Britain's Brexit Plan? Leaked Memo Says There Is No Plan

[Noradin]

That wouldn't show much faith in his campaign to stay would it?

How so?
Only making a plan for one of the choices he offered demonstrates that he saw the referendum as a farce; it demonstrates his contempt for the voters, and he got what was coming to him for that bluff--well actually, he didn't, he got to gamble witht he future of a country for free.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a horrible analogy. He doesn't think Brexit is good for the country, he put it to a vote to give the people a choice, they decided to do it - and he's against it. The correct thing to do was step down and let another person lead.

If he didn't think it was a good idea to offer this choice then he shouldn't have done so. He could have stepped down an let someone else take responsibility.
(Well, to be fair, that problably wouldn't work out well in a two party system, no matter who was at the helm, but he took it onto himself to hold the vote.)

Back to my analogy, maybe I don't think it would be good to give away those 100$ either, who knows what someone might buy with them, still if I were to offer them then I would have to follow though if asked to. That is what "giving a choice to someone" means.
And didn't he promise to trigger article 50? All he seems to have done is stepping down.

[Kalis]

THat "faith" got him where he is and without a plan. Whats worse? And why would a leader of a Country not have aback-up plan when there's a chance he wouldn't get his way? Seems foolishly prideful..

The plan would require an entire government department, hence why Theresa May has set up an entire government department.

Read post #44 on page 3 by @Virulina it gives an indication of the complexities involved in creating the plan.

If he'd agreed to create a plan pre-Brexit, then it would have been an enormous waste of resources if we'd stayed, which most people thought would be the case, so Cameron took the sensible option.

Politicians should never be encouraged to waste resources, they have an annoying tendency to do that at the best of times.

[ranzino]

Boris Johnson's Brexit vision is 'intellectually impossible'

Facepalming over Boris is a common gesture i guess. But UK's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson once again failed hard and was now bluntly corrected by Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the eurozone's Eurogroup.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/boris-johns...ssible-1591782

[Varitok]

The people have spoken, now is time to respect their wishes and get the hell out of the sinking ship EU as soon as possible.

The left will want to delay the process as much as possible in hopes that they can change peoples minds over time and then when sufficient time has passed, do another referendum. However the uprising against the leftist globalism agenda is not going away, it is just getting started.

Can I ask though, What exactly is wrong about globalism? Why is it wrong to think of the world as a whole instead of individuals? We have pretty close economic ties and it helps to think that way.

[Kalis]

How so?
Only making a plan for one of the choices he offered demonstrates that he saw the referendum as a farce; it demonstrates his contempt for the voters, and he got what was coming to him for that bluff--well actually, he didn't, he got to gamble witht he future of a country for free.

There was no real plan if the referendum had voted to remain, it was basically to do what we were doing and that doesn't require setting up a new government department to implement, as all the existing government departments were already doing that.

- - - Updated - - -

Can I ask though, What exactly is wrong about globalism? Why is it wrong to think of the world as a whole instead of individuals? We have pretty close economic ties and it helps to think that way.

You can reverse the questions.

What is right about globalism? Why is it right to think of the world as a whole instead of individuals? We all have our own desires and are not part of some hive mind.

[Varitok]

There was no real plan if the referendum had voted to remain, it was basically to do what we were doing and that doesn't require setting up a new government department to implement, as all the existing government departments were already doing that.

- - - Updated - - -



You can reverse the questions.

What is right about globalism? Why is it right to think of the world as a whole instead of individuals? We all have our own desires and are not part of some hive mind.

We are so interlinked and dependent on each other. One action a country takes affects the world as a whole now. We aren't living in the 15th century anymore, we have to be outward thinkers and not inside dwellers, Like it or not but thats how the world is now and I don't neccesarily agree with globalism.

[Pann]

Accountancy is only one part of their business, strategic consultancy is what they would provide in this case.

Of course there's a strategy; it certainly hasn't taken final shape yet, given the scale of the task at hand (which no-one should underestimate) and it will undoubtedly change with Europe's shifting political landscape. I would however be very surprised if specific objectives haven't been already set regarding trade relationships / immigration etc...

The idea that civil servants / ministers are sitting around looking clueless whenever Brexit comes up is patently ridiculous, and just panders to the silly mewling that Guardian op-eds have been doing since June.

They will not be making that strategy public any time soon - if ever - much less debating it in Parliament, for obvious reasons.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They were not acting in a consultancy capacity the memo was meant for internal use, the leak is highly embarrassing.

There is no strategy. Whether or not they have one a few months time remains to be seen.

I don't know about civil servants but the government certainly looks clueless when it makes statements such as Brexit means Brexit.

They have to debate the issue in Parliament, they knew this at the time of the referendum, the Supreme Court appeal is nothing but a delaying tactic and an exercise in blame shifting.

- - - Updated - - -

Boris Johnson's Brexit vision is 'intellectually impossible'

Facepalming over Boris is a common gesture i guess. But UK's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson once again failed hard and was now bluntly corrected by Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the eurozone's Eurogroup.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/boris-johns...ssible-1591782

But... but... the Germans will be falling over themselves to give us whatever we want 'cos we buy a few Audis and BMWs!?!

[Kalis]

We are so interlinked and dependent on each other. One action a country takes affects the world as a whole now. We aren't living in the 15th century anymore, we have to be outward thinkers and not inside dwellers, Like it or not but thats how the world is now and I don't neccesarily agree with globalism.

We don't 'have' to be, you may want it, I may want it, but don't presume that everybody wants it.

Many people are naturally risk averse, possibly most, so any push toward globalism needs to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is positive for everyone, otherwise many people will react against it and it hasn't proven that.

You even recognise this doubt when you say "...and I don't neccesarily agree with globalism."

Everybody looks at things from a different perspective, which is why I refuse to demonise those who voted to leave, even though I supported remain - their goals are not necessarily my goals, likewise their needs might be very different from mine.

For example, when someone gets their job outsourced to India, then why on Earth are they going to back globalism? Great for Raj Patel from Bombay who is better off, but Tom Postlethwaite from Harrogate is worse off.

[Kronik85]

We are so interlinked and dependent on each other. One action a country takes affects the world as a whole now. We aren't living in the 15th century anymore, we have to be outward thinkers and not inside dwellers, Like it or not but thats how the world is now and I don't neccesarily agree with globalism.

We also aren't a nation of highly skilled workers which are in worldwide demand and until we are then Globalism has very little positive impact for the majority and awful lot of negative.

[Kalis]

But... but... the Germans will be falling over themselves to give us whatever we want 'cos we buy a few Audis and BMWs!?!

The UK economy is one of the largest in the world, they have far more clout with Germany than flogging a few Audis or BMWs would suggest. It is on par with the French economy and only superceded by the German economy within the EU.

[Daymanmb]

Cameron took the sensible option.

Which turned out to accomplish nothing, right?

[Kalis]

Which turned out to accomplish nothing, right?

How is that relevant? You said that not having a back up plan "seems foolishly prideful", but it was merely the sensible course to take.

I take it you didn't read the post I suggested.

[Valerean]

They were not acting in a consultancy capacity the memo was meant for internal use, the leak is highly embarrassing.

There is no strategy. Whether or not they have one a few months time remains to be seen.

I don't know about civil servants but the government certainly looks clueless when it makes statements such as Brexit means Brexit.

They have to debate the issue in Parliament, they knew this at the time of the referendum, the Supreme Court appeal is nothing but a delaying tactic and an exercise in blame shifting.

- - - Updated - - -



But... but... the Germans will be falling over themselves to give us whatever we want 'cos we buy a few Audis and BMWs!?!

I think we're splitting hairs here. What I meant was that if the Government did hire any of the big four, they would most likely hire them in a consultant capacity. And sure it's embarrassing to Deloitte, no doubt about it.

I may have to eat my foot in a few months if it does come to pass, but I find it inconceivable that the Commons will vote down legislation to trigger Article 50 (if the Supreme Court appeal fails). It would be a direct challenge to popular mandate, and Theresa May will almost certainly call a general election if that happens - which is likely to return a very large Tory majority when UKIP wipe Labour out in the North.

I would love to be clued in on what's going on behind the closed doors of Whitehall, but there are very good reasons for keeping it confidential - protecting negotiation "red lines" being the main one.

Also think you're massively underestimating the amount we buy from Europe. It is in everyones' financial interests to streamline the Brexit process.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Huehuecoyotl]

I think we're splitting hairs here. What I meant was that if the Government did hire any of the big four, they would most likely hire them in a consultant capacity. And sure it's embarrassing to Deloitte, no doubt about it.

I may have to eat my foot in a few months if it does come to pass, but I find it inconceivable that the Commons will vote down legislation to trigger Article 50 (if the Supreme Court appeal fails). It would be a direct challenge to popular mandate, and Theresa May will almost certainly call a general election if that happens - which is likely to return a very large Tory majority when UKIP wipe Labour out in the North.

I would love to be clued in on what's going on behind the closed doors of Whitehall, but there are very good reasons for keeping it confidential - protecting negotiation "red lines" being the main one.

Also think you're massively underestimating the amount we buy from Europe. It is in everyones' financial interests to streamline the Brexit process.

I think you massively overestimate the importance of the UK. Especially as any move towards easing the UK exit would be politically damaging to the EU itself.

You are probably correct, they are doing plenty behind closed doors. The problem is, they are basically down to two choices, both of which are political suicide. They either ignore the referendum, and stay in, in which case a large portion of the electorate will turn out at the next general election and vote against them for thwarting their will. Or they go ahead with Brexit, which will be a hard version, and they wreck the economy completely as our financial services industry ups and leaves for mainland Europe. Which means all the people that voted stay in the referendum will vote against them in the next general election, along with all the leavers that suddenly realise it was actually a bad idea.

I don't think they know which option is worse yet, so they are hoping desperately that something happens that means they don't have to make the decision. Ever hear the story about the guy that was going to be put to death, until he offered to teach the king's horse to sing in a year? That is basically the government policy at the moment.

[Deleted]

I would love to be clued in on what's going on behind the closed doors of Whitehall, but there are very good reasons for keeping it confidential - protecting negotiation "red lines" being the main one.

We know the redlines.
No immigration - Its been touted far and wide.
We know where they have been fungible - Money - Because nobody has said one word about it.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think they know which option is worse yet, so they are hoping desperately that something happens that means they don't have to make the decision. Ever hear the story about the guy that was going to be put to death, until he offered to teach the king's horse to sing in a year? That is basically the government policy at the moment.

The cynic in me thinks the only reason they might have their lawyers argue that Art 50 is reversible (unilaterally or otherwise) to the supreme court is because that would essentially require them to ask the ECJ for guidance about that - That is liable to take a year.
Then maybe they can convince enough lords to vote against the ratification, to overrule them, well that takes another year, voila, its a new GE in less than two years...

[Kalis]

I think you massively overestimate the importance of the UK. Especially as any move towards easing the UK exit would be politically damaging to the EU itself.

The EU cannot afford to damage the UK economy substantially, as it would wreck Ireland and have a major negative impact on the economies of other EU member states.

The EU may want to punish the UK, but the heads of member states who would suffer aren't going to want anything too harsh and they hold the true power in Europe.

And could you imagine the political backlash against the EU if they try to heavily punish the UK for leaving? That would prove the EU is a body who require fear of leaving to create unity and when you have the likes of Le Pen gaining popularity, you don't use Death Star tactics - that works for authoritarian regimes, not democracies.

You are probably correct, they are doing plenty behind closed doors. The problem is, they are basically down to two choices, both of which are political suicide. They either ignore the referendum, and stay in, in which case a large portion of the electorate will turn out at the next general election and vote against them for thwarting their will. Or they go ahead with Brexit, which will be a hard version, and they wreck the economy completely as our financial services industry ups and leaves for mainland Europe. Which means all the people that voted stay in the referendum will vote against them in the next general election, along with all the leavers that suddenly realise it was actually a bad idea.

I don't think they know which option is worse yet, so they are hoping desperately that something happens that means they don't have to make the decision. Ever hear the story about the guy that was going to be put to death, until he offered to teach the king's horse to sing in a year? That is basically the government policy at the moment.

The financial services industry is not going to up and leave for mainland Europe, some will, but to suggest it will wreck the UK economy is pure fear mongering.

[Huehuecoyotl]

We know the redlines.
No immigration - Its been touted far and wide.
We know where they have been fungible - Money - Because nobody has said one word about it.

The problem is "no immigration" means "no access to the single market" which means "a much, much smaller financial services industry". Which means the economy goes down the toilet. Which makes it rather less of a red line, in practical terms.

- - - Updated - - -

The financial services industry is not going to up and leave for mainland Europe, some will, but to suggest it will wreck the UK economy is pure fear mongering.

There is an EU law that all of the financial services operating in Euros has to be done within the EU. It was put there because the UK demanded it, to stave off competition from others like New York. So if we leave, all of those functions will move to the mainland. Which leaves all those big firms deciding whether to move the bulk of their operations, and run one head office. Or split them in two and run two head offices. I wonder which they will choose?

The city of London provides 20% of the tax revenue of the UK at the moment, I believe.

Sure, fear mongering. You keep telling yourself that.

[Deleted]

The problem is "no immigration" means "no access to the single market" which means "a much, much smaller financial services industry". Which means the economy goes down the toilet. Which makes it rather less of a red line, in practical terms.

Yet it is the will of the people.
Its fairly clear that the UK is liable to have to prostrate itself and beg to be able to continue selling services and not have to accept immigration.
If offered a deal that was just as is, but with say a 50k a year work visa program - They would take it.
Nevermind that would require obeying the EU and no longer having a vote, or forking over more money net - Yet they would still take it.
The big problem the UK faces is essentially that Art 50 was not just not designed to be used, and only designed to maintain state sovereignty (since they all could leave) - It was in fact designed to not be something they actually could use, and to meet other criteria.
Literally every part of Art 50 is slanted towards the favor of the EU.

[Kalis]

There is an EU law that all of the financial services operating in Euros has to be done within the EU. It was put there because the UK demanded it, to stave off competition from others like New York. So if we leave, all of those functions will move to the mainland. Which leaves all those big firms deciding whether to move the bulk of their operations, and run one head office. Or split them in two and run two head offices. I wonder which they will choose?

The city of London provides 20% of the tax revenue of the UK at the moment, I believe.

Sure, fear mongering. You keep telling yourself that.

They won't all move to the mainland, they don't have the maturity of financial services market to cope with it on the continent. All that will happen for most is they open a European subsidiary and route EU business through there, which is exactly what American financial service companies do in London and vice versa, this isn't some new phenomenon.

You need to show that financial services companies are going to knowingly and willingly damage their own interests and you won't be able to, because they won't do so. So you are fear mongering.

[Valerean]

The problem is "no immigration" means "no access to the single market" which means "a much, much smaller financial services industry". Which means the economy goes down the toilet. Which makes it rather less of a red line, in practical terms.

- - - Updated - - -



There is an EU law that all of the financial services operating in Euros has to be done within the EU. It was put there because the UK demanded it, to stave off competition from others like New York. So if we leave, all of those functions will move to the mainland. Which leaves all those big firms deciding whether to move the bulk of their operations, and run one head office. Or split them in two and run two head offices. I wonder which they will choose?

The city of London provides 20% of the tax revenue of the UK at the moment, I believe.

Sure, fear mongering. You keep telling yourself that.

I work for one of the largest insurance companies in the world, and no-one among my clients, colleagues or fellow industry professionals has seriously contemplated relocating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk