Brexit discussion thread IV

ilovesmybrick

brickster69 wrote: »

What an embarrassment this Baby Trump thing is. If you flew a 6 meter pig in the air you would probably get arrested. 
Totally fine though, to mock the President of the UK's longest standing ally in front of the worlds media.

You could not make it up if you tried.

Pink Floyd flew a twelve meter inflatable pig in the 1970's, and last year the V&A flew a giant inflatable pig over their premises for the launch of an exhibition. And in terms of Trump being an ally, he's not only acting like the complete opposite, he is completely undermining any ability Theresa May might have to get some form of Tory agreement. He deserves to be mocked and chastised at any and all opportunities as he demonstrates no respect or knowledge of the US allies.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely you must realise that I would include the EU as part of Brexit. America would be the first major post-Brexit deal. So you're not popping any bubbles here and I don't even know why would think there are bubbles to pop. An utterly strange comment.



Negotiations with the EU. If the EU know that the UK can't even deal with America after they leave, the EU gains a huge advantage.

The EU already has a huge advantage, but also, the EU's hands are already tied. The EU cannot possibly give the UK a better deal than they give to current members of the EU, and other preferred trading partners. They simply can't. So the absolutely best deal the UK can possibly negotiate while leaving the EU, is one that is significantly worse than what they have now.

Anything else would be the EU agreeing to it's own break-up

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

How can you negotiate a complex bilateral free trade agreement with someone who is liable to 'throw a hissy fit' at any point over the course of a multi year negotiation period for even the smallest provocation?

Someone should ask this question to the MPs who are riling him up. I've no idea why you'd ask me.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU already has a huge advantage, but also, the EU's hands are already tied. The EU cannot possibly give the UK a better deal than they give to current members of the EU, and other preferred trading partners. They simply can't. So the absolutely best deal the UK can possibly negotiate while leaving the EU, is one that is significantly worse than what they have now.

Anything else would be the EU agreeing to it's own break-up

I was more alluding to the fact that the UK's "We are prepared to walk away with no deal." really falls apart if it's blindingly obvious to everyone that they wouldn't even be able to secure a US deal quickly.

Anyways, all I'm saying is that politicians should shut up for the good of their constituents. Everyone likes to call Trump a baby, they like to launch blimps of him as a baby, but then they want to ignore his childish tendencies and push their luck.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

If the pro trump brigade get all 'offended' at the mere mention of Trump's mother then I think we're scraping the bottom of the barrel

Who's offended? I'm making a very basic observation about what the UK should do when it comes to Trump. It's called pragmatism and it's what this thread has been about. Go look at the other thread if you want to cheer on British politicians insulting the leader of the UK's most important post-Brexit trade partner.


Christy42, I've nothing really to say about your reply. You're not wrong but it's not really relevant. You're either pro, anti or don't care about UK politicians questioning Trump's mother's ability to raise children. If I were a Remainer, I'd be very very anti that sort of thing and I'd be livid if any Irish politician said similar during a US state visit, and we're not even remotely at the US' mercy like the UK is.

If Trump pulls a hissy fit which is very likely with everything that's going on, the UK's negotiating power is dead. It would be the biggest blow imaginable.

I am I don't care level.

Trump will pull a hissy fit no matter what. No point in trying to avoid it. That was my point about Macron. The nice approach will not work because he will go off the handle regardless (presuming of course the UK does not offer an insanely unbalanced trade agreement).

If he insulted Leo I would expect at least FG to stick up for Leo. I see no issue there. He visited a country and insulted their political leadership. I am not sure what he expected.

one armed dwarf

Akrasia wrote: »

How can you negotiate a complex bilateral free trade agreement with someone who is liable to 'throw a hissy fit' at any point over the course of a multi year negotiation period for even the smallest provocation?

Yeah I don't understand what value a Trump trade deal has if it might as well be written on toilet paper.

It's just not worth being this guy's bitch.

I'm very saddened by the state of the UK. That a clown like Farage could hijack things behind the scenes and dictate the narrative to Trump. It's ****ing Loony Toons right now.

I'm not even a fan of May but it's not right that she can be embarrased by that fvking clown

Frank Bullitt

So the person you were hoping to get a trade deal with has basically pissed all over it before it can even start...sounds great.

lawred2

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU already has a huge advantage, but also, the EU's hands are already tied. The EU cannot possibly give the UK a better deal than they give to current members of the EU, and other preferred trading partners. They simply can't. So the absolutely best deal the UK can possibly negotiate while leaving the EU, is one that is significantly worse than what they have now.

Anything else would be the EU agreeing to it's own break-up

EU can not also give a better deal to the UK than they do other most favoured nations either... as then they would have to give the same deal to those other nations..

It's big fat granite circle that Brexiteers think will be easily squared with wishful thinking, bluster and bullsh!t.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

EU can not also give a better deal to the UK than they do other most favoured nations either... as then they would have to give the same deal to those other nations..

What do you mean? I thought it was only WTO where that applied. Countries and blocs can do what they like when there is a free trade deal.

trellheim

EU can not also give a better deal to the UK than they do other most favoured nations either... as then they would have to give the same deal to those other nations..

It's big fat granite circle that Brexiteers think will be easily squared with wishful thinking, bluster and bullsh!t.

Dont worry too much about that aspect of it - pragmatism will win out there I think - something will be given for something ; the WP at least lets the talking continue

On another note
Looking at Question time last night I found myself questioning many many deeply held beliefs when Piers Morgan turned out to be the most sensible person on the panel with Claire Perry coming off as unhinged several times ( I view Piers M as a huge ass )

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you mean? I thought it was only WTO where that applied. Countries and blocs can do what they like when there is a free trade deal.

The EU has agreements with it's 'most favoured nations' that they will match any beneficial trade agreements that other nations agree with the EU. If The EU gives the UK better terms than the likes of Canada, the Canadians have a legal right to demand those same terms for themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU has agreements with it's 'most favoured nations' that they will match any beneficial trade agreements that other nations agree with the EU. If The EU gives the UK better terms than the likes of Canada, the Canadians have a legal right to demand those same terms for themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation

Do you have a list of the EU's most favored nations? That link says "Exceptions allow for preferential treatment of developing countries, regional free trade areas and customs unions." I can't find more details.

I'm almost certain that if Canada and the EU have a deal, then the EU can give a better one to the UK since they aren't using WTO rules. Even if the EU and Canada are on WTO, then it still works like that?

Akrasia

trellheim wrote: »

Dont worry too much about that aspect of it - pragmatism will win out there I think - something will be given for something ; the WP at least lets the talking continue

On another note
Looking at Question time last night I found myself questioning many many deeply held beliefs when Piers Morgan turned out to be the most sensible person on the panel with Claire Perry coming off as unhinged several times ( I view Piers M as a huge ass )

Piers Morgan had me screaming at the screen last night. He was wrong so many times and his opinion came across as smug and ill informed. His entire position was 'remoaners are crying wolf just like they did with the Euro'

With the Euro debate, there was an economic argument about whether it would be better to be in or out. Some predicted remaining outside would harm the UK economy, others said it wouldn't. Outside of the tabloids, nobody was really predicting a collapse of the UK economy if they kept the GBP

With a hard 'no-deal' Brexit, it's not a choice to keep a currency and all the existing mechanisms and institutions for regulating that currency, it's a choice to, overnight, take 40 years worth of complex regulatory authorities, international agreements, customs and trade agreements, R&D agreements, logistics, food supply, energy supply, telecommuncations, defence, security, policing, immigration, education, environmental standards, labour rights, pan european pensions, ex pat and tourist health care agreements, professional qualifications, air traffic control agreements etc etc etc, and throw them all in the bin on midnight on 30/03/19, with nothing to replace them.

ambro25

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have a list of the EU's most favored nations? That link says "Exceptions allow for preferential treatment of developing countries, regional free trade areas and customs unions." I can't find more details.

I'm almost certain that if Canada and the EU have a deal, then the EU can give a better one to the UK since they aren't using WTO rules. Even if the EU and Canada are on WTO, then it still works like that?

They are most certainly ‘using the WTO rules’: the EU CU, the EU SM, and the FTAs the EU has concluded with 3rd countries like CA, KR, JP etc. all conform to WTO rules (which ‘supersede’ local and regional agreements -such as the EU CU, SM, NAFTA, etc- that all have to ultimately comply with WTO principles). Exceptions also have to comply with them.

Whatever agreement may (might) be reached between the EU27 and the U.K. will also have to comply with WTO rules: WTO rules are the lowest common denominator/basis (or highest, from the POV of legal ascendency). The (notional) agreement would be an improvement on them, but still have to comply with them.

Of course, that makes all such agreements, FTAs, etc de facto optional in nature, hence they are only ever negotiated on the basis of -and reflect- what’s in it for the respective parties...inclusive of the parties’ respective strengths in the negotiating balance.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have a list of the EU's most favored nations? That link says "Exceptions allow for preferential treatment of developing countries, regional free trade areas and customs unions." I can't find more details.

I'm almost certain that if Canada and the EU have a deal, then the EU can give a better one to the UK since they aren't using WTO rules. Even if the EU and Canada are on WTO, then it still works like that?

There are MFN agreements with loads of countries. Too many to list here, but here's a small selection.
Armenia, Afghanistan, Canada, Cuba, Cook Islands, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Albania, Tajikstan, Egypt, Korea, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan.....
Not all of these cover all aspects of trade, some cover fisheries, some cover IAEA agreements, some cover services but not goods, others cover goods but not services, but the point is, if the UK negotiates a preferential deal with the EU as a third party state, it's going to put the cat amongst the pigeons as all of these MFN agreements where these countries will all have a claim over these favourable terms to be applied to them too.

http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/ClauseTreatiesPDFGeneratorAction.do?clauseID=188

Leroy42

So it seems that JRM has no problem with Trump weighing in on Brexit and putting down May's approach to it.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/988332/Rees-Mogg-Donald-Trump-Brexit-May-white-paper

When asked what he thought of the fact that Trump was intervening in what is a UK issue and nothing to do with the US JRM responded with

"The UK wants to do a trade deal with Donald Trump and he said if you want to a trade deal with the United States this isn't the way to do it.

Seems a slightly different approach when Obama tried to out across the US thinking prior to the vote.

Pro-Brexit MPs warn Barack Obama to stay out of EU referendum debate

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pro-brexit-mps-warn-barack-obama-to-stay-out-of-eu-referendum-debate-a6936066.html


So basically, JRM is agreeing that in order to get a trade deal with the US, he is willing to let his PM be embarrassed, willing to take on board whatever the US and willing to do whatever is needed. So taking back control seems to amount to letting the US President decide on policy rather than the PM.

Right, so that the Lords, NI, the Judges, MP's who disagree, the civil service, business, parts of the media, No 10 and now the PM itself that needs to be sacrificed at the altar of Brexit.

trellheim

right lets ratchet it up again https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0713/978465-brexit/

joeysoap

Piers Morgan interrupted everyone last night.

On the program afterward Farage had no problem with America saying to UK if you don’t quit completely we won’t deal, yet as was pointed out he complained when Obama said Uk will be last in line for a new deal if UK leave.

Around 5.20 ‘ walk this unwalkable path’

Sums up Brexit

https://youtu.be/GmXx72e6mKo

An Ciarraioch

trellheim wrote: »

right lets ratchet it up again https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0713/978465-brexit/

In fairness, every major organisation conducts planning on a "worst case scenario" basis, so would consider this to be studied prudence, rather than ratcheting up tensions.

Sam Russell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

In fairness, every major organisation conducts planning on a "worst case scenario" basis, so would consider this to be studied prudence, rather than ratcheting up tensions.

While that is true, it does concentrate the minds of those contemplating going 'no-deal' knowing that the chaos has been pointed out, the disastrous consequences would become well known to all and sundry. The 'we will trade under WTO terms' mantra becomes a little hollow when trading at all become a question of doubt. Of course, they will not even be members of the WTO on the 1st of April, 2019.

Pity these consequences were not pointed out prior to Art 50 being delivered.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1017702057069998080

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

Pity these consequences were not pointed out prior to Art 50 being delivered.

Whatever one can saw about the problems May has faced within her own party and from the EU, whether you believe she is a leader without and ability or skills or whether she is making the best of a bad lot.

The decision to rush off the letter to trigger A50 will probably go down as one of the worst decisions ever undertaking by a PM in history.

When all this is eventually settled, whatever the outcome, that decision without any action of plan behind what comes next, was a monumental mistake.

Sure Cameron made a balls of the ref thing, but there was still time to rescue the UK from the worst of it. May almost gleefully threw that opportunity away.

flatty

Nody wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

What an embarrassment this Baby Trump thing is. If you flew a 6 meter pig in the air you would probably get arrested. 
Totally fine though, to mock the President of the UK's longest standing ally in front of the worlds media.

You could not make it up if you tried.

You mean the same alley who's publicly undercutting the PM of the their "longest standing ally"? Beyond the fact US has not been an ally of UK since the WW2 (even though UK keeps believing in there is a "special relationship" is very much a one way thing) it's the simple fact the current President of this so called ally is a big baby as shown by his own actions and word. They even had to shield him from the horror of having people protest against him by getting him away from it all.

Crikey, we of all people can't judge others for fawning over the yanks, or talking up our "special relationship". This is just hypocrisy.

trellheim

In fairness, every major organisation conducts planning on a "worst case scenario" basis, so would consider this to be studied prudence, rather than ratcheting up tensions.

Its more than that; one could agree with that sentiment, but instead, now, clear and detailed planning guidance to prepare for scorched earth is worth examining as to timing ( could have been issued 2 years ago ) and sound ( could have been issued quietly ).

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whatever one can saw about the problems May has faced within her own party and from the EU, whether you believe she is a leader without and ability or skills or whether she is making the best of a bad lot.

The decision to rush off the letter to trigger A50 will probably go down as one of the worst decisions ever undertaking by a PM in history.

When all this is eventually settled, whatever the outcome, that decision without any action of plan behind what comes next, was a monumental mistake.

Sure Cameron made a balls of the ref thing, but there was still time to rescue the UK from the worst of it. May almost gleefully threw that opportunity away.

Well, the EU made it clear that:

1. All discussion and negotiation was to be conducted solely with Michel Barnier who was plenipotentiary for the EU Commission.

2. No discussion of any type would be conducted prior to the trigering of Art 50.

3. Discussions would follow the sequence laid out by the EU: namely, Divorce bill, the Irish border, and the EU citizen's rights. When there was clear prgress, then the Withdrawal Agreement. After the actual withdrawal, then the future relationship.

The big mistake was to call a GE that lost her majority, and ten spend the next twelve months fighting within the Tory Party about which bits the EU had already rejected that they should go with.

That makes her out to be as bad a PM as a PM can be.

listermint

flatty wrote: »

Crikey, we of all people can't judge others for fawning over the yanks, or talking up our "special relationship". This is just hypocrisy.

If you think there isnt a special relationship between Ireland and US politics then frankly son. You dont have a clue.

Or do you want me to provide decades of the irish lobby in the US having huge amount of power.

Leroy42

Well, in terms of calling the GE, the mistake was calling it after stating for so long she wouldn't and after having already triggered A50.

The polls all seemed to point out that the Tories would win in a landslide. So, given the huge problems she is having with dissenters in her own party, perhaps she was looking to secure a majority to cut any threat of a rebellion (from either side) off.

Of course she obviously didn't take into account her complete inability to connect with the voters. Her appalling campaign performance, her inability to take on a TV debate, the lack of any singular coherent message outside of strong and stable.

But in terms of a normal politician, I don't think the GE (at the time) was necessarily a mistake, but I totally agree that her handling of it was a disaster. And had see been more upfront about what her plans were for BRexit, had she laid out the position that she now has arrived at, ie that a no deal really is a disaster, that the UK needs to work with the EU, that being in the EU in some form has many benefits etc, had she actually campaigned on the GE on that basis then she wouldn't find herself in the mess she does now.

But it all comes back to the crazy decision to trigger A50, and thus pile all the pressure on the UK, when she was under no obligation to do so and turns out she wasn't prepared in the slightest for it.

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

What an embarrassment this Baby Trump thing is. If you flew a 6 meter pig in the air you would probably get arrested. 
Totally fine though, to mock the President of the UK's longest standing ally in front of the worlds media.

You could not make it up if you tried.

What an embarrassment Trump is, why should he not be mocked?

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you mean? I thought it was only WTO where that applied. Countries and blocs can do what they like when there is a free trade deal.

Not if you have agreed to apply it as part of a trade deal, as the EU has done with Canada and South Korea.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have a list of the EU's most favored nations? That link says "Exceptions allow for preferential treatment of developing countries, regional free trade areas and customs unions." I can't find more details.

I'm almost certain that if Canada and the EU have a deal, then the EU can give a better one to the UK since they aren't using WTO rules. Even if the EU and Canada are on WTO, then it still works like that?

You would be wrong. If the UK is being treated at the same level as Canada, ie a free trade deal as opposed to membership of the customs union, then if the Uk gets better terms than Canada has now, Canada can demand to be given those terms too as this has been agreed in the Trade Deal that Canada and the EU signed.

K, that makes sense to me. If that hadn't been added to the deal, it wouldn't be the case.

Speaking of Canada, Italy intends to shoot down CETA.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/13/say-cheese-why-italy-wont-ratify-eu-free-trade-deal-with-canada

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

K, that makes sense to me. If that hadn't been added to the deal, it wouldn't be the case.

Speaking of Canada, Italy intends to shoot down CETA.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/13/say-cheese-why-italy-wont-ratify-eu-free-trade-deal-with-canada

As far as I know, these deals often take years to ratify from when they are agreed. It may have to stay at the provisional stage for a while longer, but I don't think it will be going away just because the current Italian government is not happy with it.

CrabRevolution

flatty wrote: »

Crikey, we of all people can't judge others for fawning over the yanks, or talking up our "special relationship". This is just hypocrisy.

The Irish "special relationship" stuff is more wishy washy and about heritage, bonds, ancestry, cultural events and celebrations etc.

The British "special relationship" is either a variant of:

a) an honestly held belief that the UK and USA are 2 joint world powers with mutual respect, common aims, actions etc. Which might have been more true in 1918 but is total nonsense in 2018.

or

b) Effectively an attitude of "well, if you can't beat em, suck up to them". This means the UK realises there are no aspects where they are are equal to the USA, so instead they revel in being teachers pet and telling everyone the USA is their best friend.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1017708675086069762

https://twitter.com/DougieMacM/status/1017724095272837120/photo/1

EdgeCase

The main purpose of the UK's special relationship with the US in recent decades has been to act as a lapdog and to legitimise various wars, instigated on rather dubious grounds and doggy dossiers.

If anything, Ireland's special relationship may actually hold more US domestic political clout, as a significant % of American voters on both sides of the house actively consider themselves to be Irish-American. There are very few Americans who consider themselves to be British-American. I know the Irish-american community isn't a single caucus, but it actually does come together, in a politically neutral way, on a whole load of Irish issues. It's a bit wishy-washy, but it's still rather significantly so.

I would argue that the UK is *far* more aware of the existence of a social relationship than the US is. Most Americans really aren't all that aware of the UK at all, other than in the context maybe of a few celebrities, Mary Poppins and for some reason an association with bad dentistry.

FrancieBrady

Was there ever any more talk of the 40 letters waiting for Trump to depart or was that just talk?

An Ciarraioch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was there ever any more talk of the 40 letters waiting for Trump to depart or was that just talk?

Trade Bill votes are Monday and Tuesday, and EU talks resume on Monday also, so Wednesday would seem the time to put up or shut up.

BonnieSituation

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1017708675086069762

https://twitter.com/DougieMacM/status/1017724095272837120/photo/1

Anywhere that shows what way that translates to seats?

flatty

listermint wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Crikey, we of all people can't judge others for fawning over the yanks, or talking up our "special relationship". This is just hypocrisy.

If you think there isnt a special relationship between Ireland and US politics then frankly son. You dont have a clue.

Or do you want me to provide decades of the irish lobby in the US having huge amount of power.

If you want to wilfully misrepresent what I said, grandad, fire ahead.

flatty

The Irish "special relationship" stuff is more wishy washy and about heritage, bonds, ancestry, cultural events and celebrations etc.

The British "special relationship" is either a variant of:

a) an honestly held belief that the UK and USA are 2 joint world powers with mutual respect, common aims, actions etc. Which might have been more true in 1918 but is total nonsense in 2018.

or

b) Effectively an attitude of "well, if you can't beat em, suck up to them". This means the UK realises there are no aspects where they are are equal to the USA, so instead they revel in being teachers pet and telling everyone the USA is their best friend.[/quote]
I don't deny it. Its just hypocrisy of us to carp about any other nation fawning over the states and pleading "special relationship". It makes me cringe in any case. We are twice the nation the us is, and the same goes for the UK, or whatever it's called. We should be old enough to look them in the eye.

flatty

CrabRevolution wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Crikey, we of all people can't judge others for fawning over the yanks, or talking up our "special relationship". This is just hypocritical

The Irish "special relationship" stuff is more wishy washy and about heritage, bonds, ancestry, cultural events and celebrations etc.

The British "special relationship" is either a variant of:

a) an honestly held belief that the UK and USA are 2 joint world powers with mutual respect, common aims, actions etc. Which might have been more true in 1918 but is total nonsense in 2018.

or

b) Effectively an attitude of "well, if you can't beat em, suck up to them". This means the UK realises there are no aspects where they are are equal to the USA, so instead they revel in being teachers pet and telling everyone the USA is their best friend.

I don't deny it. Its just hypocritical of us to carp about any other nation fawning over the states and pleading "special relationship". It makes me cringe in any case. We are twice the nation the us is, and the same goes for the UK, or whatever it's called. We should be old enough to look them in the eye.

An Ciarraioch

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Anywhere that shows what way that translates to seats?

The second link should have shown the Electoral Calculus prediction, but if it hasn't:

SNP 48 (+13)
Con 6 (-7)
Lib Dem 4 (-)
Lab 1 (-6)

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

But it all comes back to the crazy decision to trigger A50, and thus pile all the pressure on the UK, when she was under no obligation to do so and turns out she wasn't prepared in the slightest for it.

She must have felt some sort of obligation to this. Not necessarily a legal one, but from the public and political factions who demanded that Brexit be enacted ASAP.

Just out of curiosity, at what point and by whose hand did an advisory referendum morph into a de facto binding one anyway?

Leroy42

briany wrote: »

She must have felt some sort of obligation to this. Not necessarily a legal one, but from the public and political factions who demanded that Brexit be enacted ASAP.

No doubt she was put under pressure, but part of being in charge is being able to make the right decisions regardless of the pressure.

briany wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, at what point and by whose hand did an advisory referendum morph into a de facto binding one anyway?

AFAIK, Cameron said from the off that the result would be acted upon by parliament.

Jaggo

briany wrote: »

She must have felt some sort of obligation to this. Not necessarily a legal one, but from the public and political factions who demanded that Brexit be enacted ASAP.

Just out of curiosity, at what point and by whose hand did an advisory referendum morph into a de facto binding one anyway?

I would think that, from her point of view, she needed to enact article 50 before calling the general election. Presumably that was her motivation.

trellheim

Have a read of Tim Shipmans book(s) they explain this brilliantly

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

No doubt she was put under pressure, but part of being in charge is being able to make the right decisions regardless of the pressure.

Trouble is that the pressure isn't entirely situational and you can somehow power through and ignore. It's human pressure, it's political pressure. It's pressure with voting rights and party subcommittees and right-wing gutter press. It's pressure that says, 'You don't do what we want, so you'll lose your job."

AFAIK, Cameron said from the off that the result would be acted upon by parliament.

In that case, he really should have put in some safeguards against the division and regionalism that the most narrow Brexit vote has brought about, then, like a supermajority in the UK and/or majorities in all constituent countries . If Cameron said to the people that Brexit would definitely be enacted in the wake of an advisory Yes vote (even as slim a result as it was), then that is perhaps the most foolish political promise made by a sitting PM in a long, long time.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whatever one can saw about the problems May has faced within her own party and from the EU, whether you believe she is a leader without and ability or skills or whether she is making the best of a bad lot.

The decision to rush off the letter to trigger A50 will probably go down as one of the worst decisions ever undertaking by a PM in history.

When all this is eventually settled, whatever the outcome, that decision without any action of plan behind what comes next, was a monumental mistake.

Sure Cameron made a balls of the ref thing, but there was still time to rescue the UK from the worst of it. May almost gleefully threw that opportunity away.

This. Well said.

flutered

Imreoir2 wrote: »

As far as I know, these deals often take years to ratify from when they are agreed. It may have to stay at the provisional stage for a while longer, but I don't think it will be going away just because the current Italian government is not happy with it.

one of the partys which make up the current italian goverment, has been critical of eu deals for some time, but only now finds its in a position to do something about it

Nody

flutered wrote: »

one of the partys which make up the current italian goverment, has been critical of eu deals for some time, but only now finds its in a position to do something about it

And being an Italian government they are likely to not be in the government in under 12 months...