Brexit negotiations 'have not begun well' - Sir Simon Fraser

[mvaliz]

You know, I get the whole idea that "we can't just have a re-vote on Brexit, because it undermines the entire point of democracy."...

...but, how about using a little legaleaze and saying "How about asking the people to vote on weither we should re-vote on brexit or not?" :P

You may think it's the same thing/redundant, but it really isn't when you look at it long enough. Clearly it's not going well, and there's a massive waive of "regrexit" going on. People are feeling VERY differently now than before, and clearly the effects of Brexit are not going to the original plan - so... why bother to keep digging the hole? Lets have a point where we don't just stop - but simply examine what's going on and say "OK, lets vote to see if we should take some time to re-examine this again, as it's not going according to plan." This way you can SEE if the PEOPLE want to re-vote (ie. re-argue the positions and reexamine the potentials), and thus you keep democracy intact. You wouldn't just be voting on a "re-vote", but also voting on weither such a thing should be allowed or not.

[Deleted]

You know, I get the whole idea that "we can't just have a re-vote on Brexit, because it undermines the entire point of democracy."...

...but, how about using a little legaleaze and saying "How about asking the people to vote on weither we should re-vote on brexit or not?" :P

You may think it's the same thing/redundant, but it really isn't when you look at it long enough. Clearly it's not going well, and there's a massive waive of "regrexit" going on. People are feeling VERY differently now than before, and clearly the effects of Brexit are not going to the original plan - so... why bother to keep digging the hole? Lets have a point where we don't just stop - but simply examine what's going on and say "OK, lets vote to see if we should take some time to re-examine this again, as it's not going according to plan." This way you can SEE if the PEOPLE want to re-vote (ie. re-argue the positions and reexamine the potentials), and thus you keep democracy intact. You wouldn't just be voting on a "re-vote", but also voting on weither such a thing should be allowed or not.

I think they will get the deal, then when its a complete shitshow loss, put the terms to a referendum.

[Pann]

I think they will get the deal, then when its a complete shitshow loss, put the terms to a referendum.

I'm not sure that would be such a good idea. A second referendum would be driven by the remoaners and the EU are trying to undermine democracy and to be honest I am not sure that the British public can be trusted not to shoot itself foot (again).

[Acidbaron]

I do not see how giving them additional time to squabble some more among themselves would help anyone involved in these negotiations.

Would be more done to favor on our end since talks ending early and there being no agreement is sadly something that will cut the EU also.

- - - Updated - - -

I think they will get the deal, then when its a complete shitshow loss, put the terms to a referendum.

You want to ask the public to voice their opinion on 759 treaties? The same public where a majority were badly informed regarding what the brexit would do, looking at the lies around NHS and such?

That's a pretty terrible idea if you ask me, considering it also gets rather technical and would really need long extensive debates to explain everything especially how they can connect with each other.

- - - Updated - - -

You know, I get the whole idea that "we can't just have a re-vote on Brexit, because it undermines the entire point of democracy."...

...but, how about using a little legaleaze and saying "How about asking the people to vote on weither we should re-vote on brexit or not?" :P

You may think it's the same thing/redundant, but it really isn't when you look at it long enough. Clearly it's not going well, and there's a massive waive of "regrexit" going on. People are feeling VERY differently now than before, and clearly the effects of Brexit are not going to the original plan - so... why bother to keep digging the hole? Lets have a point where we don't just stop - but simply examine what's going on and say "OK, lets vote to see if we should take some time to re-examine this again, as it's not going according to plan." This way you can SEE if the PEOPLE want to re-vote (ie. re-argue the positions and reexamine the potentials), and thus you keep democracy intact. You wouldn't just be voting on a "re-vote", but also voting on weither such a thing should be allowed or not.

They already did, look at how the conservatives lost in the last election the conservatives called for believing they would get an even bigger majority. And that was BEFORE the fire drama in London, where the conservatives took rightly so big part of the blame.

There's no way in hell they are going to attempt it now as they know they would get an even bigger fuck you from the public.

[minteK917]

The fact your own prime minister was against brexit should tell you its not a very good idea. The people on the pro brexit camp arent the one in charge of anything. They just won, clean their hands of things and let someone else deal with it.

[ranzino]

In my opinion the UK should brace for the worst case scenario even if the government had their act together trade deals take a very long time. It is impossible for the UK and the EU to work out a trade deal within 2 years on top of the other issues.

Brexit is on spot in early 2019, they dont have 2 years of anything left. And without a deal before the bell tolls, UK falls back into nowhere area, as if they never ever had any connections to EU.

[Teleros]

What are you babbling on about?

What don't you understand in what I wrote?

I suspect that had he been singing the praises of David Davis and his team you would be using vast experience as proof that Brexit is going well.

Maybe, though my opinion of the FCO is so low TBH I'd be more likely to be suspicious.

Ultimately you've offered nothing to counter his points

He made none.

No, seriously, read what he said. He thinks this and he thinks that, and offered precisely zero evidence. Oh, and he wants the government to do something, which I did counter, by pointing out that it's a retarded negotiating strategy to reveal what you're going to do in advance.

It is a playground level of debate which seems to be all too typical of Brexit supporters.

Yes well that's politics for you .

I fail to see what is good about the UK being seen to be badly prepared for probably the most important negotiations in recent history.

/headdesk

I was clearly responding to the fact that it was at least being played out in public.

It is worrying that you are probably being serious.

It's worrying you don't understand this is how politics works.

= + =

In my opinion the UK should brace for the worst case scenario even if the government had their act together trade deals take a very long time. It is impossible for the UK and the EU to work out a trade deal within 2 years on top of the other issues.

Ditto. If nothing else, the EU's not known for working out trade deals quickly, so the British government should be (and probably is*) trying to prepare for the worst.

*Insofar as it's possible. It's going to be hard at this stage to figure out what the deal will be like, and it can always be worse.

= + =

Seriously old guard? What kind of vague argument is this. Are you claiming that these people who are pointing out that the UK didn't come prepared are lying? Or you just don't like them because they are honest?

They may be lying - far be it for me to claim to know what's going on in their heads.

However, it's well known that the FCO is full of Europhiles. What I'm suggesting is also a classic tactic in shaping public opinion.

If I wiki the May or Boris Johnson for example how long do you think they are in politics. Or the brexit team?

Don't be so daft. The old guard, as should be obvious, refers to the pre-referendum Remoaners and Europhiles in the FCO and elsewhere in government (both the Civil Service and Tory party) who prefer the UK being in the EU, and who are consequently still opposed to Brexit. How is that not obvious?

Here's a Google definition for you.

but you know outside of you're gut speculation you still haven't answered what the motivation would be of these experts for disagreeing with how the Brexit dream team has handled the talks till this point.

Uhm, you do realise this is politics, right? And that talking to press is different from making a sworn statement under oath?

Yes, he may be right, I've never actually disputed that. However, given that it's (a) a BBC article, that (b) doesn't mention the bloke they give half the space to campaigned against Brexit, nor that (c) he was a senior mandarin in the FCO, or even that (d) he worked for Peter Mandelson (as EU Commissioner for Trade) as his chief of staff... gee, maybe, just maybe, there's reason to seriously doubt his objectivity and impartiality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fraser_(diplomat)
https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/g...r-simon-fraser
https://order-order.com/section/euro-guido

= + =

May's Government cannot decide what it wants and is screaming buzzwords.

According to what, the Guardian's Komment Macht Frei?

The Brexit leaders ran away, once they won.

Boris Johnson & Michael Gove both stood for leadership of the Tory party. That's running away now?

Saint Nigel decided his job was done, though he's promised to come back if a proper Brexit deal isn't delivered, and is still there on the sidelines. Given he ended up being only one of the leading Brexiteers and has devoted decades of his life to the cause, I don't see why he can't have a well-earned break.

British Judges are still not told if they should uphold ECJ rulings.

What, are we leaving the EU next week? No, we're leaving in 2 years. Plenty of time to decide how ECJ rulings should be incorporated into future decisions, if at all.

The Bank of England is warning households will have less income due to wages decreasing.

The same Bank of England that was staunchly pro-Remain and came up with some highly dubious statistics about Brexit? Right.

The whole thing would be hilarious, if peoples health, wealth and well being were not at risk.

Says the guy with the Antifa avatar and the signature link to one of Soros's population replacement NGOs.

(PS: they have to go back)

[Pann]

What don't you understand in what I wrote?


Maybe, though my opinion of the FCO is so low TBH I'd be more likely to be suspicious.


He made none.

No, seriously, read what he said. He thinks this and he thinks that, and offered precisely zero evidence. Oh, and he wants the government to do something, which I did counter, by pointing out that it's a retarded negotiating strategy to reveal what you're going to do in advance.


Yes well that's politics for you

You made absolutely no point. It was nothing but waffle.

If he made no point then why are you busy telling people that he cannot be trusted because he campaigned for remain?

I have read what he has said and quite frankly you now appear, after initially trying to discredit him by saying that was a remoaner, to be deliberately misrepresenting what he has said.

[Teleros]

You made absolutely no point. It was nothing but waffle.

If he made no point then why are you busy telling people that he cannot be trusted because he campaigned for remain?

I have read what he has said and quite frankly you now appear, after initially trying to discredit him by saying that was a remoaner, to be deliberately misrepresenting what he has said.

Please stop grasping at straws. You're looking ridiculous.

1. Sir Simon Fraser did not provide any evidence (you know... proof, that kind of thing). It was pure opinion.
2. The BBC, probably deliberately, hid his many pro-EU connections and history.
3. Therefore, I have serious reason to doubt his credibility as an independent, impartial and objective source of information.

Is that clear enough?

[Pann]

Please stop grasping at straws. You're looking ridiculous.

1. Sir Simon Fraser did not provide any evidence (you know... proof, that kind of thing). It was pure opinion.
2. The BBC, probably deliberately, hid his many pro-EU connections and history.
3. Therefore, I have serious reason to doubt his credibility as an independent, impartial and objective source of information.

Is that clear enough?

What? He said "We haven't put forward a lot because, as we know, there are differences within the cabinet about the sort of Brexit that we are heading for..." are you suggesting that he was wrong to say that the UK has not put a lot forward? Or that there are no differences in the cabinet? All this a matter of public record.

No-one has said that he is supposed to independent or impartial nor has he set himself as an object source of information. He is a man with a great deal of experience and expertise in this area who has offered his opinion on how the Brexit negotiations have gone so far - nothing more.

Once again you've failed to counter anything he said, instead you again attack the man and not his argument.

[Teleros]

What? He said "We haven't put forward a lot because, as we know, there are differences within the cabinet about the sort of Brexit that we are heading for..." are you suggesting that he was wrong to say that the UK has not put a lot forward? Or that there are no differences in the cabinet? All this a matter of public record.

He thinks it's not a lot, but also doesn't necessarily know if other things have been put forwards but not mentioned.

No-one has said that he is supposed to independent or impartial nor has he set himself as an object source of information.

The way the BBC article is structured and written implies it.

[Pann]

He thinks it's not a lot, but also doesn't necessarily know if other things have been put forwards but not mentioned.


The way the BBC article is structured and written implies it.

Oh, yeah, of course... how could he so silly - it is an illusion the UK government seems completely unprepared, in reality they are simply not telling us how brilliant they are at negotiating (in the process allowing uncertainty to reign) and how we can all look forward to having our cake and eating it whilst the BBC blares out Rule Britannia by way of apology for not telling us how wonderful they are at every opportunity!

No. It. Does. Not. Yet more nonsense because you are unable to counter what he has said.

[Teleros]

Oh, yeah, of course... how could he so silly - it is an illusion the UK government seems completely unprepared

Now you're putting words in his mouth by claiming the government is "completely unprepared"... huh.

in reality they are simply not telling us how brilliant they are at negotiating

Bit soon, no?

in the process allowing uncertainty to reign

You do understand how sabotage works, right?

and how we can all look forward to having our cake and eating it

Given that Brexiteers generally accepted that there'd be uncertainty and the like after Brexit, stop being silly.

whilst the BBC blares out Rule Britannia by way of apology for not telling us how wonderful they are at every opportunity!

Uh-huh.

No. It. Does. Not. Yet more nonsense because you are unable to counter what he has said.

I've shown earlier how the BBC did this. You've provided zero evidence to advance the opposing point of view.

[Pann]

Now you're putting words in his mouth by claiming the government is "completely unprepared"... huh.


Bit soon, no?


You do understand how sabotage works, right?


Given that Brexiteers generally accepted that there'd be uncertainty and the like after Brexit, stop being silly.


Uh-huh.


I've shown earlier how the BBC did this. You've provided zero evidence to advance the opposing point of view.

No I am not. I am not sure why you felt the need to put completely unprepared in quotations.

What?

What has sabotage got to with anything?

I am glad that Brexiteers have accepted that they will be uncertainty. How very gracious. Although what it has to do with what I wrote is anyone's guess.

You've shown nothing. I don't need to advance the opposing point of view in much the same way as I do not need to advance the opposing point of view to someone who claims the moon is made of cheese - what you wrote was simply wrong and not true.

Seriously you may as well have written that Sir Simon Fraser is wrong because he is poopyhead - it would have been just as well reasoned and rational as anything you've offered so far and it would have saved anyone reading this thread the effort wading through your nonsense before dismissing you as someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

[Noradin]

The latter point I can somewhat agree on - there are obviously divisions in the Tory party and in Whitehall on how to go about things, not to mention what to even ask for, etc etc etc. How deep those divisions are, and how serious... we just don't know. Finding an honest assessment at this stage is like finding in a needle in a haystack.

As for the state of the negotiations... same problem. These things should be conducted in private, and I don't trust anyone to give the unvarnished truth. My rule of thumb is to give it 30 or so years, and by then it should be possible to do a reasonably honest assessment of how they went, as all the major players will be long dead or retired. Of course we can also check the status of things once negotiations are concluded, once the UK is out of the EU, and a few years down the road as well.

Absolutely not.
The only reason why one would want to have these negotiations in private would be to later lie to the public about how it went down.
The EU cannot negotiate in private due to the way it is made up of sovereign nations.
It has to be transparent about these things and that is why it tries to make realistic proposals, not invent unrealistic starting positions just so the other side can later claim to have talked them down.

[ranzino]

EU will not report every sentence to public, but is not shy to point at differences. We already know what's on the table from UK's side.. and that's not much hard stuff.
to be continued late in august at the next session. the 40 bn offer is a start.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1AL0R1

[dribbles]

EU will not report every sentence to public, but is not shy to point at differences. We already know what's on the table from UK's side.. and that's not much hard stuff.
to be continued late in august at the next session. the 40 bn offer is a start.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1AL0R1

Nah the 40bn is off the table now, if anything the EU owes the UK. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/418738...n-it-needs-to/

[Draco-Onis]

Nah the 40bn is off the table now, if anything the EU owes the UK. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/418738...n-it-needs-to/

The UK predictably saying no it doesn't mean it's off the table, it is going to be negotiated like everything else. Besides as the clock keeps ticking the UK's position become less enviable, they need to stop selling a rosy picture and prepare the public for when the shit hits the fan.

[Dhrizzle]

EU will not report every sentence to public, but is not shy to point at differences. We already know what's on the table from UK's side.. and that's not much hard stuff.
to be continued late in august at the next session. the 40 bn offer is a start.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1AL0R1

Some comedy gold in that article -

Pro-Brexit campaign group Leave Means Leave said speculation about a divorce bill was "unhelpful".

"With the EU Brexit negotiations, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," said the groups' co-chair Richard Tice.

"The focus should be on accelerating talks with the aim of concluding them at the end of 2017. This would enable businesses to adapt during the 15 months leading to March 2019."

So they want the hardest of Brexits (no single-market, no customs union, no ECJ) and expect us to get all that tied up in less than 5 months, including any breaks for Christmas.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Um...did anyone expect them to go well? I'd kinda love the US to kick out Alalabama, but I can't imagine the legal headache that would cause just to make the field of 49 stars square.

If we ever kick out a state, we can always officially make one of the US territories officially a state in its place. I know many of those territories have voted in favor of being a US state in the past, but then get blocked by the government.