I think that what we are seeing is diplomats in both the UK and the EU trying to come up with a workable plan. Yes Prime Minister is still alive and well. Part of the problem is that Brexit means different things to different people, mainly because of the nature of the referendum. Unlike a general election where individual parts of policy are discussed in detail, this was not done, just politicians saying that the other side were telling lies. It is clear that there was no plan in the UK for life outside the EU, and article 50 was never framed in the belief that a country would leave. The fact that the UK government is talking to the devolved parts of the UK is a step towards what? May is talking about getting Northern Ireland and Scotland to agree to a policy, but it would have to be something that would have little effect on those two parts of the UK to keep them happy. My suspicion, and at present it is little more, is that without ever admitting it, a typical political fudge is being worked on.
The whole problem of Brexit is that not only does it mean different things to different people but there are no processes or precedents to follow. The EU have stated there is to be no formal or even informal negotiating to be done before Article 50. However in reality you can be sure there is plenty of unofficial informal negotiating going on. But where can it lead? Suppose the UK reached a sort of understanding on the position we would take in negotiations - what then? Do you ask the public to approve that stance - or Parliament? What happens if it is rejected? What happens if it is accepted - but then is not acceptable to the EU? At the end of 2 years or whenever do we have a vote on whether we accept the terms of surrender? It could be a deal is done that many Brexiters accept but not hard line UKIP Brexiters - what then? There are just too many combinations and permutations - who on earth thought it right to have a referendum on a totally unknown and unknowable future?
You are right about it meaning different things to different people Leo. Some people voted Brexit because of an idea about controlling borders, others because of some wierd idea that we would actually gain more sovereignty, others used it as a protest vote against the whole establishment. A smaller minority on the hard left also voted for Brexit. People for whom the EU. has become nothing more than a neo liberal club - these people would have seen the way Greece was treated, with compulsory privatizations etc. A future Labour programme involving renationalization of railways, and national control of energy etc. would be difficult to achieve within the EU. We also saw how TTIP was being forced through in Brussels. No wonder that Corbyn was only 70% in favour of remain. Through a combination of all these disparate groups we have become committed to invoking something which has never been done before, and was actually compiled with the conviction that nobody would ever use it (that's why it's only 250 words long). Everybody (including May) is trying to say the right words - but, at the same time, trying to limit the damage of a massive own goal. We all know who did this Leo. It was done by Cameron, thinking firstly that he would probably never get a majority in the first place, and secondly that he would win easily and Ukip would consequently disappear like a bad dream - it all worked out differently, which shows you should never risk referendums with a population which is not used to them. And this whole unnecessary episode was all done for inner party reasons.
I agree with most of what you say but I don't blame Cameron. He was in a corner. If you must blame anyone blame the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party and voters who were prepared to switch to UKIP - from Tory and Labour. There were a lot of them. This country has never been wholeheartedly pro Europe and after 43 years it has been shown that enough people were really just not sold on it.
PM Theresa May has met Conservative MEPs to discuss "red lines" in negotiations about the UK's EU exit. Speaking after the meeting at Number 10, Tory MEPs' leader Syed Kamall said there would be "months of preparation" before the formal exit process began. He said: "We were starting to talk about the different areas of negotiations, not coming to any conclusions yet. "I don't think you can say what will be and what won't be on the table. Neither side really have agreed their red lines. The British Government needs to discuss its red lines across all departments." Mr Kamall said he did not know how long the process would take, and that the meeting between Mrs May and Tory MEPs could be the first of many. There will be a general election in 2020 and will the people know any more about what they will be voting for?
Unless Article 50 is not tabled until May 2018 we will have left by then. And if it is not table by then I think there will be more than one or two problems being raised
Not quite Leo. If after two years the negotiations have not been completed, then with the agreement of the other countries they can be extended.
As I stated earlier Article 50 does not need to be tabled. From what was stated by the EU during the Scottish referendum, if England (and Wales) leave the UK.Scotland and Northern Ireland would then remain in the EU as the UK. England (and Wales) would then negotiate whatever deal they choose for trade with the EU. This scenario would also have the added advantage of allowing England (and Wales) to begin negotiations before formally issuing any intention of departure.
I understand now why Jim Bonser was misunderstood ! There is really a helluva lot of wheeling and dealing eh..... Reminds me of the story of the pearl and the diver...... the diver sees it on the sea bed.... then dives in.... and the water and sand agitate and he can see nothing... if he holds to his direction the water will slowly clear and he will find the pearl!
The TUC, who are going to be consulted, are calling for a national debate about what people expect and want from this sorry mess. Surely this should have happened before the vote, not afterwards.
Opinion was divided 52:48 as to what it was. What looked to the 52% like a huge pearl from the water's surface, was in fact a white shell. The diver dove very, very deep for it, waited for the sand to clear - which took ages - found out it was just a shell and now may not have enough oxygen to survive the trip back to the surface without drowning or risking 'the bends'. Analogy extended far enough?
But who was doing the 'selling'? The tiny few who control our nation's media, appealing to an island race not to trust those bloody foreigners and their straight cucumbers, pedlars of "health and safety gone mad" and underminding (sic) our land with their silly bloody human rights.
England will never leave the UK. Why would they do so? They do not want it to break up and to do so in order to let Scotland get into the EU is not going to happen.
Nobody was selling - by "sold on it" I just meant people did not see the EU as important or beneficial to their lives. Perhaps there should have been a propaganda campaign to explain what was good about it all along. Maybe then UKIP would have found less fertile soil
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-treasury-brexit-eu-referendum-a7154526.html That didn't take long.
I wasn't having a go at what you said, Leo, I was pointing out that there's been an idle journalist/sycophantic editor tendency to support their ultra right-wing owners' views on Europe. We've been sold a line on it for years, and yes, I agree, we should have had a proper campaign to show what the EU has done for us. UKIP fed our collective ignorance and Cameron and his ilk were happy to ride on the wave if it got them back into power.
Don't worry - I did not take it that you were having a go or anything. You raised a good point that nobody ever did sell the benefits of being in the EU - even during the referendum. At what point did they tell us we were near broke in 1975 with 3 day weeks energy crises etc but 40 years later we had the 5th largest economy in the world second only to Germany in Europe and Brexit used the fact we were stong to suggest we should ditch our "ailing, low growth " neighbours.
