Should Brexit negotiations should be conducted by a multi-party committee?

symyjym · Jun 10, 2017

ManOfSussex said:
I'm actually seriously starting to wonder if some sort of government of national unity emerges from all this and the mess we're in now. The current Government isn't going to get very far with The Scottish Conservatives wanting one thing and The DUP wanting another and they're going to have to get the best part of 20 different bills through parliament before 2019 on Brexit. I just cannot see them doing it. Interesting times we live in.

Brexit is a political singularity. If it's too complex to make a direct break from the EU they should be honest about it and use the time negotiating better deals in Europe. Right now it's just a hot potatoe that no one really wants a part in. We don't know if leaving will be an advantage, disadvantage or the same but different. If there are cetrain advatages and gains then they should be promoting them by now but there is no substance to a thought process a year after the Brexit vote. There should be some clarity for the vision by now.

There needs to be a cross party consensus to whether we, with good reason, proceed or not.

Jim D · Jun 10, 2017

Questions said:
Like a Theresa May Jim.

Not really. May created a Brexit ministry and appointed leavers to all the key positions. Labour appointed remainers to shadow them. It wasn't May's fault that she was elected leader.

Steve.S · Jun 10, 2017

All parties had a real chance at this election to make a case for putting a stop to Brexit. The sad fact is that both Labour and Tories want us out or were frightened to test the public on it. Why can't the government consult the voters along side the negotiations. The process will take 2 years. It doesn't have to be long winded. All I hear is the same old line, "it's not what people voted for". Well why don't they start asking people

clapham_gull · Jun 10, 2017

Yes, I've thought so for a while. Unfortunately those who campaigned for leave ( and voted for it ) didn't have a clue what would happen if they won.

Just some vague notion about Norway and trading with India.

The decisiona to be made now are far too big for a Tory party with barely a majority.

Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

JC Footy Genius · Jun 10, 2017

clapham_gull said:
Yes, I've thought so for a while. Unfortunately those who campaigned for leave ( and voted for it ) didn't have a clue what would happen if they won.

Just some vague notion about Norway and trading with India.

The decisiona to be made now are far too big for a Tory party with barely a majority.

Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

I thought we would leave the EU.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jun 10, 2017

FFS. It is THEIR mess. Let them go for glory.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jun 10, 2017

JC Footy Genius said:
I thought we would leave the EU.

I thought you thought (and said) we would vote remain.

I thought (and stated on here) we would vote to leave . . . . :shrug:

JC Footy Genius · Jun 10, 2017

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
I thought you thought (and said) we would vote remain.

I thought (and stated on here) we would vote to leave . . . .

I did. See 'if we won'

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jun 10, 2017

Steve.S said:
All parties had a real chance at this election to make a case for putting a stop to Brexit. The sad fact is that both Labour and Tories want us out or were frightened to test the public on it. Why can't the government consult the voters along side the negotiations. The process will take 2 years. It doesn't have to be long winded. All I hear is the same old line, "it's not what people voted for". Well why don't they start asking people

I sympathize, but disagree. This is how I see it.

Cameron held the vote expecting to win and shut up his 'nutters' forever. He lost. Gone
May and Corbyn can't say 'Oh**** to the referendum!'. They are both honourable. We are stuck with it.
Second referendums are poison. Ask the SNP. Moot one and you are Mc****ed.
However this is a mess of Tory making so they must fix it.
If the cannot then, and only then, can we consider throwing it back to the people:
Referendum 2, or general election 2 with one party having in its manifesto 'we will not do the Brexit'
I hope the latter will be labour (the Libs will certainly have that as their platform).
The tories, well . . . . actually, given a fair wind and cross my heart and hope to die, one way or another, they are totes****ed.
They deserve to be mega****ed anyway. Worst Govrning Party (let's not forget -they are governing) disgrace of a shower acting in nobody's interest other than their own, in the history of English politics. Bar none.

Their only hope is to tarnish Corbyn as an IRA mastercunt. They have tried, and some (on here) buy it. Let's see.

nicko31 · Jun 11, 2017

Steve.S said:
All parties had a real chance at this election to make a case for putting a stop to Brexit. The sad fact is that both Labour and Tories want us out or were frightened to test the public on it. Why can't the government consult the voters along side the negotiations. The process will take 2 years. It doesn't have to be long winded. All I hear is the same old line, "it's not what people voted for". Well why don't they start asking people

Unity government, ratification from the British people. Someway, we need to patch this country back together.

Whatever happens its looks like the extreme Brexit of walking away and crashing seems to be off the table which would be a disaster for us and Europe. So glad young people have finally made themselves heard and become energised its their future

sparkie · Jun 11, 2017

rocker959 said:
Hire Nigel Farage to negotiate .

He'll be too busy with the FBI soon.

Raleigh Chopper · Jun 11, 2017

The way May has handled the Tory campaign has given me no confidence that she can handle these most important negotiations.
She does not care for this country or its people, she is a nasty and vindictive woman who is incapable of leading any sort of team.
She is clinging on to power using anyone she can to stay there
At least she has been found out before they start, I just hope that other Tories can stop her.
This is now beyond a farce and the other European leaders will be licking their lips.
She wants the negotiations to start as normal, I bet she does.
Surely it's best to wait until things calm down.
They keep telling us this is the most important thing for many generations yet we are allowing May to carry on as if nothing had happened.
This is suicide, the Europeans will have us for dinner.

nicko31 · Jun 11, 2017

If May does not get some cross party agreement how can she survive? She will get just never Brexit through. IMO it needs to be softer Brexit. We need to delay the Brexit talks till we know which way we are sailing

Perhaps still leave single market (with modest cap on immigration), stay in customs union and get tariff free access to European market with none of the nightmare customs controls (but lose ability to do trade deals outside of the EU, the opportunity here is overplayed by the Brexiteers). The deal needs to reflect the wishes of everyone it was 52 / 48, not 80 / 20, we need some sensible compromise, we need to end the division.

May is weakened but bizarrely she still has an opportunity to go down as a good PM. Also, no more elections till Brexit is done and dusted, public are sick of voting.

cheshunt seagull · Jun 11, 2017

I think it makes a lot of sense. It does require some kind of consensus on the priorities for Brexit. Realistically the way the parliamentary numbers add up this can only be on the more 'soft' end as the opposition parties do not support 'hard' Brexit; Mays new fire and brimstone buddies do not want a closed border in Ireland and the Scottish Conservatives are aware of Scottish opposition to it. Some will say that 'soft' Brexit is not what the UK population actually voted for but the reality is that this notion of majority support for extreme Brexit is a myth that was pedalled by the tabloid press last summer, received bellicose support from a few self-appointed Brexiters and was swallowed by May probably under instruction from Dacre; there has never been any firm evidence to support this view.

So, although I was a firm remainer, I think the best way forward is a cross party approach to a form of Brexit that does not create huge and irrational risks to our economy, whilst not under-mining the basic principle that we are leaving the EU. It may be the best way to bring an end to the tribalism and division. I am not optimistic that it will happen.

Official Old Man · Jun 11, 2017

Yes. Cant see this government lasting the full 5 years, maybe 1 at the most. So when the inevitable happens the negotiating team would not change. It may mean that they don't get re-elected in which case they should at least keep the negotiation job (subject to them being good).

jaghebby · Jun 11, 2017

To be honest we are probably fooling ourselves if we are going to get a deal so all this talk of negotiation is superfluous and irrelevant! Macron and Merkel will probably press for the hardest stance possible from the EU side which will mean no deal can be agreed. The best deal without a doubt is the one we have now! Mark Austin tweeted "What this whole episode illustrates is the depressing lack of politicians of real stature in this country. Just when you need them!" I have to say I agree with him so whether its the minority government of "the dead woman walking" or a multi party committee no one will deliver anything but a drop over the cliff edge!

warmleyseagull · Jun 11, 2017

Not sure it makes a whole lot of difference. UK's position is weak anyway, despite all the Farage bluster about German car producers. The chances of a weak UK agreeing a position that 27 other countries sign up to in <two years is about the same as Lord Lucan popping up in our midfield.

There are probably only three outcomes in 2019: no agreement in and we leave with nothing; no agreement and there is a general agreement to extend deadline; no agreement and something else that no-one has yet thought of. My money is on the last option as EU is not bad at elastoplast solutions. Italy may yet help out in this: the anti Euro parties are leading in the polls and there will be an election in early 2018. I have predicted for years that Italy would bring Euro down by 2020 because of its chronic budgetary problems, dodgy banks, and ageing demographic and dont see too much wrong with that prediction. If right, Italy will take attention away from Brexit and give more time for fudging a solution. But it really would have been easier to vote Remain....

clapham_gull · Jun 11, 2017

I'm sure the frothing at the mouth Tory brigade who are regretting Thatcher wasn't cryogenically frozen are appalled but it makes perfect sense.

The reality is Corbyn comes from a side of the Labour party that is deeply distrustful of the EU. They won't admit that will they ?

It was the disenfranchised vote that took the vote over the edge and he is their voice love it or loath it.

That is something that the Tories didn't get the relevance of and the Lib Dems well, always looking for an opportunity that frankly isn't there.

A combination of non bonkers Tories and Eurosceptic Labour MPs will get us through. They can start kicking the shit out of each other afterwards.

Pevenseagull · Jun 11, 2017

Clean their own shit up

nicko31 · Jun 11, 2017

cheshunt seagull said:
I think it makes a lot of sense. It does require some kind of consensus on the priorities for Brexit. Realistically the way the parliamentary numbers add up this can only be on the more 'soft' end as the opposition parties do not support 'hard' Brexit; Mays new fire and brimstone buddies do not want a closed border in Ireland and the Scottish Conservatives are aware of Scottish opposition to it. Some will say that 'soft' Brexit is not what the UK population actually voted for but the reality is that this notion of majority support for extreme Brexit is a myth that was pedalled by the tabloid press last summer, received bellicose support from a few self-appointed Brexiters and was swallowed by May probably under instruction from Dacre; there has never been any firm evidence to support this view.

So, although I was a firm remainer, I think the best way forward is a cross party approach to a form of Brexit that does not create huge and irrational risks to our economy, whilst not under-mining the basic principle that we are leaving the EU. It may be the best way to bring an end to the tribalism and division. I am not optimistic that it will happen.

What worries me is some in the government like you can just carry on as planned before the election. Leaving the single market will probably still happen but don't destroy our country with an extreme Brexit.

I have a BMW plant on my doorstep which is the pride of British manufacturing, it employs 4000 people directly and probably 8 times that in the supply chain. If they go, they won't be back. FFS, we need to be in the customs union. As for trade deal outside the EU, who says we're going to get a better trade deal with China alone than in the EU, we're a fraction of the size

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Should Brexit negotiations should be conducted by a multi-party committee?

A multi-party committee for Brexit?

Yes - The only sensible choice where we are now

No - Let the minority government deal with it

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Legacy Fan

Bringer of TRUTH

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Bringer of TRUTH

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Uckfield Seagull

Active member

Well-known member

Legacy Fan

Anti-greed coalition

Well-known member

Share this page