Brexit - The Final Reckoning

This 'hideous situation' is the fault of the politicians. They were given a mandate by the British public, and they've just fecked it up.

"As an unapologetic remainer I do not fear the electorate's decision if this was put to them." - The question was put to them, and they voted.

Ernst & Young, PWC, KPMG...all of them have a vested interest as they rely on huge contracts from both the UK government and the EU. I wouldn't trust any of these big companies to be Independent.

So then we can elect the other set of liars ?

But you get the point I think.

In the spirit of conviviality ordained by Hugo, may I suggest the consequences were not spelt out clearly, and the supposed gains were mostky lies. May I?

In the spirit of Hugo's request, going forward we need to have a united front led from the top. The problem TM is having is thst she has to try and unite the Cabinet, then her party and Parliament before then negotiating with Brussels and even the 27 other EU capital, who also have to agree between themselves and not just Angela Merkal and Emmanuel Macron. That is a lot of people who could scupper the plans, and in such little time.

Right, firstly I agree that we are leaving. I don't however believe that there is a sufficient mandate to go full out for what some call a hard or clean Brexit. That would sideline the 48% who voted to remain.

The EU has 4 freedoms which will not be negotiable in themselves, we cannot have full access without the others including freedom of movement.

So what would I like to see? Something between the Canada model and the Norway model. It will mean allowing short term work permits for unskilled labour (think fruit pickers), medium term permits for students and the service sector and free movement for "professionals". Access to benefits should be based on length of stay or time worked and after say 5 years without breaking the law, automatic right to stay. Incidentally I would also extend that to comparable jurisdictions such Canada and Australia, Japan and so on.

We should be prepared to accept any subsequent EU law but only if passed by a subcommittee of Parliament.

With regards to finance, we should remain part of institutions such as the Galieo satellite project, Erasmus university courses, Pharmaceutical arrangements and soon. This willl mean some form of payment but it would be more transparent.

I can probably add more later but time is short.

We could, but are the terms good enough when compared with what we had? For some that is yes, others no.

Question to you in response, what does the Japan deal offer that the current arrangement doesn't and vice versa? What benefits, if any, are lost?

That's my understanding also Nobby. As it stands whilst we are in the EU we stand to benefit from this arrangement. When we leave, we will no longer. So question is how long will it take to negotiate with Japan to secure a similar deal and, given we will be negotiating with a very much smaller market on our side of the table, would be even able to match the current EU Japan terms?
Logic says no. Does it not?

I accept your criticism Eric. But as it stands, what I stated is fact. Our illustrious government have not put their heads above the parapet and told us what they intend to do about it. Until they do it's a very legitimate critique.

What because Estonia Latvia and Lithuania have so much more to offer?