Tory Voting Brexiters, please tell me what you think

[ShintyFartMuscle]

Ok first of all, hands up, I am abroad and so I feel I'm not getting a true picture of the feelings in the UK now, and I have found there are more MNetters with differing views and so I thought it would be good to ask here, and I do so most respectfully.

My question is what is it about the Tories and Teresa May that make you think they will be the best at negotiating Brexit?

From where I am, very,very far away, I know, JC has gone from a rank outsider, despised by half his party and yet he has still gained massive ground, and made people feel some hope in the future. That feels like the kind of person that could negotiate well for a divided nation too.

On the other hand, TM has gone from a stonking position, way ahead in the polls, and lost it, U turns, and well just not looking like she is strong in debate, and not going to be strong in negotiating.

So what would the Tories bring to the table as it were?

[ShintyFartMuscle]

Thank you Garden

Can I ask why you think leaving the single market is a good thing?

Do you feel that TM will not be able to negotiate, and therefore there will be no deal. Surely a good deal is better than a bad deal or no deal?

[ShintyFartMuscle]

Sorry I'm not sure that sounded right.

Can TM negotiate? Will she be going for a good deal, or is it no deal as the better option?

[Peregrina]

So when Theresa May has achieved her 'No deal' how well do you expect her to negotiate with the rest of the world?

[cabumbo]

Still don't get how "no deal" is better than a bad deal? Such a load of crap.

[TeamRick]

No deal is a bad deal! The worst deal! Sigh!

[BMW6]

I can't see the point of staying in the single market if we want to leave the EU. You can't have one without the other IMO.
Of course paying tariffs will be expensive, but conversely we can charge tariffs on EU imports to balance it out. And of course, the EU is not the only market in the world with whom we can trade

[ShintyFartMuscle]

I think this is where I'm confused and feel that I'm missing something, I don't want to dismiss other people's point of view, but I don't see, from over here at least why TM would be good at negotiating a deal with the EU. I am looking to be enlightened.

[ShintyFartMuscle]

Sorry x posted BMW so getting out of the single market is a good thing? That makes some sense, it's not my preference, but I can see that.

Questions though, back to a pp, if we're not negotiating with the EU how does that work with the rest of the world, how is she going to go with them?

[TheaSaurass]

ShintyFartMuscle

Regarding your opening post as a foreigner requesting clarity on what May has over Corbyn in negotiations.

Generally speaking the Conservatives have more of a commercial brain than Labour MPs, who (especially now) see business from the trade union view, as basically the devils spawn looking to rip workers eyes out, not the means to pay the approximate £790 billion (and annually rising) the UK annually spends on services, pensions, benefits, welfare etc and interest on our national debt.

Corbyn has been an MP from the early 1980’s and as far as I can see has never been trusted by his own party to shadow or run a government department, or anything else really, now maybe this was because he was a serial ‘opposer’ to his own party in parliament – but for whatever reason, for someone who has been an MP for donkys years – he has no experience of either negotiating anything other than local disputes, or a record of playing well with others, that I can see.

Corbyn’s leadership technique with his own parliamentary party appears to be keep his deeply ingrained 1970’s political views, say he wants to ‘talk’ to his own colleagues, to his credit he listens, but tells them what they want to hear re ‘official’ Labour policy i.e. on Brexit, Trident, Scottish Independence vote, no witch hunt on Labour ‘moderates’ etc - and then when speaking to the few in meetings, tells them what he really thinks.

On Brexit specifically, while acknowledging the UK has voted for Brexit and that means the UK has to come out of the Single Market, his party’s position is to come out but KEEP all the same benefits (despite crossing at least 2 EU red lines) – otherwise Labour will vote down the EU deal.

Now one could argue that ‘smoke and mirrors’ leadership never confronting those that disagree with you is a negotiating cunning plan, and could go on for years, but faced with an aggressive EU bureaucracy and leadership of 27 other member states with an Article 50 triggered 2-year time table – that on the fence stand trying to keep everyone happy, would be as useful as a strawberry flavoured bum wipe, in my opinion.

May on the other hand has been in either a shadow or ministerial position for over a decade I believe, running arguably the most demanding ministerial position of the Home Office when after Labour ‘all the money ran out’ and causing so called austerity, before coming PM.

Now one could argue its like picking a negotiator from an ugly contest, but I hope this answers some of your OP question.

[Peregrina]

Thus sayeth the Tory party propaganda machine.

May was widely regarded as a failure at the Home Office, despite clinging to power there. She has now wasted time and money fighting an election and squandering a majority, despite being quite happy to tell a nurse curtly that there was no magic money tree. She was equally happy to find £billion for the DUP - quite unnecessarily, because they would have voted with her anyway.

[TheaSaurass]

Perigrena

The post asked specific EU related questions, including a comparison of both leaders ability to lead and negotiating skills, and I’m sorry if it’s a fact that the Labour Party has not even trusted giving Corbyn or MacDonnell responsibility for organising the Xmas Party since 1983, so if that is propaganda and he has held Labour posts to prepare him for office, please tell.

Again Brexit related, May called her election as did not trust the other parties to stop the Brexit process in the Commons and Lords, and while it failed, have we not just seen in Parliament the split in Labour between what Corbyn says is labour policy, and what other Labour MPs thought the Brexit policy was on the Single Market – the result of Labour trying to get both the Remain and Leave votes, by being vague on what the policy was e.g. come OUT of the Single market, but magically keep ALL the same benefits.

On the Home Office, I remember Labour shipped in a Dr Reid who walked in and said immediately ‘it wasn’t fit for purpose’, and as for wasting taxpayers money, you really don’t want to go there comparing Labour’s record, as people seem to forget in the early 2000s the UKs books balanced, by 2010 there was a £153 annual government budget deficit (and rising) – with little to show for it, and not one government ‘fit for purpose’ I remember.

Lets get stuff in perspective, there wouldn’t be a NEED for ‘austerity’ if not for Labour having been in power or had any solutions/policies by May 2010 of their own to fix all the UKs problems of their making, after the money ran out, and throwing money at unreformed services were no longer a responsible government option.

You mention the NHS, and a computer system to link it all together that Labour spent over £11 billion on over several years and had to be scrapped as no one had ASKED all the users what they needed. How incompetent was that, as they were hiring more managers than doctors and nurses through the 2000s.

On the DUP votes need by both the Conservative and Labour to get a majority in parliament, whether labour would have asked their price is not in doubt, as the Labour leadership hardly get on with the DUP – and what was the SNPs coalition price, the reason Corbyn said in the last week before the election HE would open discussions with Sturgeon on Indy2 afterwards, when ‘official’ Labour policy was standing on a Scottish ‘unionist’ position – and the “billions” Salmond insisted on pre 2015 general election vote, with an additional £180 billion of UK taxpayer borrowing for Scotland?

[TheaSaurass]

ShintyFartMuscle

On the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’.

I think that is a perfectly acceptable government negotiating position, if the other side is either trying to punish the UKs citizens for voting ‘OUT’, keep their own members in line, or stick UK citizens with an unenforceable Euro 100 billion bill, without having the respect to first show an itemised invoice – that we could better spend at home.

Of course the UK who wants to remain an integral part of Europe, whilst not a member state, wants an EU deal, but telling a counterpart in any negotiation, from a citizen negotiating over the ‘price’ of a small collectable, a home, a new or used car, or a government with the biggest national deal in 50-years - that you will stand there and take whatever the opposition are prepared to offer you – shows no idea how high end negotiations work in the real world, and is a gift in this case, to EU negotiators.

Leaving the EU gave the UK no alternative other than to leave the Single Market, as those are EU rules if the UK wants the ability to control levels of UK immigration, but while we trade a greater percentage of our total with the EU, the EU sells far more to us than we do to them, where apparently the UK would receive around £8billion a year more net from Europe, if tariffs were imposed BY the EU, out of spite.

But lets also remember that trade is business-to-business, that usually has to cope with fat government rules, regs and taxes, so gets done despite government, not because of it.

As we came into this year, only Germany had a lower unemployment in the Eurozone than oursrate than ours.

So while unelected EU bureaucrats might want the EU and UK to go to World Trade Organisation rules to punish us, the leaders, citizens and businesses of similar sized economies in Europe with twice (or more) our unemployment rate i.e. France 9.6%, Italy 12%, and smaller Spain with 18.4% - with a mass underlying Eurozone youth unemployment and only around a 50% of those young workers employed on a permanent contract – are likely to ‘rise up’ against the Brussels bubble.

[TheaSaurass]

ShintyFartMuscle

On the governments negotiations of tariff free trade, with the EU and the rest of the world.

This is obviously why in the EU schedule of negotiations, the EU wants to keep the issue of trade back until last, as its both their weakest card, and if Canada can have over 98% of its trade with the EU tariff free WITHOUT paying in our annual net £10 billion plus into the EU’s coffers - why on earth wouldn’t a currently EU compliant UK have a similar non member tariff free deal – as some like the EU Trade Commissioner admits the UK will get?

Freedom to trade with the rest of the world on our own terms (not including the jobsworths in Brussels and protectionist baggage of 27 other countries) as a principle, will be tariff free, and the May government is already in dialogs with large countries and will go as far as they can go, sticking to EU rules of an Article 50 never triggered before, to progress the DAY we leave the EU.

Regarding our historic relationship with the 52 country Commonwealth and its highly diverse in size and wealth 2.3 billion citizens spanning every continent on the planet, Headquarters in London, I doubt if we have ‘trade deals’ in place with any of these countries if we have been subject to EU priorities over 50-years – how much work can be done between members of what used to be called the British Commonwealth within the walls of the London Headquarters, over the next few years not covered by EU restrictions - well I’d suggest quite a lot.

On that subject, Australia did a trade deal with America in 15-months, which shows that if both parties are of good will and unencumbered by protectionism - and an EU that will only find a few hours a week to look at it, as is likely with Brexit – trade deals are as complicated as both sides make them.

What gets lost in ‘hype’ is that there is no reason trade between the UK and the EU cannot continue as was, company to company, but we have to look elsewhere as well, as the EU’s share of emerging world trade will soon fall to around 15% - according to J C Juncker the President of the EU Commission.

[twofingerstoEverything]

Thus sayeth the Tory party propaganda machine.

Yeah. Welcome to Mumsnet Theasurass.

[noblegiraffe]

We should clearly get Arlene Foster to do the negotiations as the DUP negotiated a billion out of the Tories without breaking a sweat.

[OdinsLoveChild]

TheaSaurass I think you have said everything I would have, but definitely more eloquently.

JC really doesn't have much respect from my experience locally. I know hardline Labour voters that turned blue at the last election. My In Laws have been labour party members and voters their entire life (mining family) but even they feel JC has the appeal of a wet haddock.

[Sillily]

Thus sayeth the Tory party propaganda machine.
[lol


What's up with TheaSaurass? Definitely new to MN.

[Sillily]

TheaSaurass

UK is the worst-performing advanced economy in the world, official figures confirm

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-economy-world-worst-performing-advanced-countries-state-g7-european-union-a7817046.html

No deal is the very worst deal. Leaving the EU is utter madness. Just why?

OP, neither Theresa May nor Corbyn will negotiate any deal that the UK public can benefit from in the long run Corbyn wants to get out of the single market, the idiot. May, well she is incompetent as her record at HO shows the election was a disaster, and then... the DUP

yy to Arlene Foster to negotiate Brexit

[Carolinesbeanies]

Theasaurus is absolutely right. Remainers would do well to take their utterly biased glasses off, as the wesminstenders thread demonstrates, they end up in circular arguments up their own backsides.

Theres this remainers view, that on the 30th March 2019, the EU police are going to walk into offices and organisations across the UK and tell business to put their pens down. Nothing is further from the truth. This whole spat, is about who gets what is essentially a 'tax' benefit. The EU are already 'taxing' themselves out of competitive markets and unless the eastern block of EU states, start to play ball, they are utterly unable to do anything about it. Its one thing to be a powerhouse buying conglomerate, and totally another when every state needs to sell.

OP, be careful of taking a view on SM, as Brexit demonstrated, the majority stay silent. Add to that Corbyn, McDonnell and Red Len McClusky, running the country via trades union direction (theyve already threatened de-selection of sitting Labour MPs who refuse to back the leaders line) Corbyns support isnt quite what its made out to be, and with every militant comment and action, diminishes by the day.

[Carolinesbeanies]

Oh and Sillily...... this week from Savills IM.


www.savillsim.com/2017/london-tops-new-index-ranking-europe-s-most-dynamic-cities.aspx

[TheaSaurass]

Sillily

Re my “propaganda”.

I’m happy to debate any holes you see in my thought processes.

But re YOUR sweeping statement looking at the UK as ‘the worst performing advanced economy’ – based on the just the last quarters GDP – which now under the threat of a repeat of a 1970’s Labour/trade union UK government 'marching on streets', that so detests businesses and profits, they are to try fund a fatter EU-esk UK State, by bleeding them dry (destroying investment & jobs), UK businesses confidence can only fall further.

But that comment is rather typical as socialist parties tend to forget there are 65 million citizens in the UK, as concentrating on those on the Minimum Wage, and judge the UK economy on pay rates, not all those employed, could be employed in a business friendly regime - or the UK GDP rate when the fastest growing of all G7 countries for a few years.

It wasn’t that long ago that the UK had created more jobs since 2010 than the whole Eurozone put together.

So why don’t the pro EU remainers ask themselves WHY the Eurozone’s job growth rate is so low (especially amongst the under 25-year olds) – and why should a UK have uncertainty every year on net economic migrants, in effect penalised due to Conservative pro growth policies – due the EU not getting their labour deregulation poo together?

The European Central Bank have been telling the likes of France and Italy to do so for years, saying USE the low interest rates and massive ECB injections of QE type liquidity (now in the Euro trillions and STILL going on) to tackle the restrictive labour laws – that El Presidente Corbyn STILL aspires to, but new President Macron of France, has been elected to tackle, plus reducing the size of the French state.

And looking at some of these turn of the year EU unemployment rates, compared to the UK’s 4.8% (with larger inward EU worker flows than most) – bearing in mind under the weight of ECB money still being pumped in, nearly 10-years after the crash, all EU counties now probably have less unemployment, and also the UKs a few tenths lower – can you please tell me about this great EU economic success, on the way to being a huge European Federal State, under the economic expertise of Brussels bureaucrats?

Germany 3.9%,

France 9.6%,
Italy 12%,
Spain 18.4%
Luxembourg 6.3%
Belgium 7.6%
Demark 6.2%
Netherlands 5.4%
Sweden 6.9%

[TheaSaurass]

Sillily

Re the Conservatives and DUP that both respect the result of the EU Referendum

You would be well advised to consider the 'alternative'.

A coalition of a split on the EU Single market Labour, the pro Brexit DUP, the no leave at all SNP and Lib Dems and Plaid who respects the EU Referendum but wants everything to stay the same.

Forget the tax payer cost of that Labour coalition (in whatever form) for one minute - how could that lot, fighting like political rats in a sack, ever AGREE on a UK position - never mind project the UKs negotiating position/objectives to the EU and come to an agreed solution?

[Mistigri]

how could that lot, fighting like political rats in a sack, ever AGREE on a UK position - never mind project the UKs negotiating position/objectives to the EU and come to an agreed solution?

Setting aside other aspects of party politics, this applies to all of the pro-Brexit parties, in the sense that they have no achievable aims that are supported across the party. This is as true of the Tories, UKIP and the DUP as it is of the Labour Party. The Tories and Labour in particular seem to divide between those who are seeking a soft Brexit and continued SM membership (Hammond, Umumma to name two) and those intent on a hard brexit. And both parties still have many who believe apparently believe in unicorns, including Corbyn and David Davies. At least Corbyn has the excuse of not really caring that much about the EU and not having a role in the negotiations; if Davies really still does not know better, a year post-referendum, then this is a major issue for the U.K. and a threat to its future prosperity. It remains possible that he does realise that his position is untenable and he's just playing to the press... I sincerely hope so.

[whatwouldrondo]

OP Since you are specifically asking about who would be the best person to negotiate with the EU then perhaps the starting point is what are the qualities needed to be an effective negotiator, something neither the Press or Tories, or indeed some posters here, have the slightest clue about, as manifested in the cliches trotted out about playing poker or that making threats and walking away is a sign of strength. Even the business negotiations I have been involved with just are not like that, let alone complex negotiations at state level. I have watched in horror at the way the Brexiteers are making the negotiations into a complete debacle as have people with a good deal more experience of international negotiations. This is Craig Murray, career diplomat and formerly ambassador to Uzbekistan.

"All of which underlines a thought that has been pulling at me ever since the election started. May has continually tried to pitch this as a question of who you would wish to act as the negotiator of Brexit, either her or Jeremy Corbyn. But why would anybody believe that a woman who is not even capable to debate with her opponents would be a good negotiator?

In fact she would be an appalling negotiator. She becomes completely closed off when contradicted. She is incapable of thinking on her feet. She is undoubtedly the worst performer at Prime Minister’s Questions, either for government or opposition, since they were first broadcast. Why on earth would anybody think she would be a good negotiator? As soon as Michel Barnier made a point she was not expecting across the table, she would switch off and revert to cliché, and probably give off a great deal of hostility too.

The delusion she would negotiate well has been fed by the media employing all kinds of completely inappropriate metaphors for the Brexit negotiations. From metaphors of waging war to metaphors of playing poker, they all characterise the process as binary and aggressive.

In fact – and I speak as somebody who has undertaken very serious international negotiations, including of the UK maritime boundaries and as the Head of UK Delegation to the Sierra Leone Peace Talks – intenational negotiation is the opposite. It is a cooperative process and not a confrontational process. Almost all negotiations cover a range of points, and they work on the basis of you give a bit there, and I give a bit here. Each side has its bottom lines, subjects on which it cannot move at all or move but to a limited degree. Sometimes on a single subject two “bottom lines” can be in direct conflict. Across the whole range of thousands of subjects, you are trying to find a solution all can live with.

So empathy with your opposite number is a key requirement in a skilled negotiator, and everything I have ever seen about Theresa May marks her out as perhaps having less emotional intelligence than anybody I have ever observed. Bonhommie is also important. Genuine friendship can be a vital factor in reaching agreement, and it can happen in unexpected ways. But May has never been able to strike up friendships outside of a social circle limited to a very particular segment of English society, excluding the vast majority of the English, let alone Scots and heaven forfend continentals. The best negotiators have affability, or at least the ability to switch it on. It is a vital tool.

That is not to say occasionally you do not have to speak and stare hard to make plain that one of your bottom lines is real. But that is by no means the norm. And you need the intelligence and sharpness to carry it off, which May does not. That is one of the many differences between May and Thatcher.

Frankly, if I had the choice between sending in Jeremy Corbyn, with his politeness and reasonableness, or Theresa May, into a negotiation I would not hesitate for a second in choosing Corbyn. I am quite sure there is not another diplomat in the World who would make a different choice. May’s flakiness and intolerance of disagreement represent a disaster waiting to happen."