Is Brexit stuffed?

[colin]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-06 8:21 PM

 

John52 - 2017-12-06 8:14 PM

 

colin - 2017-12-06 7:35 PM

I would have liked to have heard the conversation between Maybot and Arlene, did she really believe that you could get that past the DUP?

 

I guess May was led to believe the first ransom demand would be payment in full.

But blackmailers invariably come back for more, especially to such an easy target.

 

Frighteningly accurate. Do we really want the DUP to dictate our future? Call another election Mrs M. They need to be dumped and the sooner the better.

 

Not at all accurate, anyone that thinks the DUP would stand by whilst a 'barrier' was put up between NI and GB has no idea of UK politics, it is a red line that is unlikely to be crossed in our lifetimes, Maybot has shown a stunning ineptitude over this.

[Violet1956]

colin - 2017-12-06 8:45 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-12-06 8:21 PM

 

John52 - 2017-12-06 8:14 PM

 

colin - 2017-12-06 7:35 PM

I would have liked to have heard the conversation between Maybot and Arlene, did she really believe that you could get that past the DUP?

 

I guess May was led to believe the first ransom demand would be payment in full.

But blackmailers invariably come back for more, especially to such an easy target.

 

Frighteningly accurate. Do we really want the DUP to dictate our future? Call another election Mrs M. They need to be dumped and the sooner the better.

 

Not at all accurate, anyone that thinks the DUP would stand by whilst a 'barrier' was put up between NI and GB has no idea of UK politics, it is a red line that is unlikely to be crossed in our lifetimes, Maybot has shown a stunning ineptitude over this.

 

Not sure you disagree with John's observation Colin. You can't keep dancing with the devil and still ask why you're in hell.

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-12-06 6:31 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-06 5:59 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-06 5:29 PM

John52 - 2017-12-06 5:21 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-06 4:35 PM those doing the negotiating, planning etc etc have access to way way more information that any of us ever will

Hard to believe even that listening to the likes of Boris Johnson. But even if its true, its practically irrelevant when they are being held to ransom by vested interests like the DUP. Not satisfied with their £billion bung, they are now demanding an open border with an EU country whilst staying part of the UK!!! . At least a less well informed member of the public doing the negotiating would be able to tell the DUP to s*d off. But the Tories won't do that because they are still being blackmailed by the threat of the DUP not voting Tory Theresa May is too frit of another election to stand up to her blackmailers. As if that isn't bad enough ( judging by their red lines) top of their agenda seems to be taking back control for themselves, which they put above the interests of the rest of us. What the economy needs most of all - free trade - is getting pushed further down the list by the personal vested interests of politicians, and the ever growing Blackmail demands from the DUP.

I fear you are right John.

I find it interesting that there are some who can not figure things out for themselves.  It is clear to a blind man that there are behind the scenes talks, hard talks, going on.  As an example of how tough these talks can get just focus on this that Mo Mowlem, during the Good Friday talks, reputedly, told Ian Paisley to f**k off however she is latterly reported as saying she told him to pi55 off.  Whatever it was she was said it is simply to illustrate the fact that behind closed doors there is a lot of hard bargaining and talk going on.

What 'we' get to see is not even a gentle breeze in the face of the storm that is doubtless going on behind closed doors....which is how it should be.

Tough talk and bad language might impress you and the Daily Mail Brigade. But its a bit silly when the other side is holding all the cards. Boris Johnson saying the EU can 'Go Whistle' for a divorce settlement is looking embarrasing now - even Johnson has become reconciled to the fact that we need to 'meet our obligations' as he now puts it. (Mo Mowlem was Labour by the way, which makes your comment look even more silly).

Not really John.  You have clearly missed the point as I was not holding it up as an example of polite discourse nor to show I was impressed by it.  Probably too difficult for you to grasp what with all the bitterness running around in what passes for a brain of yours.  The point was to demonstrate that 'tough talk' goes on behind closed doors and the likes of you, me or anyone else is not entitled to be privy to the machinery of 'State'.  Something you clearly are unable to grasp being one of the self declared 'know it all for certain' remain brigade.

Did I say Mo Mowlem was of any particular party?  No I did not.  So I fail to see how my comment can be deemed silly whereas yours, which relates to a non posted issue, clearly demonstrates you are having problems linking your optical receptors to your brain 'cell'.  Please note the 'singular'.  Unfortunately the doctors found differently.....https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/medical-iq-intelligence-brains-brain_scan-intelligence_quota-tda0043_low.jpg

[RogerC]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-06 6:16 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-06 5:59 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-06 5:29 PM

John52 - 2017-12-06 5:21 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-06 4:35 PM those doing the negotiating, planning etc etc have access to way way more information that any of us ever will

Hard to believe even that listening to the likes of Boris Johnson. But even if its true, its practically irrelevant when they are being held to ransom by vested interests like the DUP. Not satisfied with their £billion bung, they are now demanding an open border with an EU country whilst staying part of the UK!!! . At least a less well informed member of the public doing the negotiating would be able to tell the DUP to s*d off. But the Tories won't do that because they are still being blackmailed by the threat of the DUP not voting Tory Theresa May is too frit of another election to stand up to her blackmailers. As if that isn't bad enough ( judging by their red lines) top of their agenda seems to be taking back control for themselves, which they put above the interests of the rest of us. What the economy needs most of all - free trade - is getting pushed further down the list by the personal vested interests of politicians, and the ever growing Blackmail demands from the DUP.

I fear you are right John.

I find it interesting that there are some who can not figure things out for themselves.  It is clear to a blind man that there are behind the scenes talks, hard talks, going on.  As an example of how tough these talks can get just focus on this that Mo Mowlem, during the Good Friday talks, reputedly, told Ian Paisley to f**k off however she is latterly reported as saying she told him to pi55 off.  Whatever it was she was said it is simply to illustrate the fact that behind closed doors there is a lot of hard bargaining and talk going on.

What 'we' get to see is not even a gentle breeze in the face of the storm that is doubtless going on behind closed doors....which is how it should be.

Why do you think this is "how it should" be Roger? The problem I have is how we can reconcile the support for the binding effect of a referendum promoted by Brexiteers when we are still in the position that we have not been presented with all the information necessary to inform our decision.

.....because Joe Public, on either side of the fence, has no need, or right, to be appraised of what is going on in talks behind closed doors.  When decisions have been taken and agreements/compromises made then is the time for a degree of information to be released and not before.

Let me put it this way.  The Good Friday agreement went on for months with input from a whole raft of contributors.  A lot of horse trading/arm twisting and downright bloodymindedness went on until an agreement was reached and Joe Public was told.  It was none of our business knowing that talks had stalled, been resumed, that Bliar had flown to Stormont specifically to add pressure, that Clinton was playing a major role, that Mo Mowlem cracked the 'verbal' whip, that delegates were pressured into talks lasting all weekend....yes day and night, it was years before the 'get out of jail free letters' for IRA terrorists was made public etc. (all can be found in Mo Mowlem's autobiography)

  

There is no possible reason why you or I or anyone else should be availed of the process as it unravels 'unless' a specific point has been reached and a 'decision' made.  Then and only then are we (I feel) entitled to be told and not before.  So I stand by my comment.....this is how it should be.

[RogerC]

Double post.  Sorry.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-06 6:53 PM  At the risk of being labelled "elitist", I doubt that releasing pages of detailed market sector analysis to the public would make one jot of difference, because few of the public would read it, end even fewer understand it. What I find inexcusable is that the detailed analysis doesn't even exist.This is the equivalent of the tour leader admitting, after the tourists started questioning why the tour seemed to be going in circles, that he had forgotten to bring the maps with him! This is not a matter of DD not having read the analysis, but an admission that there is no analysis to read, except a few "wet finger" estimates - which means that neither the negotiators, nor the civil servants, have the remotest idea what the economic benefits or disbenefits of leaving on any basis might be. Given that, how can anyone strategise how to proceed with sector by sector trade negotiations? We're somewhere at sea, the helmsman is blindfolded, the captain has lost his charts, the crew are all drunk, the compass is broken, and we can't get a weather forecast. So, we're just proceeding on the basis of "it'll be all right on the night"! Now, at last, I understand how the Marie Celeste came into being - except it is now the Britannia Celeste! What unimaginable, complacent, irresponsible, egotistical, idiocy.

Brian I feel you are once more in the realms of fantasy land.  We have had predictions, pronouncements, spread sheets, academics, financiers, even the BoE Governor etc etc all delivering their take on the what, when, where, how, why etc of the situation viz a viz Brexit.  Not one has had a degree of accuracy that has stood the test of time yet here you are with your silly 'all at sea', Marie Celeste analogy.  I fail to see how any soothsayer can deliver any information of value when 'no one' knows what the parameters are or what economic/industrial/commercial/customs/trade etc 'guidelines/rules' will be agreed during the negotiations.

We are back to your 'what if' and 'wait and see' stance once more I feel.

Were there to have been a market analysis undertaken and published I suspect you are 100% correct that few, if any, of Joe Public would bother with it.  However you can bet your bottom dollar that the press and, more importantly, the EU negotiators/mandarins would be all over it like a bad rash looking to find out what our 'experts' were predicting. Nothing like handing over ones ammunition to the opposition is there!!

[Barryd999]

But it seems there is no clever analysis or plan going on behind the scenes so perhaps we do know as much as the pollys. David Davis blatantly lied and said there had been a plan but now it seems there isn't.

 

This could mean several things.

 

They havent bothered doing a plan because they have no intention of leaving and its just going through the motions

 

They are terminally stupid

 

They are terminally stupid and its just too big a project for anyone to plan, even Stephen Hawking.

 

I agree with Brian. It just beggars belief. Ive thought this from the beginning that it would end in chaos because it was simply impossible. Certainly impossible without a decades worth of preparation which should have always included some get out plan.

 

Wait and see, or it will be alright on the night doesnt cut it anymore. I suspect the next few weeks are going to be interesting times.

 

 

[Muswell]

Where's Nigel Farage when we need him?

[RogerC]

Barryd999 - 2017-12-06 10:19 PMBut it seems there is no clever analysis or plan going on behind the scenes so perhaps we do know as much as the pollys. David Davis blatantly lied and said there had been a plan but now it seems there isn't. This could mean several things.They havent bothered doing a plan because they have no intention of leaving and its just going through the motionsThey are terminally stupidThey are terminally stupid and its just too big a project for anyone to plan, even Stephen Hawking.I agree with Brian. It just beggars belief. Ive thought this from the beginning that it would end in chaos because it was simply impossible. Certainly impossible without a decades worth of preparation which should have always included some get out plan.Wait and see, or it will be alright on the night doesnt cut it anymore. I suspect the next few weeks are going to be interesting times.

Interesting.  That argument was deemed in some quarters to be an acceptable answer to the questions posed regarding how the EU is going to move forward and the UK is listened to regarding it's direction.

Unfortunately there was no answer to 'how long should we 'wait and see'.

[John52]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-06 8:21 PM

 

John52 - 2017-12-06 8:14 PM

 

colin - 2017-12-06 7:35 PM

I would have liked to have heard the conversation between Maybot and Arlene, did she really believe that you could get that past the DUP?

 

I guess May was led to believe the first ransom demand would be payment in full.

But blackmailers invariably come back for more, especially to such an easy target.

 

Frighteningly accurate. Do we really want the DUP to dictate our future? Call another election Mrs M. They need to be dumped and the sooner the better.

 

If only..

But the interests of the Tory party are being put before the interests of the country, as usual. :-S

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-12-06 9:20 PM

the likes of you, me or anyone else is not entitled to be privy to the machinery of 'State'

Brainwashed you good and proper, didn't they :-S

[Brian Kirby]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-06 9:06 PM.....................You can't keep dancing with the devil and still ask why you're in hell.

Like! :-D

[RogerC]

John52 - 2017-12-07 9:44 AM

RogerC - 2017-12-06 9:20 PM the likes of you, me or anyone else is not entitled to be privy to the machinery of 'State'

Brainwashed you good and proper, didn't they :-S

Unlike some bitter and twisted individual on here who worships at the altar of Chartists &  Suffragettes and is constantly moaning about most everything I have the ability to differentiate between that which we have a right to know and that which we don't.

You say I'm brainwashed...I say I have the ability to discern that which would be prudent to deliver to the public domain and that which could do harm if it were.

Fortunately the establishment is not so stupid as you believe it to be.  One simple fact demonstrates that very well indeed..........you don't work there.

Now off you go....back to your book of bitterness.  Time for you to post some 100 years at war or other irrelevant rubbish isn't it?

Victor says Hello.  :-)

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-12-06 9:52 PM.............................. 

1 I fail to see how any soothsayer can deliver any information of value when 'no one' knows what the parameters are or what economic/industrial/commercial/customs/trade etc 'guidelines/rules' will be agreed during the negotiations. .................................

 

2 Were there to have been a market analysis undertaken and published I suspect you are 100% correct that few, if any, of Joe Public would bother with it.  However you can bet your bottom dollar that the press and, more importantly, the EU negotiators/mandarins would be all over it like a bad rash looking to find out what our 'experts' were predicting. Nothing like handing over ones ammunition to the opposition is there!!

 

1 I can only respond to this by concluding that you have clearly never worked in an arena where forecasting and planning are fundamental to realisation. Forecasts, whether of cost, feasibility, or time, are works permanently in progress. The forecasts (and budgets) have to be under continual review, being altered as facts come to light, plans change, decisions get made, and costs change. The end point, the objective, is the realisation of the project within its defined cost, quality, and time, parameters is what governs that necessity. This is a huge and complex project. Its planning should have started before the referendum, and the early forecasts should have been published in outline in time to inform the electorate before they voted. For that reason the vote cannot have been made binding, because it was, and is, inevitable that those early forecasts would be changed as events unfolded. The final vote always required better and further information before a final decision could be made. This was, and is, feasibly. It is not too complicated. Good grief, this is the British government doing the job, with unlimited resources and unlimited ability to draw in the best experts from around the world.

 

2 Yes, of course it would have been scrutinised. That is what it is for. Out of the scrutiny comes refinement. Refinement improves the product. The best product is what is sought.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-07 2:45 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-12-06 9:52 PM.............................. 

1 I fail to see how any soothsayer can deliver any information of value when 'no one' knows what the parameters are or what economic/industrial/commercial/customs/trade etc 'guidelines/rules' will be agreed during the negotiations. .................................

 

2 Were there to have been a market analysis undertaken and published I suspect you are 100% correct that few, if any, of Joe Public would bother with it.  However you can bet your bottom dollar that the press and, more importantly, the EU negotiators/mandarins would be all over it like a bad rash looking to find out what our 'experts' were predicting. Nothing like handing over ones ammunition to the opposition is there!!

 

1 I can only respond to this by concluding that you have clearly never worked in an arena where forecasting and planning are fundamental to realisation.

 

You mean like the one prior to the credit crunch? (lol) ..........

 

Did anyone die? :-S .........

 

Oh a few spivs got shafted and few spivs made a killing *-) ........

 

The rest of us carried on just like we would with any other recession :-| .........

 

 

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-07 2:45 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-06 9:52 PM.............................. 1 I fail to see how any soothsayer can deliver any information of value when 'no one' knows what the parameters are or what economic/industrial/commercial/customs/trade etc 'guidelines/rules' will be agreed during the negotiations. .................................2 Were there to have been a market analysis undertaken and published I suspect you are 100% correct that few, if any, of Joe Public would bother with it.  However you can bet your bottom dollar that the press and, more importantly, the EU negotiators/mandarins would be all over it like a bad rash looking to find out what our 'experts' were predicting. Nothing like handing over ones ammunition to the opposition is there!!

1 I can only respond to this by concluding that you have clearly never worked in an arena where forecasting and planning are fundamental to realisation. Forecasts, whether of cost, feasibility, or time, are works permanently in progress. The forecasts (and budgets) have to be under continual review, being altered as facts come to light, plans change, decisions get made, and costs change. The end point, the objective, is the realisation of the project within its defined cost, quality, and time, parameters is what governs that necessity. This is a huge and complex project. Its planning should have started before the referendum, and the early forecasts should have been published in outline in time to inform the electorate before they voted. For that reason the vote cannot have been made binding, because it was, and is, inevitable that those early forecasts would be changed as events unfolded. The final vote always required better and further information before a final decision could be made. This was, and is, feasibly. It is not too complicated. Good grief, this is the British government doing the job, with unlimited resources and unlimited ability to draw in the best experts from around the world.2 Yes, of course it would have been scrutinised. That is what it is for. Out of the scrutiny comes refinement. Refinement improves the product. The best product is what is sought.

Your initial assumption is correct.  I have never worked in the arena of high fiscal planning.  I have however worked in areas of planning whereby one had to plan for the worst and hope for the best.......because if not it was 'endex'.  So I know a little about planning and accept that as you say:

"  The forecasts (and budgets) have to be under continual review, being altered as facts come to light, plans change, decisions get made, and costs change. The end point, the objective, is the realisation of the project within its defined cost, quality, and time, parameters is what governs that necessity."

However I would like to point you to a comment made by David Davies to the Commons Select Committee some months back, and I trust you have the good grace to accept, despite protestations from some sectors, that he really does know more about the process than do we.

If I recall correctly when asked about fiscal planning he responded by saying he was not going to waste public money on 'speculation' because until the demands of the EU are known there is no foundation on which to base such a venture.

In your comment above it is clear that certain 'facts' are known at the outset whereas with the Brexit negotiations nothing is known until those tasked with delivering actually sit around the table.  Remember Juncker said there would be no pre negotiation talks.

Now your comparison with industrial planning is completely different because that is based on 'known' variables, on having at least some concrete (no pun intended) information to hand.  EU negotiations are the process whereby what we don't know, but is required by those on the other side of the table, only becomes apparent as the negotiations progress.  So quite simply I feel DD has a good point in that how can one plan for something one does not have any knowledge about. Certain circumstances, I agree, can provide for planning and/or estimation but when one is faced with an extremely fluid situation, where you have no idea regarding what is to be offered, denied or demanded how can one possibly plan? 

Regarding point 2.  Do you honestly believe that is would be acceptable to deliver ones 'pre project' planning assessments to the opposition? 

If so I bet your competitors loved having you around.

[antony1969]

United States of Europe ... Sounds like heaven to Barry I bet ... Germanys Martin Schulz sets out his vision for 2025 ... Those countries that don't agree can ship on out ... Wonder where the new capital might be ... Berlin ??? ... So sad to be leaving ... Turn the lights out

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-12-07 3:23 PM..........................

1 However I would like to point you to a comment made by David Davies to the Commons Select Committee some months back, and I trust you have the good grace to accept, despite protestations from some sectors, that he really does know more about the process than do we. If I recall correctly when asked about fiscal planning he responded by saying he was not going to waste public money on 'speculation' because until the demands of the EU are known there is no foundation on which to base such a venture.

 

2 In your comment above it is clear that certain 'facts' are known at the outset whereas with the Brexit negotiations nothing is known until those tasked with delivering actually sit around the table......................

Now your comparison with industrial planning is completely different because that is based on 'known' variables, on having at least some concrete (no pun intended) information to hand.  EU negotiations are the process whereby what we don't know, but is required by those on the other side of the table, only becomes apparent as the negotiations progress.  So quite simply I feel DD has a good point in that how can one plan for something one does not have any knowledge about.

 

3 Certain circumstances, I agree, can provide for planning and/or estimation but when one is faced with an extremely fluid situation, where you have no idea regarding what is to be offered, denied or demanded how can one possibly plan? 

 

4 Regarding point 2.  Do you honestly believe that is would be acceptable to deliver ones 'pre project' planning assessments to the opposition? If so I bet your competitors loved having you around.

 

1 Well yes, one would sincerely hope so. He is inside the tent looking out, and we are outside the tent with the flap closed! Honest opinion? I suspect the presently estimated cost (as yet unquantified) of our future obligations to the EU won't be far from the initial estimates prepared before we submitted our Article 50 letter. I don't know, but would be totally incredulous if someone hadn't "run a rule" over our liabilities before that letter was drafted. There would have been an outcry from Brexiters like Liam Fox and Peter Bone had that figure even been whispered in private. IMO it wasn't the EU they had to worry about, in terms of who knew, it was the extreme Brexiters in the Conservative party. In short, John Major's "bastards"!

 

2 Sorry, but I simply can't accept this line of thinking. We knew we were a part of the EU. We knew we wanted to leave. We knew (apparently) that we wanted to leave the single market. We knew (apparently) we wanted to leave the customs union. We knew we wanted to control migration. We knew we wanted to be outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We thought we'd like to be able to trade with EU states as though we hadn't left the single market or the customs union, while not being subject to the ECJ or accepting EU migrants. We knew (if we thought about it), that this last aspiration was improbable to the point of being unattainable. We knew that other countries, notably Norway and Switzerland, have some of those benefits while also having extensive land borders with the EU (think Ulster). We hoped that we would be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries (though relatively few, because their economies are too small/insufficiently advanced, offer much in the way of export opportunities).

 

So, simple starting points. First we achieve all we want and continue trading with the EU states just as now. Second, we fail totally and accept the so-called hard Brexit. Third, we are able to negotiate all the export deals we want. Fourth we fail dismally and negotiate none. You now have five potential cost/benefit scenarios, ranging from £0 cost for the first and the fourth (both being the status quo) to whatever sums can be put against two and three, minus the estimated cost for leaving. An assumed negative for two, and an assumed positive for three. But, as above, I'd be incredulous if these "high level" estimates don't already exist. So, you end up with maybe three fan charts that can be combined to show potential best and worst case scenarios.

 

Would any of them prove accurate in the long term? Only if lady luck is smiling. :-) But, as events progress and indications are gathered, the potential value of the "third country" trade can be sketched in and, as we are at present, the cost of leaving can be narrowed.

 

Would one publish these in full? No. Would one publish the forecast combined (i.e. no breakdowns) outcomes? If the result looks favourable, why not? Who could gain sufficient knowledge from that to be able to use it to advantage? OTOH, if the result looks unfavourable, probably not, unless one wishes to concede that the whole thing is a bad idea and should be dropped, and wants the Conservative party to split apart. Would one even admit publicly to having costed scenarios in that case? Ditto.

 

3 As above.

 

4 Scrutiny doesn't equate to showing the so-called "opposition the details", nor to a free-for-all. If one has the information, one can easily (leaks apart! :-)) control who gets to see what. Knowledge, as they say, is power. Think Machiavelli. :-)

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2017-12-07 6:10 PM

RogerC - 2017-12-07 3:23 PM..........................1 However I would like to point you to a comment made by David Davies to the Commons Select Committee some months back, and I trust you have the good grace to accept, despite protestations from some sectors, that he really does know more about the process than do we. If I recall correctly when asked about fiscal planning he responded by saying he was not going to waste public money on 'speculation' because until the demands of the EU are known there is no foundation on which to base such a venture.2 In your comment above it is clear that certain 'facts' are known at the outset whereas with the Brexit negotiations nothing is known until those tasked with delivering actually sit around the table......................Now your comparison with industrial planning is completely different because that is based on 'known' variables, on having at least some concrete (no pun intended) information to hand.  EU negotiations are the process whereby what we don't know, but is required by those on the other side of the table, only becomes apparent as the negotiations progress.  So quite simply I feel DD has a good point in that how can one plan for something one does not have any knowledge about.3 Certain circumstances, I agree, can provide for planning and/or estimation but when one is faced with an extremely fluid situation, where you have no idea regarding what is to be offered, denied or demanded how can one possibly plan? 4 Regarding point 2.  Do you honestly believe that is would be acceptable to deliver ones 'pre project' planning assessments to the opposition? If so I bet your competitors loved having you around.

1 Well yes, one would sincerely hope so. He is inside the tent looking out, and we are outside the tent with the flap closed! Honest opinion? I suspect the presently estimated cost (as yet unquantified) of our future obligations to the EU won't be far from the initial estimates prepared before we submitted our Article 50 letter. I don't know, but would be totally incredulous if someone hadn't "run a rule" over our liabilities before that letter was drafted. There would have been an outcry from Brexiters like Liam Fox and Peter Bone had that figure even been whispered in private. IMO it wasn't the EU they had to worry about, in terms of who knew, it was the extreme Brexiters in the Conservative party. In short, John Major's "bastards"!2 Sorry, but I simply can't accept this line of thinking. We knew we were a part of the EU. We knew we wanted to leave. We knew (apparently) that we wanted to leave the single market. We knew (apparently) we wanted to leave the customs union. We knew we wanted to control migration. We knew we wanted to be outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We thought we'd like to be able to trade with EU states as though we hadn't left the single market or the customs union, while not being subject to the ECJ or accepting EU migrants. We knew (if we thought about it), that this last aspiration was improbable to the point of being unattainable. We knew that other countries, notably Norway and Switzerland, have some of those benefits while also having extensive land borders with the EU (think Ulster). We hoped that we would be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries (though relatively few, because their economies are too small/insufficiently advanced, offer much in the way of export opportunities). So, simple starting points. First we achieve all we want and continue trading with the EU states just as now. Second, we fail totally and accept the so-called hard Brexit. Third, we are able to negotiate all the export deals we want. Fourth we fail dismally and negotiate none. You now have five potential cost/benefit scenarios, ranging from £0 cost for the first and the fourth (both being the status quo) to whatever sums can be put against two and three, minus the estimated cost for leaving. An assumed negative for two, and an assumed positive for three. But, as above, I'd be incredulous if these "high level" estimates don't already exist. So, you end up with maybe three fan charts that can be combined to show potential best and worst case scenarios.Would any of them prove accurate in the long term? Only if lady luck is smiling. :-) But, as events progress and indications are gathered, the potential value of the "third country" trade can be sketched in and, as we are at present, the cost of leaving can be narrowed.Would one publish these in full? No. Would one publish the forecast combined (i.e. no breakdowns) outcomes? If the result looks favourable, why not? Who could gain sufficient knowledge from that to be able to use it to advantage? OTOH, if the result looks unfavourable, probably not, unless one wishes to concede that the whole thing is a bad idea and should be dropped, and wants the Conservative party to split apart. Would one even admit publicly to having costed scenarios in that case? Ditto.3 As above.4 Scrutiny doesn't equate to showing the so-called "opposition the details", nor to a free-for-all. If one has the information, one can easily (leaks apart! :-)) control who gets to see what. Knowledge, as they say, is power. Think Machiavelli. :-)

Lost the will to be honest Brian.  Maybe you and John should take over the negotiations and planning because it sure looks like you two...oh and Barry....have all the answers.

Plan, hand over the findings ....oh and then 'wait and see how things turn out'......sort of sums up comments emanating from the remain side of the fence.

[Barryd999]

Been away for a day or two so just catching up. I am surprised there are no opinions on the news today.

 

So just so I have this right, no borders in Ireland and no border in the Irish sea AND no Customs Union or single Market? I take it then what this really means is that we will be in the "Super Double Secret Dont tell anyone FFS" single market and customs union quietly called "Regulatory Alignment" or summut? Is that right?

 

Farage doesnt seem very happy today so whatever it is we can actually "Rejoice" at that at least. :D

[Violet1956]

Barryd999 - 2017-12-08 3:31 PM

 

Been away for a day or two so just catching up. I am surprised there are no opinions on the news today.

 

So just so I have this right, no borders in Ireland and no border in the Irish sea AND no Customs Union or single Market? I take it then what this really means is that we will be in the "Super Double Secret Dont tell anyone FFS" single market and customs union quietly called "Regulatory Alignment" or summut? Is that right?

 

Farage doesnt seem very happy today so whatever it is we can actually "Rejoice" at that at least. :D

 

With 8 years of oversight of the ECJ. We're not leaving at all are we nor are we taking control - far from it we are about to lose control big time because we won't be able to influence European Law we'll just be subject to it. No wonder Farage isn't happy. He's still going to get his pension though.

[Bulletguy]

Barryd999 - 2017-12-08 3:31 PM

 

Been away for a day or two so just catching up. I am surprised there are no opinions on the news today.

 

So just so I have this right, no borders in Ireland and no border in the Irish sea AND no Customs Union or single Market? I take it then what this really means is that we will be in the "Super Double Secret Dont tell anyone FFS" single market and customs union quietly called "Regulatory Alignment" or summut? Is that right?

 

Farage doesnt seem very happy today so whatever it is we can actually "Rejoice" at that at least. :D

Yes.

 

"in the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with the rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union"

 

In other words....free movement of people and the ability to agree trade deals with other countries only with the EU's consent. Oh and it's going to cost £50 billion to get errrrm.......what we had before.

 

Good eh? (lol)

 

https://www.irishnews.com/news/brexit/2017/12/08/news/full-alignment-with-eu-rules-on-cross-border-provisions-if-no-brexit-solution-agreed-1205997/

 

And Gibraltar is pretty angry.

http://chronicle.gi/2017/12/enraged-picardo-lectured-prime-minister-over-brexit-letter-book-claims/

 

[John52]

Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 4:06 PM

 

Oh and it's going to cost £50 billion to get errrrm.......what we had before.

 

Good eh? (lol)

 

Not even that - we will be losing the EU agencies and all their jobs and spending that used to be here.

So we will be paying E50bn for less than we had before.

And still have to continue Ransom payments to the DUP.

But at least its better than walking away with no deal.

[Bulletguy]

John52 - 2017-12-08 4:46 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2017-12-08 4:06 PM

 

Oh and it's going to cost £50 billion to get errrrm.......what we had before.

 

Good eh? (lol)

 

Not even that - we will be losing the EU agencies and all their jobs and spending that used to be here.

So we will be paying E50bn for less than we had before.

And still have to continue Ransom payments to the DUP.

But at least its better than walking away with no deal.

Brexit was doomed from the outset and now the harsh realities are beginning to dawn they still cannot comprehend the foolish path they've taken the country down. They were sold a bunch of lies and fell for it.

 

It's still worth bearing in mind what this man said about Article 50 though which is reversible. He know's what he's talking about as he helped draft out the legality of it.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-article-50-reversal-misleading-public-author-lord-kerr-claims-a8046676.html

[Barryd999]

It was always going to be so. When you think about it if we were to leave properly and somehow still have no border between Ireland and NI what would there be to stop people importing stuff into Ireland tariff and customs free then just importing it into the UK that way? The only way to prevent a border and not have NI as the worlds biggest free port is to stay in the single market and customs union. However they dress it up that looks like what they are going to have to do.

 

Has this been May's intention all along? It really is just damage limitation then isnt it? What a complete waste of time and money. Of course its better than just crashing out with no deal which was frankly unthinkable but whats the point of Brexit now? As I said so many times, who at the end of it all is going to be happy with the results? Remainers will just be happy we havent crashed out but annoyed that we have ended up with a somewhat worse deal than we had now and Leavers will feel betrayed and angry that what they were sold was a complete load of tosh. I wonder who they will blame?