Post by email@example.com Post by James Harris
You folks may already have twigged but it occurred to me last week that
when it comes to Brexit members of the establishment are talking about
two different types of transition.
I think of a transition as an intermediate state between two others. We
are here now. We want to get there. But it's too big a step to do in one
go or time is needed to prepare. We therefore need an intermediate state
or two in between to help the change to go smoothly.
But quite a number of others see it differently. To them, a transition
essentially means an extension of the status quo. When they talk of a
transition on leaving the EU they really mean an extension of existing
Am I right? Have a listen out when various politicians and journalists
talk about a transitional period and see what you think their meaning is.
There will be two kinds.
Hard transition means that it will be term limited.
Soft transition means it will go on for ever.
Post by firstname.lastname@example.org
Personally I would prefer no transition. The best card the UK has in its hand is that these negotiations a re term limited under Article 50. That's how it should stay. Any further negotiations should take place *after* Brexit when we shall once more have the freedom and sovereignty to actually enter any agreement.
Rather than a transition I prefer the concept of an implementation plan:
on such-and-such a date we change to X new arrangements, by another date
we change to Y new arrangements, etc. But I accept that the negotiators
are not going to have enough details worked out in time to allow them to
do that in concrete terms so they may need to say: by date Z we will
have worked out what to do for the next phase.
An implementation plan, incidentally, fits with Article 50 which leaves
open what the withdrawal agreement can contain.
Post by email@example.com
Give away the term limitation included in Article 50 (and it only can be given away and this situation will go on and on until such time as we have given everything away.
The EU has nothing to offer us. Otherwise presumably after 40+ years, we would already have it. That's why we voted 'out'
Brexit really does mean Brexit. Only from outside the EU can we enter into negotiations with the EU on equal terms and without pre-conditions.
I am open to a /migration/ to new arrangements but they need to be such
that we can get the benefits of Brexit, not just doing the minimum so as
to avoid negatives. Quite a number of politicians are still firmly in
the Remain camp and want to cling on to as much of the EU as they can.
That would be a mistake. It would reduce our future prosperity.
The government will, I hope, plan to migrate at a sensible pace from
EU-focussed trade to globally focussed trade - with the goal of
maximising UK prosperity and, crucially, while keeping an eye out for