170 Questions On Brexit......

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37622928
Do you think Labour should concentrate on getting themselves organised for the next election rather than asking silly questions about something that is innevitable?

[jim360]

Politics is the art of the possible.

[Old_Geezer]

I'm sure time wasting issues are answerable by giving little detail, because it is not in the public's interest to have this knowledge widely known before negotiations. A simple, "Yes we have looked at that and will let folk know when appropriate", would cover most if not all.

Insure what is so gimmicky and 170 anyway.

[naomi24]

Senseless as always.

[Baldric]

I suppose they need a hobby of some kind, hopefully it will keep them off the streets.

[mikey4444]

TTT....Labour are doing the job that they were elected for as "Her Majesties Most Loyal Opposition".....they are holding the Tories to account.

[dannyk13]

As the subject is not open to debate they are wasting their time.

[Baldric]

Be serious Mikey, they couldn't hold a Tea Party atm!

[naomi24]

Mikey, //"Her Majesties Most Loyal Opposition"//

Did you type that with a straight face?

[ToraToraTora]

but brexit was voted for by millions of Labour voters too mikey so they are not opposing the government they are opposing their own supporters.

[jim360]

...it is not in the public's interest to have this knowledge widely known before negotiations."

Why not? This is actually a serious question. I get that revealing our negotiating position too early might put us at a disadvantage in some cases but I see that approach as being rather combative in tone, trying to secure every advantage possible against some rival, which is really what I'm asking. Have we really come to see the EU as rivals to be fought as hard as possible over the negotiating table?

It's the approach behind all this secrecy that I find counterproductive (and that's even before it's so obviously undemocratic). The "170 questions" thing is a gimmick (170 days to go until the deadline for Article 50 triggering, by the way, OG), but I don't see why clarity on certain key issues should be so damaging, if not now then certainly before the two-year period starts.

If nothing else, I hope that the consultation that goes behind deciding the answers to (some of) these questions is a reasonably open process, as opposed to being decided by just a handful of people.

[-Talbot-]

"Her Majesties Most Loyal Opposition"


Yep that Jeremy that is.

[-Talbot-]

that's ^

[EDDIE51]

TTT you would not be happy unless we can tow the UK a couple of hundred miles out into the Atlantic so we really are 'out of Europe'!

[-Talbot-]

Perhaps I should have added 'sic' to that post too ...

[ToraToraTora]

no eddie quite happy with the channel.

[naomi24]

-Talbot-, I was going to say something about a bunch of queens .... but I won't. :o)

[Old_Geezer]

Negotiations, by their very nature, are combative; each side hoping to get as much of what they want whilst giving as little as possible to the other side. In that circumstance it is always rivals at the table; and the hope is that the end result is acceptable to both sides.

Holding to account is all very well, but some things raised just seem to be justified by that and are, in reality, unhelpful. Push for information on an action or stance declared, but not for 'need to know' information regarding discussions covering important future negotiations. It is sufficient to ensure such discussions are taking place, and with 3 ministers (exc. the PM) wanting major involvement in this issue, there is surely no doubt that is occurring.

[Old_Geezer]

Negotiations with the EU when they occur should be fairly open, tactics and strategies and lines in the sand, are not. No one needs to know how much one is prepared to give. The answer to which must be very little anyway in order to make the withdrawal from the EU genuine and worthwhile rather than a fudge and disadvantage.

[Baldric]

///Mikey, //"Her Majesties Most Loyal Opposition"
Did you type that with a straight face?///

I always thought it was . 'Her Majesty's'

[mikey4444]

Baldric....how typical of you to bring up a petty spelling mistake/typo ....entirely true to form. Perhaps you should consider changing names with Peter Pedant.