How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[frisbee]

Sway said:

It was merely an example to show the point...

Seeing as it appears that this was missed, here's another:

We continue with the laws that mean only British citizens can vote in general elections. The EU changes it's rules to say that EU migrants can vote in the elections held in their host EU country.

Should the ECJ be able to rule that EU migrants here can vote in our GE? Our Supreme Court would rule they cannot, same as any other migrant. The ECJ says they can. Which institution should have the final say?

Commonwealth and Irish citizens that can also vote in our general elections. So migrants can already vote in our general elections. Is this Europe wide? I suspect not.

Your point wasn't missed, I was rebutting your point, countries can be selective.

I find it ironic (or maybe a better word is horrific) that our government complains about the ECJ while proposing some of the most disgustingly invasive monitoring of its own citizens. Somebody needs to keep them in check.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Sway said:

For now. QMV changes that probability significantly - oh, and if you'd even thought about my comments regarding the unwinding of Target2 imbalances, you would see that there will be necessary and massive change that simply cannot be prevented by any single nation...

Funny that you keep ignoring that.

Funny I keep ignoring what? What a pompous thing to say, I'm not your personal correspondent. However, seeing as you've got my attention, let's look at QMV. Presumably you mean QMV that the UK successfully lobbied for, right?



Maybe you don't like that because it came from Labour, I don't know, but let me tell you, that's democracy man, the will of the people. We collectively voted for that as a nation & now you want to use it as a weapon to hit people over the head with. Democracy, but only when it suits.

[AC43]

Digga said:

air play. I am a great believer in being flexible enough to change one's mind if and when the facts change; dogmatic people seldom have much if interest or importance to say. Although I come at this from the opposing side (as a Brexiter) I think I share most of your concerns and also relief that a.) the predicted economic armageddon did not materialise and b.) negotiations now appear to be polarising into a more rational and workable from.

Thanks

Digga said:

With reference to point a.) above, I do wonder though if the persistent predictions of dire outcomes from large parts of the (partisan) media might, if not become self-fulfilling, then at the very least be extremely unhelpful, both for the sentiment within the UK economy as well as the strength of our negotiating position? Furthermore, why do it?

I think a lot of it is a natural drive to find readers on behalf of the papers and news outlets. Plus ca change.

But there has been genuine concern from business not least during May's election campaign when she frankly lost the plot in attempting to win back UKIP zealots/get the northern Labour vote.

Business, who contribute £205bn in tax, are pragmatic and adaptable but do need to know what's happening in 2, 3, 4, 5 years' time. Otherwise they can't plan and invest.

The Maybot did not appear to understand any of that.

Thank fk she fked up and is now being forced to listen.

[Sway]

frisbee said:

Sway said:

It was merely an example to show the point...

Seeing as it appears that this was missed, here's another:

We continue with the laws that mean only British citizens can vote in general elections. The EU changes it's rules to say that EU migrants can vote in the elections held in their host EU country.

Should the ECJ be able to rule that EU migrants here can vote in our GE? Our Supreme Court would rule they cannot, same as any other migrant. The ECJ says they can. Which institution should have the final say?

Commonwealth and Irish citizens that can also vote in our general elections. So migrants can already vote in our general elections. Is this Europe wide? I suspect not.

Your point wasn't missed, I was rebutting your point, countries can be selective.

I find it ironic (or maybe a better word is horrific) that our government complains about the ECJ while proposing some of the most disgustingly invasive monitoring of its own citizens. Somebody needs to keep them in check.

My word, it's like pulling teeth...

You have missed the point. Countries within the EU may be selective, however their citizens can appeal to the ECJ to have the national government overruled. The efficacy of this is irrelevant.

Taking the premise, and moving a away from theoretical examples - do you agree that if the EU ratifies a new treaty that changes EU citizen's rights, that those rights should also be applied here post brexit, but only for EU migrants?

Oh, and our government does have people keeping them in check - 40 odd million of them, otherwise known as the British electorate.

[FN2TypeR]

Sway said:

No, it wouldn't. Are you really suggesting that any ruling made by the ECJ would be based upon a 'frozen' legislature at the time of departure?

Oh, and do jog on with the persistent insults...

It's amazing how people can convince themselves that they are arguing from a point of intellectual and moral superiority and yet still act like a petulant child isn't it?

[PurpleMoonlight]

FiF said:

Maybe got him mixed up with someone else, thought he didn't have 'a side' so to speak, as in couldn't make his mind up so didn't vote. Or something.

Smiley for purposes of declaring comedic leg pulling input.

Nah. I' m just bone idle and couldn't be arsed.

[PurpleMoonlight]

turbobloke said:

OK you don't like the use of accurate and humorous terminology - it's you who needs to grow up.

Remoaners need to accept we're leaving the EU and move on in their emotional development.

That's where you are wrong. You have no right to tell anyone else how to think. The are entitlled to think that the decision is wrong for the rest of their lives if they wish.

Perhaps it's you that needs to change?

[Digga]

AC43 said:

I think a lot of it is a natural drive to find readers on behalf of the papers and news outlets. Plus ca change.

Agreed absolutely.

AC43 said:

But there has been genuine concern from business not least during May's election campaign when she frankly lost the plot in attempting to win back UKIP zealots/get the northern Labour vote.

Business, who contribute £205bn in tax, are pragmatic and adaptable but do need to know what's happening in 2, 3, 4, 5 years' time. Otherwise they can't plan and invest.

The Maybot did not appear to understand any of that.

Thank fk she fked up and is now being forced to listen.

I think this is correct - businesses large and small all crave certainty and have a tendency to pull in their horns and stop investing when there is uncertainty. (We tend to do the counter - one of our firms has twice bought CNC machine tools at times when almost no one else is buying, simply because we know we'll get a better deal and lower unit price from the salesmen.)

The issue going back to the media however, is that the constant drip, drip of negative sentiment is, in and of itself, contributory to the fear and uncertainty surrounding Brexit.

[jjlynn27]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Funny I keep ignoring what? What a pompous thing to say, I'm not your personal correspondent. However, seeing as you've got my attention, let's look at QMV. Presumably you mean QMV that the UK successfully lobbied for, right?



Maybe you don't like that because it came from Labour, I don't know, but let me tell you, that's democracy man, the will of the people. We collectively voted for that as a nation & now you want to use it as a weapon to hit people over the head with. Democracy, but only when it suits.

But that's only 'for now'. The baddies from the EU, they'll just change that in order to punish us. In other news, you are trying to reason with someone who thinks that he can cut 30-50% of NHS budget while improving 'outcomes'. In other words, delusional simple walter.

[jjlynn27]

Digga said:

...

The issue going back to the media however, is that the constant drip, drip of negative sentiment is, in and of itself, contributory to the fear and uncertainty surrounding Brexit.

The media does what 'media' thinks will increase number of people reading them. I doubt that the interest of the country is their raison d'être.

Saying that media in the UK is very much pro-Brexit, imo.

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Sway said:

For now. QMV changes that probability significantly - oh, and if you'd even thought about my comments regarding the unwinding of Target2 imbalances, you would see that there will be necessary and massive change that simply cannot be prevented by any single nation...

Funny that you keep ignoring that.

Funny I keep ignoring what? What a pompous thing to say, I'm not your personal correspondent. However, seeing as you've got my attention, let's look at QMV. Presumably you mean QMV that the UK successfully lobbied for, right?



Maybe you don't like that because it came from Labour, I don't know, but let me tell you, that's democracy man, the will of the people. We collectively voted for that as a nation & now you want to use it as a weapon to hit people over the head with. Democracy, but only when it suits.

Democracy yes, but it will have a meaningful impact on our ability to prevent legislation that is to the detriment of the UK, or undesired by our electorate. The UK government may have lobbied for it, but it wasn't part of any GE manifesto (same as any ratification of change within the EU is kept out of the GE manifestos. Quite simply, the UK government may have lobbied for it, but they had no ability to determine whether the UK electorate agreed.

You keep ignoring the issues with Target2. You asked yesterday what backed up a poster's assertion that the EU was in big trouble. I quoted you, and pointed out that there is no foreseeable mechanism to unwind the €1.3Tn and growing unreconciled balances.

So no, not pompous, and not asking for personal correspondence - merely answering your own question, which was then completely ignored.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Sway said:

but it wasn't part of any GE manifesto

Apart from that one right there. I even gave you a helpful picture of it.

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Sway said:

but it wasn't part of any GE manifesto

Apart from that one right there. I even gave you a helpful picture of it.

"while considering" does not mean "we will support". It's a complete non-position.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Sway said:

"while considering" does not mean "we will support". It's a complete non-position.

'Kay. When you can tell me what subsequently happened, then we'll talk. Until then, bon voyage.

[Sway]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Sway said:

"while considering" does not mean "we will support". It's a complete non-position.

'Kay. When you can tell me what subsequently happened, then we'll talk. Until then, bon voyage.

So you think by putting a vague "we'll think about this" in a manifesto which gains a majority, that whatever that government then does on that subject can be shown to have been supported by the electorate? Crikey. All May had to do to have carte blanche was to put against every single area "we'll look at x", and could rely on the tradition that manifesto promises get waived through by all parties.

Still nothing on Target2?

[Digga]

jjlynn27 said:

Digga said:

...

The issue going back to the media however, is that the constant drip, drip of negative sentiment is, in and of itself, contributory to the fear and uncertainty surrounding Brexit.

The media does what 'media' thinks will increase number of people reading them. I doubt that the interest of the country is their raison d'être.

For sure. When they get into a topic they know the readers react to and have an interest in, they're like a dog with a bone.

jjlynn27 said:

Saying that media in the UK is very much pro-Brexit, imo.

Yes, large bits certainly are - definitely the gutter press. However, there are bits that have taken a mystifyingly subjective approach; the Economist and the FT have disappointed me greatly, not so much that they are anti, or even just sceptical about Brexit, but more the way they have done it.

[AC43]

Digga said:

AC43 said:

I think a lot of it is a natural drive to find readers on behalf of the papers and news outlets. Plus ca change.

Agreed absolutely.

AC43 said:

But there has been genuine concern from business not least during May's election campaign when she frankly lost the plot in attempting to win back UKIP zealots/get the northern Labour vote.

Business, who contribute £205bn in tax, are pragmatic and adaptable but do need to know what's happening in 2, 3, 4, 5 years' time. Otherwise they can't plan and invest.

The Maybot did not appear to understand any of that.

Thank fk she fked up and is now being forced to listen.

I think this is correct - businesses large and small all crave certainty and have a tendency to pull in their horns and stop investing when there is uncertainty. (We tend to do the counter - one of our firms has twice bought CNC machine tools at times when almost no one else is buying, simply because we know we'll get a better deal and lower unit price from the salesmen.)

The issue going back to the media however, is that the constant drip, drip of negative sentiment is, in and of itself, contributory to the fear and uncertainty surrounding Brexit.

Y2K with knobs on. Lots and lots of knobs.

[ORD]

The FT and the Economist employ journalists that can think and do research.

It is not surprise that they think the Brexit car crash is a car crash.

As for my insulting Brexiteers, I apologise. It is not helpful. But it's hard to remain entirely dispassionate when people are displaying the same extreme ignorance as that which is leading this country to a much poorer future. And all for nought. Literally no material benefits.

[Digga]

ORD said:

The FT and the Economist employ journalists that can think and do research.

They do, and sometimes some extremely good analysis too, but they also appear to employ people who produce group-think pulp.

[PurpleMoonlight]

ORD said:

The FT and the Economist employ journalists that can think and do research.

It is not surprise that they think the Brexit car crash is a car crash.

As for my insulting Brexiteers, I apologise. It is not helpful. But it's hard to remain entirely dispassionate when people are displaying the same extreme ignorance as that which is leading this country to a much poorer future. And all for nought. Literally no material benefits.

It rather depends what you value as material.

A hell of a lot of people just object to being subject to EU policies and decisions. Even though many will have benefited from them.