Sajid now says 'no alignment post Brexit' ...

I think I am going to close my (small) business this year. It’s kept me afloat for over ten years but I do a lot of trade overseas (services) & as far as I can work out the paperwork to continue being paid is going to be considerable so not really worth it given the amount of money the business earns. Unless we get our own deals in place with Australia/USA etc during this year it just won’t be worth the hassle.

I suppose if keeping information and negotiating tactics close to the Government's chest 'smacks of dictatorship', perhaps we should put all our Government deliberations and secrets into the public domain and, in so doing, into the hands of 'the other side', whoever that might be. I don't think so. Other governments would think us naive and dangerous and would not share any information with us.

For better or worse, the electorate has elected a government and told them to get on with it, the best they can. It will not be easy to negotiate a sensible deal with the EU. It may be impossible but that would be in nobody's interest. With growth in the Eurozone projected to be even more anaemic than in the UK in 2020 and 2021, it would be sensible to end with a reasonable deal, even if it doesn't seem likely at times.

Obviously the government needs to keep their cards close to their chest, why give away our negotiating plan to the other players?

Our Government is in such a weak position - cards in, cards out. It is isolated and a very small cog in any of the wheels out there.

It had a powerful and strong representation at the top table in the EU ...

And yet they sent David Cameron away with his tail between his legs ....
?

yes, because we already had very favourable terms, a large rebate, and the only member allowed to keep its own currency and not be part of Schengen.

No alignment - in short, means -

NO exports, be it for meat, parts, cars, anything you can think about that we have been successfully exporting, without tarifs, for so many years. And for which all our indutries had spent large sums of money to align in order to be able to do so.

You are wrong Grandad1943 when you claim tbat-

"the above is what the majority in Britain voted for in electing a Boris Johnson led Tory government on a Brexit ticket."

The majority who voted in the last election (56%) voted against Johnson and his party, not for them.

It is high time that this country became a democracy and got rid of FPTP. That should be top priority if we are ever to escape from this "elected dictatorship"

And many of the postal votes were fraudulent A dodgy company running it. So altogether not a fair election.

the only member allowed to keep its own currency and not be part of Schengen

Exactly why I voted to leave - the only member allowed - how much longer do you think we would have been allowed to keep our own currency? Eventually we would have been tied into the Euro, which would have irrevocably tied us to weaker European economies and that would have been catastrophic. Just look at the rumblings in the EU right now, it's only a matter of time before its demise.

Unlike some, I listen to knowledgeable people from the other side of the argument including, in this case, Michael Heseltine and John Major who are totally sold on the EU Project. I have heard them indicate that ultimately, of course, we would join the Eurozone. If you accept the concept of an Economic, Monetary and Political Union, you have to; but as far as I am aware, there has never been a poll that showed a majority in favour of the UK joining the Eurozone, let alone the full monty. The Referendum could and should have been a poll on whether we sign up to this future United States of Europe. Sadly, Remain did not argue this as its positive case, relying instead on Project Fear and painting an insidious stereotype of those who dared to differ.

Opal You really do not know whether it would have ever have been in the UK's best interest to join the Eurozone. AFAIK there isn't/wasn't a compelling reason to do so and nobody was putting pressure on the UK to join. It really does sound as though you believed in a particular Project Fear.

My personal belief (and I've talked to people who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do) is that the Eurozone might well weaken or even collapse in the future, as global currency systems evolve.

Nevertheless, a single market and co-operation between current member states will strengthen - and the UK is going to be left looking on from the outside. Our geography means that we cannot just ignore EU states, but we will be going to any negotiating table with a considerably weakened hand.

Urmstongran The EU did NOT send Cameron away with his tail between his legs. He won certain concessions, but the media at the time ignored them and Cameron was such a plonker he didn't shout about them, as Thatcher would have done.

Cameron put himself in a really bad place. Having shouted about how dreadfully unfair the EU was to the UK and how he was going to get much better terms, he didn't get as much as he wanted (though he did get significant concessions), allowed the media to rubbish what he did get, and then had to be a leading light in a campaign to 'Stay' in the EU.

'Plonker' hardly conveys the sheer dreadful idiocy of the man...

”David Cameron could have secured a better deal from Europe ahead of the referendum, his own EU adviser has claimed.
Mats Persson said the former prime minister should have demanded the negotiation talks lasted longer than eight months.
He also suggested that Mr Cameron could have achieved more substantial reforms if he had "played" the renegotiation differently.”

Quote from:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/05/david-cameron-could-have-secured-better-deal-europehis-eu-adviser/

Let's hope our Brexit negotiators will show more competence. There are after all quite a few deals that need to be struck.

In other matters, Tory MP and cattle farmer Bill Wiggins (Herefordshire N) has said (Hereford Times interview) that chlorinated chicken would be a good idea as it would stop stomach bugs. If he wants to eat it, he's welcome, but I won't be feeding it to my family.

Whether or not he could have secured a better deal is neither here nor there now. The fact is that he secured permanent opt out from the euro and from 'closer political union'. Which concessions were to be written into treaty and so well nigh impossible to reverse. But both of these were major frighteners in the Leave campaign, which totally ignored his achievement, for obvious reasons. To have acknowledged their existence would have destroyed a large part of their platform.

Had joining the Common Market been just that, as many believed in 1975, I don't think their would have been an argument. Sadly, the EU never had just this simple (if protective) ambition. An Economic, Monetary and Political Union was always the long-term aim, one which Parliament edged towards without asking a reluctant population directly. The Referendum was a missed opportunity to have the debate and maybe convince the majority that, as one prominent Remainer said, sovereignty is a 'nebulous concept'. I beg to differ but I am open to argument, had the case been seriously put.

Tory MP and cattle farmer Bill Wiggins (Herefordshire N) has said (Hereford Times interview) that chlorinated chicken would be a good idea as it would stop stomach bugs.

What a total ignoramus! And people voted for him?

The whole 'point' of chlorination is to attempt to destroy the buildup of harmful bacteria on/in the chicken caused by poor husbandry standards (far lower than ours). The drawback is that chlorination does not kill all the toxic bacteria.

Perhaps he is not aware ( or prefers to ignore) the fact that the USA has a far higher incidence of food poisoning per capita than does the UK. One in six US citizens get food poisoning each year as opposed to one in sixty UK citizens.

Let me repeat. It is not the chlorine itself that is harmful, it is the bacteria it signally fails to destroy. Bacteria which is not present on EU chicken (or only present in tiny amounts) because our animal husbandry standards are so much higher.

the only member allowed to keep its own currency and not be part of Schengen

This is actually untrue. The euro is used in only 19 of the member countries

The Schengen area includes 26 EU member countries and a number of non eu countries which have chosen (Note; no compulsion to join; chosen) to join the Schengen area

www.etiaseurope.eu/schengen-countries/

Interesting that a Leaver voter (who, we are being constantly told, knew exactly what they were voting for) seems to be ignorant of these facts

Exactly why I voted to leave - the only member allowed -

Er, I think you'll find MaizieD if you look back at this thread, that I was quoting jura2 - it was she who said the only member allowed. I was highlighting the word allowed, which is what I object to - the EU are not entitled to allow us anything when it comes to our sovereign currency! I am well aware of the names and number of countries that use the Euro, thank you. Interesting that a Remain voter, jura2, seems to be ignorant of these facts.

So yes, I did bloody well know what I was voting for.

How would you define sovereignty Cunco?

Or maybe, Opal, jura's use of language wasn't entirely appropriate. English isn't her native language. The UK itself chose not to join the Eurozone.

So you are going to tell us what you voted for Opal? You're obviously not in the dark, as most of us are.

Oh please growstuff, let's not get into making excuses for jura2 for her use of the English language, she seems perfectly capable of using English very well on the other threads.

I have given one of my reasons for voting to Leave earlier on in this thread, and on many other Brexit threads, feel free to check for yourself.