The 48%

I would like to think that anyone that reads this blog on a regular basis (is there anyone out there?) kows that I voted for Brexit.

But I thought it was about time I looked at the 48% of voters who voted for remain and what is being done for them in the Brexit negotiations.

If the majority for leave was much higher, I'm sure we would have had a "hard" Brexit: article 50 would have been invoked immediately and we would have been out of everything and trading on WTO rules after the 2 year negotiation period. That period would have been used to confirm tarding relations between us and the EU block as a third country.

However, there wasn't that great a majority, so the pace of Brexit has to be slower and more cautious in order to gain some concessions for the 48%. For instance the security of our citizens in Europe, friction-free trade and all the other things that are making the negotiations as easy as travelling across the country's currently icy roads.

The 48% need to understand the negotiations on trade and everything else are for them.

Actually, it's not 48%.... polls show that most remain-voting people accepted the result of the referendum. they accept they lost and accept that Brexit in some form or another must happen. I thank those remain voters who graciously accepted the result of the referendum. It's a very adult view to take and I thank them for not rocking the boat, throwing their toys out of the pram or whatever metaphor descripes the petulant few that refuse to accept the democratic will of the people.

It's those die-hard remainers, something like 24% of those that voted that are sore losers and want us to stay in the customs union even though it is incompatible with the ending of free movement of people, as required by the 52% that voted for Brexit. 

The 24% want free and frictionless trade, even though the EU themselves have said that once out of the customs union it is impossible.

The 24% want no border between Southern and Northern Ireland, even though they are two different countries and the EU have already said it is impossible without a customs union.

The 24% seem to have a disproportionate representation in Parliament (certainly in the house of Lords) and in the media. So much for representative government.

The BBC seem to push the minority anti-Brexit 24% agenda at every turn, despite the majority of voters voting for Brexit and the majority of voters (including leave voters) accepting the result of the referendum. Not very representative of the BBC at all. In fact it's very biased of them, as has been reported many times. But thenn again, what do you expect from an organisation that receives a substantial contribution in monetary terms from the EU.

It's quite telling to look at anti-Brexit organisations (charities included) and see whether they receive direct funding from the EU. The vast majority do...

Anyway, I do feel for the 24%... I really do. What they are asking for is incompatible with the will of the majority and especially against the rules and regulations of the organisation they wish us to remain part of. One of the very reasons I voted against the EU is the inflexibility and unbending adherence to the rules, enforced by unelected officials.

Sorry 24%, you're getting a taste of your own medicine. It's not our fault. We are trying to negotiate on your behalf. I just wish you would appreciate it and understand that the very organisation you love refuses to accept your viewpoint. Ironically showing just how undemocratic the EU really is.

Brexit: No Deal is a Done Deal...

The stars are aligning, the rumours are starting and in what were smoke-filled back rooms (until EU intervention) plans are afoot regarding Brexit.

All the signs now point to there being no deal in place by the end of the Article 50 negotiation period.

I take this hard Brexit approach (and thereby a complete refusal to truly negotiate -on both sides) as a ply to force the UK back towards EU membership.

Effectively the plan seems to be the "No-Deal" scenario will be so horrendous there will be a clamour from voters to end the Article 50 process and go back to the loving busom of the EU.

I'm one of the "Hard" Brexiters: exit from the EU is worth ANY cost to the UK. Regaining control of laws, borders trade and everything else the EU sticks it's money-grubbing fingers into is worth the cost. ANY cost.

I know Dan Hannan would like a more reasoned approach, but where money is involved, the EU loses all reason. If we leave, we remove a huge chunk from the EU budget, leaving Germany as the main contributor. I can imagine the New German government will be putting immense pressure on the EU to get a deal where we still contribute money for access to EU markets. Hence the EU's insistance on sorting out the money first and then sorting out trade deals. How exactly we're supposed to negotiate a bill before we know what services we're paying for.I don't know.

To expand on Mr Juncker's Bar analogy, nobody pays the tab up front before they know what they drinks they are are paying for. £5 a glass for a coke is a bit different than £5 for a JD & coke. You pay your share of the tab up to the point you leave the bar. And no-one pays for drinks that are served after they leave the bar.

It's like Mr Juncker going up to a bar and the barman saying "That'll be 100 Euros..." The very next words out of Mr Junckers words would be "What for, I haven't ordered yet!?"

Not what I put my tick in the box on referendum day for.

Sure, if we get a deal that is worth the money, then fair enough, but paying (for instance) the biggest contribution just to be a member of the club but not on the committee should not be an option.

Out means out, as we were told several times by the remain side during the referendum campaign.

The Definition of the Word Negotiation...

A lot of political sheninnigans is going on in Westminster at the moment in order to finally get article 50 presented to the EU and Brexit under way.

It seems to me that the Lords and all the other supposedly clever people including the woman that had the Government wasting thousands of taxpayer's pounds defending their right to invoke article 50 just don't understand the definition of the word "Negotiation".

The definition is "discussion or consultation aimed at reaching an agreement". That is a discussion between two parties aimed at reaching an agreement.

The outcome of the negotiations cannot be known beforehand because that's the whole point of the negotiation: to reach an amicable agreement AT THE END OF the negotiation.

Positions cannot be agreed beforehand because items on the agenda of the negotiations are parlayed (good Piratical term) and used in the negotiations as bargaining tools.

One never allows the other side to know your strategy or at what point you would settle, otherwise there is no point negotiating. If the other side knew your strategy beforehand, it severely weakens your ability to get the best outcome from the negotiations. If you both walked to the table and both agreed terms without negotiation, how would you know you got the best deal?

You always go into negotiations with the outlook of using your strategy to get the best outcome. There are points where you may get a better deal than you would have settled for, there are other where the terms are worse than your ideal. The point is to barter and exchange until you come to an agreement that is fair to both parties under the prevailing circumstances. You plan for the worst, and use all your cunning and guile to get the best outcome.

It's like buying and selling a car. The seller asks for a sum, say £5000. You, the buyer offers £2000. Bit of a low blow, but you always start low with the aim of keeping the eventual price at the end of the negotiations as low as possible. The seller then replies with a revised request of £4000, you offer £3000 and eventually you'll most likely end up at £3500, all thing being fair. But what if you offered three grand instead of two? Would the seller counter with £4500 instead of three grand? Would you end up at £4000 instead of £2500? How would you know if £3500 or £4000 was the best offer you could have got, because you never offered a cheeky two grand bid? What if the seller knew you had £4000 in your pocket, or you knew he was desperate for cash and would sell at a lower price just to get the money? See, negotiations can be very negatively affected by knowing strategy beforehand, but also boosted if you do things right and don't give away any advantage you may have.

So for the House of Lords to force the Government to guarantee certain things before the negotiations weakens our negotiating strategy.

For some posh bird to try and force the Government to put the outcome of the negotiations before Parliament for a vote is ludicrous: by definition the outcome of the negotiations are the best available. It's take it or leave it, as the Government has quite rightly said. There is no going back to the table and re-negotiating as those blind to the definition of the word would like. We will have used all our bargaining power, all our bargaining chips, all our best efforts in getting the best deal.

By definition the EU will have also have got the best deal for themselves, they won't want to re-negotiate either. At the end the goal posts cannot be changed.

To go back would weaken our position and end up with a worse situation than the one previously put before Parliament. There is no telling the EU it is unacceptable; they won't care. Stamp your feet as much as you want THEY. DON'T. CARE.

Now can all you supposedly clever bastards just fuck off, stop trying to fuck this country up and lets just get the negotiations started without interference, eh?

I just wonder if they've ever paid the full asking price for a car without trying to get a bit knocked off the price. I severely doubt it because I know rich bastards don't get rich and stay rich by paying full price for stuff.

Which means they're trying to nobble the Brexit negotiations with the intent of denying this country the best outcome and they are beyond contempt.

UPDATE:

Yup, the Lords have proved yet again that they are a bunch of drivelling duffers with not an ounce of common sense amongst them and added an amendment that they want a "substantive" debate and meaningful vote on the Brexit negotiations. Whatever that means. When there can be none. It's take it or leave it guys... Accept the outcome of the negotiations or reject it and head for WTO rules.
Now most people would consider what they are doing as sabotaging the exit negotiations and forcing us down the worst of paths. I can't comment.