How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)

[crankedup]

Roman Rhodes said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Do you seriously believe that those who voted to leave in 2016 would accept the results of a second referendum if it showed a win for remain, especially if the results were at similar percentages to those of the first? . Why would the result of a second referendum be any more valid, than the result of the first one in 2016?

They are both equally valid.

The 2016 reflected the consensus of the people in 2016.

The 2019 would reflect the consensus of the people in 2019.

If the 2019 was different to the 2016 why should the 2016 be implemented?

Why should the result of the 2016 referendum be ignored in the first place?
I am all for another referendum on the UK`s membership of the EU, but only when the result of the first one has been democratically enacted upon. Say in 40 years time, when people have had the chance to see what it is like outside the EU. that way they can make a truly informed decision on whether being in or out is best for the UK.
If the result of the first (2016) referendum is ignored, why should anyone take any notice of the result of a second referendum?

Ignored? Have you been in a coma for the last two and a half years (lucky you if so!)?

Despite what you might think about sabotage by Remainers (yes, I'm putting words in your mouth) the total inability of Team Leave to plan before and after the referendum how leave actually looks and works has led us to the point where it looks like the options are st or double st. Sometimes people do conclude that flogging dead horses is not worthwhile you know? It doesn't happen in the various volumes of these threads of course which is why we've gone from "easy trade deals, they need us, worldwide deals ready to go on Day Leave +1" etc. to "oh we ALL knew there would be some pain, its not about money you idiot, nothing wrong with people losing their jobs and houses".

Just mentioning that you have left out the most important element from your summary.
‘Respecting the democratic referendum result 2016, which both main politically parties stated they would honour that result to leave.
Just saying.

[PurpleMoonlight]

crankedup said:

Just mentioning that you have left out the most important element from your summary.
‘Respecting the democratic referendum result 2016, which both main politically parties stated they would honour that result to leave.
Just saying.

Was it legally binding?

[anonymous-user]

Allanv said:

Roman Rhodes said:

amusingduck said:

Roman Rhodes said:

amusingduck said:

I don't mind who's saying it, it's the logic I'm interested in.

You'll see that I changed my reply as I wasn't sure what point you were making. I think the "logic" has been covered extensively so why ask the question? As I've already said, I'm not arguing the merits of a second referendum. On the point in question (a third referendum) I was making the simple point that the reason for a second referendum (whether it is a good or bad reason doesn't matter) doesn't necessarily have to also apply to the second referendum so that a third takes place. The logic being applied was the same as flipping coins - best of X (X being an odd number). Seem rather simplistic and unrealistic - might as well have best of 5 or 7, 9, 11 whatever...

The logic has been covered extensively - as far as I can see there's no argument which justifies a second referendum but would not equally justify a third.

In which case, if a second referendum can be justified, and those arguments equally apply to a third, and it's now 1-1, there's no basis to deny a third.

There won't be a third, either way, I think. But the unjust double standards will be (even more) plain to see.

Or as PM has already said, we MUST implement what people want in 2016 but we MUST NOT implement what people want in 2019? The consistent inconsistency of Leavers yet again!

Did I miss where anything has been asked in 2019? I certainly have not changed my mind since 2016 if you have then great. Fill your boots with the hatred you seem to have.

Being so angry all the time will result in either mental health issues or a heart attack, it is your choice.

I've just got in and feel in a surprisingly good mood considering the lovely weather of the last few days has disappeared! Maybe you need to work harder on interpreting the signals you pick up from other people?

[Mrr T]

youngsyr said:

Earthdweller said:

https://order-order.com/

https://www.facebook.com/160128910791789/posts/132...

George Eustace resigns from the Govt

Interesting resignation letter

Am I missing something, or is there a critical and new piece of information in that letter:

George Eustice MP said:

...We already know that in the event of "no deal" the EU will seek an informal transition period for nine months in many areas..."

That's news to me - he's effectively saying that there would never be a cliff edge in a no deal situation as the EU have already informally agreed to a nine month extension period even with no deal?

I corrected your quotes hope that's OK.

Remember he’s a Tory MP, brains are not a requirement.

I have seen nothing to indicate the EU have agree an informal extension. I suspect he confused with the EU announcement that in certain limited situation they would continue to recognise some feature of the current arrangements.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6851_en...

The extensions are only designed to limit damage to the EU (the UK is no longer their concern) and will not be extended.

[wc98]

SunsetZed said:

Somehow I doubt that if we get a second referendum and the question is remain or leave I'll find a bookmaker who'll offer me even's on remain getting 60% of the vote. If you find one though please let me know as it'll help my financial planning significantly, please note generally I also don't gamble by choice but if this was available I'd make an exception.

i'm not sure if i am reading you wrong, but i will give you (and piha possibly) 100-1 on remain getting 60% of the vote. i won't give you odds on the leave percentage increasing though.

[gothatway]

Helicopter123 said:

It is a fact that demographics move in favour of remain - older pro-brexit voters are dying, and new pre-remain voters are joining the electoral role.

It has been claimed here that very old voters (>80) voted Remain while very young ones (<20) voted Leave. So that would work directly against your hope. Whatever the truth, simply adding numbers of new young and subtracting numbers of old dead is simplistic. It would be more useful to see a graphical distribution of age band vs voting pattern in 2016. Do you know of such a thing ?

[anonymous-user]

wc98 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

The Midlands Beach Front Property Forum isn't really my thing (are you trying to offload a timeshare?) nor squirrel spotting. I asked who these "real crazies" are. If your answer is just "new parties springing up" then it isn't very enlightening. Parties have to have someone organising them and gain members. Who are these people? Our electoral system (unlike those of the countries you mention) doesn't have a great track record in allowing "crazies" or anyone else to get any traction (BNP, NF, UKIP etc.). Trying to help you out, are you thinking of something like Leave Means Leave? I don't see an organisation that is backed exclusively by wealthy, white, middle-aged to middle-aged+ men getting anywhere. So, again, who are the crazies and who is going to vote for them?

no crazies to vote for ? yet corbyn is leading the labour party.

That's a bit weak considering your original claim was "there will be people voted into parliament that neither you nor i would have envisioned not so very long ago". Corbyn has been Leader of the Opposition since well before the referendum and they gained 30 seats in the 2017 GE!

So is it a case of no new parties springing up and no crazies?

[SunsetZed]

Piha said:

SunsetZed said:

Somehow I doubt that if we get a second referendum and the question is remain or leave I'll find a bookmaker who'll offer me even's on remain getting 60% of the vote. If you find one though please let me know as it'll help my financial planning significantly, please note generally I also don't gamble by choice but if this was available I'd make an exception.

How much are you talking about here?

If someone offered me an evens bet on remain not getting 60% of the vote I'd be looking at withdrawing investments and putting a 5 figure sum on that I reckon.

[alfie2244]

CrutyRammers said:

Camoradi said:

gothatway said:

On a lighter note, what would you all like to see writ large on the side of a bus in a second referendum campaign ?

"Don't worry if you miss this referendum, there will be another one along soon"

This deserved more recognition

Indeed it did.

[bitchstewie]

Roman Rhodes said:

That's a bit weak considering your original claim was "there will be people voted into parliament that neither you nor i would have envisioned not so very long ago". Corbyn has been Leader of the Opposition since well before the referendum and they gained 30 seats in the 2017 GE!

So is it a case of no new parties springing up and no crazies?

I could see there being a few more extreme candidates on either end of the horseshoe than we're used to but I'd be surprised if it was more than a handful.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Do you seriously believe that those who voted to leave in 2016 would accept the results of a second referendum if it showed a win for remain, especially if the results were at similar percentages to those of the first? . Why would the result of a second referendum be any more valid, than the result of the first one in 2016?

They are both equally valid.

The 2016 reflected the consensus of the people in 2016.

The 2019 would reflect the consensus of the people in 2019.

If the 2019 was different to the 2016 why should the 2016 be implemented?

Why should the result of the 2016 referendum be ignored in the first place?
I am all for another referendum on the UK`s membership of the EU, but only when the result of the first one has been democratically enacted upon. Say in 40 years time, when people have had the chance to see what it is like outside the EU. that way they can make a truly informed decision on whether being in or out is best for the UK.
If the result of the first (2016) referendum is ignored, why should anyone take any notice of the result of a second referendum?

Ignored? Have you been in a coma for the last two and a half years (lucky you if so!)?

Despite what you might think about sabotage by Remainers (yes, I'm putting words in your mouth) the total inability of Team Leave to plan before and after the referendum how leave actually looks and works has led us to the point where it looks like the options are st or double st. Sometimes people do conclude that flogging dead horses is not worthwhile you know? It doesn't happen in the various volumes of these threads of course which is why we've gone from "easy trade deals, they need us, worldwide deals ready to go on Day Leave +1" etc. to "oh we ALL knew there would be some pain, its not about money you idiot, nothing wrong with people losing their jobs and houses".

Just mentioning that you have left out the most important element from your summary.
‘Respecting the democratic referendum result 2016, which both main politically parties stated they would honour that result to leave.
Just saying.

Charitable reply: They've been trying their best.
Uncharitable reply: Never believe a politician.

Do we have consensus that we're all feeling uncharitable?!

[SunsetZed]

wc98 said:

SunsetZed said:

Somehow I doubt that if we get a second referendum and the question is remain or leave I'll find a bookmaker who'll offer me even's on remain getting 60% of the vote. If you find one though please let me know as it'll help my financial planning significantly, please note generally I also don't gamble by choice but if this was available I'd make an exception.

i'm not sure if i am reading you wrong, but i will give you (and piha possibly) 100-1 on remain getting 60% of the vote. i won't give you odds on the leave percentage increasing though.

You're reading me wrong, I don't think there's a chance of remain getting 60% and I'd stake a lot of money on that if the odds were 50:50 but I have no expectation of finding a bookie who'll give me those odds!

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

Roman Rhodes said:

That's a bit weak considering your original claim was "there will be people voted into parliament that neither you nor i would have envisioned not so very long ago". Corbyn has been Leader of the Opposition since well before the referendum and they gained 30 seats in the 2017 GE!

So is it a case of no new parties springing up and no crazies?

I could see there being a few more extreme candidates on either end of the horseshoe than we're used to but I'd be surprised if it was more than a handful.

Agreed - and the fact that at both ends there are numbers of disparate groups rather than a coherent core won't help their cause(s).

[The Dangerous Elk]

PurpleMoonlight said:

crankedup said:

Just mentioning that you have left out the most important element from your summary.
‘Respecting the democratic referendum result 2016, which both main politically parties stated they would honour that result to leave.
Just saying.

Was it legally binding?

You think THAT answer is satisfactory to the many millions who once regarded a promise from HMC as ( like the Bank oE) something that was both honourable and worth more than a Legal cop-out ?

Deluded.

[PurpleMoonlight]

The Dangerous Elk said:

You think THAT answer is satisfactory to the many millions who once regarded a promise from HMC as ( like the Bank oE) something that was both honourable and worth more than a Legal cop-out ?

Deluded.

In that case I trust you accept the EU's promise that the backstop will only be temporary.

[Sway]

youngsyr said:

Earthdweller said:

https://order-order.com/

https://www.facebook.com/160128910791789/posts/132...

George Eustace resigns from the Govt

Interesting resignation letter

Am I missing something, or is there a critical and new piece of information in that letter:

George Eustice MP said:

...We already know that in the event of "no deal" the EU will seek an informal transition period for nine months in many areas..."

That's news to me - he's effectively saying that there would never be a cliff edge in a no deal situation as the EU have already informally agreed to a nine month extension period even with no deal?

It's not new (but perhaps hasn't been articulated in quite that way) - it's the point I've been making about the senior eurocrat's responses anytime they've been asked about the difficulties the EU nations would also face from April 1st if the WA isn't ratified.

When their logic has been challenged in press conferences, calling out the cognitive dissonance on their repeated insistence that the WA is vital and singular, we've had responses such as "write what you want"!

[Terminator X]

Helicopter123 said:

I don't gamble by choice, but I'm sure a bookmaker will gladly take your money.

It is a fact that demographics move in favour of remain - older pro-brexit voters are dying, and new pre-remain voters are joining the electoral role. This has been a milder winter but even so demographics have continued to improve.

This time around, scrutiny on leave will be intense and any lies told will be exposed. In many ways, this is the direct opposite of 2016 when remain were under huge scrutiny, and leave could (and did) get away with spouting any old nonsense.

We've also had three years now of understanding just how bad Brexit would be, while no-one has been able to make a positive case for it, other than a few who think chlorinated chicken is a benefit.

Remain will win very easily.

This post is absolutely hilarious. How do you KNOW the bits in bold, are you interviewing the entire voting population? Sorry to break this to you but politicians are total bullstters either Leave or Remain, have you not noticed this? Mouth moving = lies. Also you absolutely do not understand "just how bad Brexit would be" you are simply reading stuff in the press about possible future scenarios and taking it as gospel. Newsflash, no one in the world can actually predict the future. Seriously ask an expert today to predict something one year from now then 5 and 10 years and revisit it then. Post their expert opinion up here and if it comes to pass I'll pay you £100. fking fruit loops posting on here at the moment

TX.

[bitchstewie]

Here's a way to protest peacefully and get some fresh air and exercise at the same time.

A good example of how it should be done https://www.marchtoleave.com/

[andymadmak]

Helicopter123 said:

There is zero evidence to support your view the opinions on Brexit change as people get older.

If you say so.

Helicopter123 said:

Remain will centre around the status quo - the deal we have as negotiated by Thatcher and Major, with the Veto, Rebate and opt-outs from Schengen and the Euro.

you might want to check on that. the status quo ante 2016 already does not exist in a number of areas. But let's just assume you're right for a second (even a stopped clock is right twice a day) ... what mechanisms would you put in place to ensure that the UK can leave as soon as there is any change to the status quo ante 2016 referendum?
The widening of QMV makes it more likely that our vetos could be lost in years to come, and decisions that are counter to UK interests could be implemented, don't you agree?

Helicopter123 said:

For me, the four freedoms are far more important than anything put forward by the 'leave' campaign.

Well at least this answer explains some of your position.

[bitchstewie]

Roman Rhodes said:

Agreed - and the fact that at both ends there are numbers of disparate groups rather than a coherent core won't help their cause(s).

Dunno, maybe if Nigel teams up with Momemtum he could get in. Eighth time lucky and all that.