be revisited decisions, as we've recently proved with a decision to leave.

[TranceNRG]

Anyway my original question about what the PM thinks still interests me. There are people like Liam Fox who would leave come what may, or people like Clegg who are ideologically pro EU

If presented with all the data, the views, the available deal and all the behind closed doors info, and leaving looked bad, would the PM press ahead anyway because of a vote in 2016 or take another route.

I don't think it's anti democratic or sneering to be concerned that because of politics we'd go down a clearly inferior path.

It might not be that clear cut when it comes to the crunch, but was 23rd June 2016 the last time anyone had any right to influence this issue?

I think only Theresa May and her close colleagues know what she really thinks but I suspect she was a reluctant remainer (like so many other people) who didn't like a lot of things about the EU but was supporting it purely for economical reasons (uncertainty is not great for the economy). Since the referndum she's accepted the result and is committed to delivering the result and getting the best deal possible for the UK - they are being ambitious but a lot of people are trying to stop them but she's shown her great leadership qualities and in resilient in her approach. Theresa May and the government must also be very encouraged by the positive economic data that has come out since referendum - UK economy is one of the strongest in the EU and can withstand tough times. She knows the majority of the UK want immigration controls and she also knows businesses want tariff free access for goods and services. They have a tough job going in to negotiations but they are being optimistic.

I reckon people/parliament will get a say on the final deal before UK leave the EU.

theres a lot of people bitching, but offering no alternative practicable solutions, but because some feel personally aggrieved the result wasnt the one they wanted, they are losing all rationale

if you broadcast your grey and red lines prior to entering into a negotiation, its actually becomes not a negotiation

how many times in a career, does a person get told to pursue and enact policies on behalf of senior management, they dont agree with, its a pretty common event from my experience, but you generally with caveats, you just get on and do it

Nail on head

perhaps like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amZsdpLXcIo

Quality!