Petition

I’m not really that convinced that the reply won’t be some bull***t fingers in ears la la la can’t hear you like last time, but if you’d like to join the nearly 1½ million (including me) who don’t want parliament to be prorogued to push through Boris’ skewed vision of Brexit…

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157

At the risk of sounding like a Boris fan (I’m definitely not) I would just point out that the real problem he’s got is that the other parties effectively undermine any attempt at negotiation.

Put simply, the art of negotiation relies on both parties feeling like they’re the other’s only option. If another option seems valid, there’s little negotiation room. For example, if five people all want to buy an iPhone, you can auction it off or stick to a 1000$ pricetag. If only one person wants to buy, and only for 500$, then the price will likely fall. It is why you don’t get discounts on popular products.

Brexit is like that. For a deal to happen, a no-deal option has to be plausible as an alternative. If the other parties all shout that “no deal isn’t an option”, the only sensible thing for the EU is to offer a pro-EU deal and say “fine, here’s the deal then – accept it”. That’s how iPhones sell for 1000$. Because no-iPhone is not an option.

Hopefully the analogy makes sense. Basically, you can’t negotiate any kind of sensible deal if you can’t walk away as an option.

All that being said, was proroguing parliament the best way to go? Goodness only knows (but probably not). All I know is that we’ve had years of dithering and people with no clue how to negotiate a deal (apparently) undermining it at every turn (and the tories are as guilty of this as the opposition). I know they’re not meant to be great business people, but crumbs, that’s haggling-for-beginners, and negotiation hari-kari!

Put it another way – the only way you’ll get a reduction on a house price when negotiating is if the seller believes you’ll walk way if the price doesn’t drop, AND if he believes you’re his best sale chance.

Brexit is like that. For a deal to happen, a no-deal option has to be plausible as an alternative. If the other parties all shout that “no deal isn’t an option”, the only sensible thing for the EU is to offer a pro-EU deal and say “fine, here’s the deal then – accept it”. That’s how iPhones sell for 1000$. Because no-iPhone is not an option.

I think you’ve made a basic mistake. Remember that no matter which way round it goes the “divorce bill” still exists.

So, to use your analogy:
Deal 1 = I take your offered iPhone and 8Gb data per month, price $1000 upfront.
Deal 2 = I take, with extra negotiation, your offered iPhone, an iWatch and 8Gb data per month, price $1000 upfront.
No-deal = I refuse your offers, here’s $1000 and I’m walking away. My didn’t I show you who’s boss?

What kind of idiot would pay a bill and take nothing of the offered goods/service?
Walking away is only an option if you’re not parting with the cash.

Of course for various of the pro-Brexit Tories (and fans) they do get cash, it’s us suckers that lose.

Stave, I’m not saying we should do a no-deal. Just that in a negotiation, that has to be a believable option.
Also, sadly, us suckers lose every which way. That’s what being a tax-payer is all about :( Politics is just a way to try and make us feel better ;)

Take a house purchase. I’m surely not going to tell you that I need a house, otherwise I’ll be homeless. You have to believe that I can not buy the house, and/or that I’d be OK with being homeless. That absolutely doesn’t have to be true. But they have to believe it.

Another analogy, I want to buy a loaf of bread for a pound.

If I offer 1 pound up front, the farmer asks 2 pounds.

If we both make offers, I offer 50p, the farmer offers 1.50. Maybe we meet at 1 pound. Provided the farmer wants my business and doesn’t have someone else lined up who’ll pay more.
If I offer 1 pound and the farmer offers 1.50, we maybe meet at 1.25.
But if I offer 25p, maybe the farmer says “no thanks, you’ve irritated me, no discount for you”. It’s careful calculation.

If everyone (ie. lots of politicians) are offering different prices, all above 1 pound, whilst simultaneously shouting “AND THERE’S NO OTHER BREAD ON THE ISLAND!” [which may be true] then there’s no way the farmer will sell for 1 pound. Heck, bidding starts at 5 pounds and line youselves up! You have to make the farmer believe you’d rather stave than pay more than that pound.

It’s a bluffing game, basically, but what you can’t do is have a bunch of other people constantly shouting your hand.

is if the seller believes you’ll walk way if the price doesn’t drop

The problem is, the UK has been quite unwilling to negotiate all the way along. The civil servants make arrangements and agreements that the rowdy lot in parliament shoot down at every opportunity while instead promoting unicorns, sorry, I meant the same thing three times…

Do you remember that it was recently lamented (by Rees-Mogg?) that the EU hasn’t safeguarded the rights of citizens?
Well, rewind three years and you’ll see that right in the beginning the EU wanted to ringfence three things – citizen’s rights, the Irish border, and who owes what. Three things that the UK completely ignored, so some (like the rights) were just dropped as it was clear that the UK would simply refuse to agree to anything.

The problem here is that simply walking away is not a viable negotiating tactic. Your comparison of buyer and seller is far too simplistic. Instead of buy and sell, try thinking it it as a bar. A bar with good beer. And a bunch of mates. Twenty seven of them, and they mostly (not always!) get on. And then there’s that one. That one that doesn’t want to come to the bar any more, doesn’t want to put any cash in the kitty to cover the drinks, but still expects everybody to buy them drinks even though they’re no longer at the bar.
That’s more what Brexit is like.

Europe understands that their worries are more to do with China and Russia and whatever the hell America is up to. They are fellow superpowers, they are ones who can influence global trade and economies (look at US vs China tariffs). These are important issues.

Brexit? Kind of isn’t. It was a horrific shock, but the position of the UK has been depressingly predictable. The government is stuck in some eighteenth century delusion of grandeur. They think they, a country of around 67m people, deserve all sorts of things from a bloc of 27 with population and GDP akin to that of the US.

The EU doesn’t want the UK to leave, but it has been putting out advice to help countries to prepare for a while now. What is harder to prepare for is the fall out of a crash out. It will hurt the EU, but nothing like as much as it’ll hurt the UK. Because, let’s face it, who wants to cut deals with a country that seems to believe it doesn’t have to pay what it owes, can completely ignore international treaties that it helped create, and do all of that with the sort of smug satisfaction that you get from people that talk to fairies, or Jesus…

The UK is not being expelled, it is your “democratic” decision to leave. But, ultimately, the EU has a lot of bigger things to worry about than that island in the North West that never got the memo about the world order having changed.

For a deal to happen, a no-deal option has to be plausible as an alternative.

As, logically, should be “Remain”.

The thing is, after a lot of negotiating, the EU came to a deal with the UK at civil servant level. Westminster shredded that. Then they took a lot of votes on what they absolutely didn’t want. So we know what Parliament doesn’t want (and leaving with no deal is one of the things they don’t want) but it seems a lot harder to work out what anybody does want. The reason the pro Brexit camp did so well may lie less in Pro Brexit and more in the Remain groups arguing with themselves. Because it’s all very useful getting into arguments over what gear the bus is in after it has fallen off the cliff…

All that being said, was proroguing parliament the best way to go?

You do know what that’s about, right?

Part one – shut down Parliament for a while.
Part two – immediately call a general election.

Part two basically suspends normal activities for six weeks.

Which means Oct 31 comes and goes, and the parliamentary democracy that is supposed to discuss and debate such things? Will not. Can not. Prevented from.

crumbs, that’s haggling-for-beginners.

As is knowing when you absolutely do not have any upper hand. I’ve been waiting three years for a tangible logical realistic example of a benefit of leaving that is great enough to make all the trouble worthwhile. As far as I can see, it amounts to going to the US with a little tin begging bowl and agreeing to the rape and pillage of the health service in return for foods that the EU doesn’t consider suitable for human consumption.

AND if he believes you’re his bet sale chance.

Refer back to my bar analogy, and remember, in the global scheme of things, you’re kind of unimportant these days. You are flushing your own futures down the bog. And history is unlikely to be kind. Indeed, in a hundred years, “Tory” will be a grave insult traded in the playgrounds to stigmatise self-important little oiks that nobody likes.

Amusing fact – the anti-Europe views of many (older) pro-Brexiteers were formed by newspapers… In particular, articles in popularist right-wing press of the time. These were mostly proven to be a load of old cobblers, written by the Europe correspondant at the time… one Boris Johnson.

Anyone recall those articles about British sausages not being allowed to be called sausages? Or yorkshire puddings? Or straight bananas? Step forward Mr Boris!

(double post deleted)

Rick, I do agree with 90% of what you say. And, we’ve probably left it far too close to the wire for any meaningful negotiations to occur – this should have happened and be resolved years back.

What was likely to happen was a vote of no confidence and then the “no-deal-is-not-an-option” brigade would try and re-negotiate and get laughed out by EU. Any deal would be worse than the existing one (which you’re right, we should’ve probably taken, but parliament screwed that up). So, frankly in that scenario Remain is probably the right option (irrespective of whether it was/wasn’t previously). Only no-one seems to even think about that as an option.

Remember that the “no deal is not an option” brigade is the self-same lot that voted down the EU-deal under May. The whole process has been a demonstration of how broken UK politics and politicians are. It’s not just Tory that should be an insult, but “parlimentairian politician”.

Oh, and you’re also right about the US. The reason Trump backs Boris and no-deal is that that then puts the UK in the absolute weakest bargaining position for a US deal. Trump knows negotiation tactics, that’s for sure.

Later thought. You’re right. I’m two years too late. I’ve felt grumpy about the crap negotiating for two years, but it is no longer relevant. I’m naively thinking that Boris can/will use negotiating tactics when it’s probably all about crashing headlong out. Which we’re all agreed is not a good plan.

when it’s probably all about crashing headlong out. Which we’re all agreed is not a good plan.

I for one am a big fan of no-deal-Brexit. After the failed negotiation of a sensible deal with the EU, it is the only option. If you take the people’s vote for Brexit seriously of course, else you are free to do anything you like (and I have a strong suspicion that most Members of Parliament, being remainers-at-heart, just tried to delay Brexit indefinitely – especially Madame May, although there is also a slight chance that she has really absolutely no idea about negotiations at all).

The whole EU is in a sorry state. Get out while you can.

Which means Oct 31 comes and goes, and the parliamentary democracy that is supposed to discuss and debate such things? Will not. Can not. Prevented from

Well what have they been doing for the last 3 years, oh basically giving a good impression of trying to do a pxxxup in a brewery and failing so do we really expect a few more days will magically get them all working together.

Thanks to their heroic failure to comprimise on all sides we are now in dangerous territory with one lot turning this in to the people , well those who voted to leave, against parliament and the other lot spreading hysterical mob based threats to invade the streets.

This all seems like a re run of Thatcher and the unions from the 80’s and not surprising given the polar views that are now entrentched.

The SNP, having had two referendums go against what they wanted, Indi and Brexit, now want a 3rd or is it 4th and the Lib Dems bless them now saying we should be debating a deal not no deal when I thought the party wanted a 2nd Uk wide referendum.

As for the DUP well what is their stance as it seems to support a no deal is to trash the good friday agreement.

And the EU is not guilt free in all of this with France in particular seeing it as an opportunity to take a more central position in the world with respect to finance and services.

Meanwhile in an alternative universe one David Cameron is enjoying a beach holiday in Cornwall whilst the mayhem he let lose goes on.

If someone wrote a play you could not have made up such a far fetched situation that we have now and my fear is that the genie is out and violence and bloodshed on the streets is not far away as people entrench themselves further without pausing to think.

As a borderline remainer myself, I’m not convinced prorogation is the right way to do things, but I fully understand why the choice was taken. Our parliament (and the idiots on every side within it) have done everything they can to scupper the choice of the electorate, either by doing their best to undermine negotiations by trying to rule out no deal as an option – which as Andrew says, has to be seen as a realistic option on the table – or by voting against any deal presented, and not even being able to come up with a compromise position that the majority supported. Everything is being done to thwart Brexit, rightly or wrongly. If this is the only way to get the EU and parliament to move things on or bring them to a head, then it is slightly justifiable. We can’t keep extending, dragging out, squabbling and blocking – it just needs to be done and finished with.

If this is the only way to get the EU and parliament to move things on or bring them to a head, then it is slightly justifiable

You may be right in that it may make some MP’s take what ever improved deal is on the table but at what cost to our society where it seems to be OK now to openly call for MP’s to be hanged and others using words like coup when this is nothing of the sort. In addition labelling others as degenerate and mentally challenged doesn’t help either.

Society has a large schism being expoilted by forces of the exterme right and left to their own means and we must resist that at all costs.

Nicola Sturgeon was partially right in her observation this week but I would replace the word Democracy with Society as this whole 3 years has darkened society where very little focus has been put on those who need help and the sooner this is over the better and we can build bridges and hopefully repair things for those who need it. Else the have nots in society will again be targetted by the exterme left and right to further fuel hatred in society.

Somehow we’ve ended up with ‘extremists’ – people who see their view of things as the only ‘correct’ view – anything else is deemed to be invalid, incorrect, fake, lies, propaganda, hate, etc. It’s the same at both ends of spectrum. Whatever happened to moderates who could look at both sides of an argument and see merit in parts of all the views? Have we stopped teaching people to reason, investigate, understand? It has to come down to the ‘newspapers’ who will say anything that will stir their cause. Corbyn is calling for civil disobedience now – he wants a return to the Poll Tax riots – at what cost?

As for the DUP well what is their stance as it seems to support a no deal is to trash the good friday agreement.

I am a late-comer to the history of the whole Northern Ireland conflict. And I heard many times the opinion that a no-deal-Brexit will somehow break the Good Friday agreement. I have read the Good Friday agreement, and I fail to see why it is somehow broken by no-deal-Brexit (unless the EU is taking extreme measures on the Ireland/Northern Ireland border of course).

Can someone explain?

Corbyn is calling for civil disobedience now – he wants a return to the Poll Tax riots – at what cost?

Whether someone is a Leaver, Remainer, or somewhere in between, it shouldn’t matter: this extended prorogation sets a very dangerous precedent indeed. If we allow the circumvention of parliamentary scrutiny to be normalised, just because on this occasion we might strongly disagree with parliament, we give future governments (or the way things are going, even the current one) an easy path to completely dismantle our democracy and implement a full-blown dystopia.

The fact they’re trying to paint it as “parliament versus the people” makes it all the more Orwellian. This kind of “Big Brother knows best” attitude needs to be remedied before it’s too late.

Can someone explain?

Wasn’t that simply because according to the agreement there shouldn’t be a real border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and a no-deal Brexit creates exactly that?

Yes. That’s the basic gist of it. The two Irelands are not to be separated by any sort of border, as was the case during The Troubles.

The simple solution, given that NI voted in favour of Europe, is to keep Ireland open and put the necessary customs border between what is and isn’t part of the EU in the Irish sea.

Unfortunately the shambolic excuse of a government is propped up by some hardliner religious nutjobs who would rather see a hard border along the old lines than anything to do with getting in the way of their sacred union, because they are utterly committed unionists (except when it pleases them – abortions and homosexuality, for example). To give you an idea of the sort of person we’re talking about, they are the only lot that voted against the Good Friday Agreement. But they were just considered fringe lunatics until… Until they ended up with a driving seat in government affairs. But then, it seems Farage is able to tell the government what to do, and he has never been elected as an MP. These are not normal times, but that’s been pretty clear for a while now.

Whatever happened to moderates who

Perhaps because there is no middle ground? It’s a binary choice – Stay or Leave.

Corbyn is calling for civil disobedience now

Ought to underline the situation when the Leader Of The Opposition says something like that. Jeez…

but I fully understand why the choice was taken

I don’t. It doesn’t really matter that parliament will take fifty thousand votes and arrive at no result. That is how the British government works. It’s a Parliamentary Democracy, that is how it does things. It isn’t leading by referenda, charisma, or “my mate Tom said”. Everything is debated, scrutinised, kicked to the Lords and back again.

To shut down the government to push through something that everybody knows would be voted down, that sets a very dangerous precedent for the future. Know you’ll lose a vote? Shut down Parliament so it can’t be debated…

Wasn’t that simply because according to the agreement there shouldn’t be a real border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and a no-deal Brexit creates exactly that?

Neither does the Good Friday agreement absolutely require that there cannot be a “real border” (whatever that precisely means), nor does a no-deal-Brexit necessarily cause a “real border”. That’s were my confusion comes from.

That’s were my confusion comes from.

To understand the Irish not-really-a-border situation you have to understand the history – I can truthfully say that having met both Catholic and Protestant examples of inhabitants of the northern chunk of that isle I’m probably more perplexed about some things.

The “religious nutjobs” mentioned by Rick sit on both sides of the religious divide one wants a united isle the other wants a close tie to the mainland of UK.
Both sides have spent decades killing and maiming the others to the extent that the relative of a Catholic friend meeting him at our hospital social club was literally in fear of his life when he discovered none of us were Catholic other than his relative Joe.
These people will kill to perpetuate their bigoted views and collect a pat on the head from their religious leaders – “the Troubles”m as they like to refer to the multiple murders of innocent people, were sanctioned and encouraged by people who claimed to be men of god.

Brexit? Minor hurdle in the route to their personal goal…
You can probably use the same phrase for the Brexit extremists. Mogg being a prime example.

Borders?, just another excuse.

The are a lot of moderates, but they never get heard because they say things that both extremes disagree with. I’m one – I didn’t completely want to remain, but I could see more downsides to leaving, but I understand some of the thoughts of both views. The EU is too powerful, it isn’t as accountable as it should be, it’s reluctant to reform, but there are good points as well. Although it doesn’t directly affect me, I can see the risk to jobs when companies move away, don’t invest, shift manufacturing sites, move their headquarters, etc. Less jobs, more unemployment, less taxes, more imports, higher costs, so there’s still an indirect effect on me.

Not every brexiteer wants to leave without a deal, many remainers would be happy to leave with a reasonable compromise deal. Just the same as the religious question – not all sect A hates sect B and wants them dead and vice versa. Many people are just content to muddle through and make the best of whatever the outcome is, but the extremists won’t be happy unless they have everything their way – and this is extremists of all aspects, not just political, religious or pro/anti-EU platforms.

I have read the Good Friday agreement

I wonder if Westminster, and the DUP, have paid any attention to Article 1 part V. ;-)

The Northern Ireland problem, and what the Good Friday Agreement solved, was the issue of identity. The GFA allows the people of NI to decide on an individual basis whether they are British or Irish. They can be either, or both, it’s up to the individual. This is a unique solution.

Brexit destroys this happy compromise. It is not possible to be Irish if there’s a border between you and Ireland. It is not possible to be British if there is a border between you and Britain. And before anyone argues pathetically about some ex-pat somewhere, it is not possible to be free if there is a wall between you and freedom.

A border between NI and Ireland is anathema to the Irish of NI. A border (even a notional trade border) between NI and Great Britain is anathema to the Unionists of NI. Both groups contain elements that are quite prepared to explode children if you so much as look at them in a funny way.

My wife, sister and mother narrowly missed being killed by the Warrington bomb – it was only sudden illness that caused them to leave the shop early, the shop outside of which the bomb was left. They missed it by 30 minutes.

I will shake anyone advocating the removal- or discounting the importance- of The Good Friday Agreement warmly by the throat should they be lucky enough to meet me in person. I will impress upon them the reality of the disparity between disproportionate violence and the lazy rhetoric of comfortable distance.

Get out while you can.

What a rhetorical, over-emotional, meaningless cliché of hysterical drivel.

How does burning all our free trade agreements now achieve anything? In what way could we not burn them next week, or next year, or a decade hence? What do you mean “while you can”? Do you even know what you mean? I’m no longer shocked by the lack of thinking exhibited on the internet, but it’s sad to see it here too, in a very few cases.

The Northern Ireland problem, and what the Good Friday Agreement solved, was the issue of identity. The GFA allows the people of NI to decide on an individual basis whether they are British or Irish. They can be either, or both, it’s up to the individual. This is a unique solution.

But is that anything that couldn’t survive a Brexit, no matter if with our without a deal?

Brexit destroys this happy compromise. It is not possible to be Irish if there’s a border between you and Ireland. It is not possible to be British if there is a border between you and Britain. And before anyone argues pathetically about some ex-pat somewhere, it is not possible to be free if there is a wall between you and freedom.

There could be any kind of bilateral agreement between Britain and Ireland to make sure that there is no “hard border” necessary. It just needs something like Schengen between Britain and Ireland. Like e.g. between Switzerland and the EU. This is possible, but it looks like the EU does not want such a pragmatic solution.

And by the way, the Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998, but the border between Ireland and Britain existed for a few years after that. So it IS possible.

A border between NI and Ireland is anathema to the Irish of NI. A border (even a notional trade border) between NI and Great Britain is anathema to the Unionists of NI. Both groups contain elements that are quite prepared to explode children if you so much as look at them in a funny way.

That is surely the case, and to be honest after reading a bit about the Ireland/NI conflict since the 20s of the last century, I wonder why it was the Good Friday agreement that finally significantly reduced the violence. Extremists on both sides will always find reasons for the next killing and bombing.

I will shake anyone advocating the removal- or discounting the importance- of The Good Friday Agreement warmly by the throat should they be lucky enough to meet me in person. I will impress upon them the reality of the disparity between disproportionate violence and the lazy rhetoric of comfortable distance.

My question still stands – why does no-deal-Brexit mean the removal of the Good Friday Agreement? After reading a lot more, I still don’t understand.

Get out while you can.

What a rhetorical, over-emotional, meaningless cliché of hysterical drivel.

It is the result of a fairly intensive analysis over the years since about 1980 on where the EU started, where it is now and where it will probably go. If you have any questions, just ask :-)

How does burning all our free trade agreements now achieve anything?

It is one myth that the EU somehow keeps up that it is interested in free trade. The EU is a protectionist organization. It protects its inner market from free trade from the outside. You can witness that on small scales like Switzerland and Norway, or on large scales like Canada, the U.S. (TTIP anyone?) or currently the “Mercosur” fiasco. Outside the EU, you have a much better chance to struck sensible free trade deals.

The amount of non-tariff trade barriers that have been erected by the EU is frankly staggering.

In what way could we not burn them next week, or next year, or a decade hence?

I am working on the basis that the Brexit vote means something. I.E. really exiting the EU. And I think that, over all, it will be an advantage for Britain (and a disaster for Germany, but that’s not your problem). May’s Brexit deal would have meant not being able to negotiate new trade deals for a long time to come, along with other serious disadvantages for quite a long time (and perhaps even indefinitely).

If Britain does not exit now, it has many many disadvantages. Creating instability because of the uncertainty of the situation. Throwing away more money for EU stuff nobody needs. Having to work under all the fine new rules the EU will think of. Then think about the growing instability regarding the Euro and because of the neglection of EU/Euro treaties and agreements everywhere. All of that will make it ever more difficult. Not impossible, but more difficult. And a lot more expensive.

What do you mean “while you can”?

While the Brexit vote still stands. I can envision a second referendum with a more successful “project fear” propaganda approach.

I’m no longer shocked by the lack of thinking exhibited on the internet, but it’s sad to see it here too, in a very few cases.

Actually, I am usually shocked by the things some people prefer to interpret from written words, often ignoring context, without thinking about the many possible alternative interpretations.