How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
banjowilly said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ah! the old selective democracy ploy, where at one instance it is perfectly OK for the government to take the country into something, without first asking the people if this was what they wanted, and without telling them what doing so, would mean for them. Yet it (somehow) is not OK for the government to take the UK out of something, despite the massive increase in knowledge and experience of what an EU is, ( and of course not forgetting the little matter of the first, and only referendum the people of the UK have ever been given on the matter of the UK`s membership of the EU, where the result was for the UK to LEAVE the EU) But since you have no respect for democracy, I wouldn't expect you to understand what happened in 2016..
No, it's the cowardice of Parliament subcontracting their actual job. I had a feeling you wouldn't be able to grasp that, seems I was right. The point is not that a vote was held in 2016 to leave it's that you had no right to one in 1972 & that is why your endless whining about 1972 is so wide of the mark, you're complaining about Parliament literally doing their job.The plain fact is that after the first, and only vote the people of the UK have ever been given on its EU membership. the people of the UK voted to leave the EU. If you cannot understand that, there is no point in carrying this on, as the concept of democracy and the use of referenda are clearly way beyond your grasp.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Wednesday 21st August 15:04
s2art said:
banjowilly said:
No, it's the cowardice of Parliament subcontracting their actual job. I had a feeling you wouldn't be able to grasp that, seems I was right. The point is not that a vote was held in 2016 to leave it's that you had no right to one in 1972 & that is why your endless whining about 1972 is so wide of the mark, you're complaining about Parliament literally doing their job.
Not convinced with that argument. In a representative democracy the people send power to MPs. Effectively the voters lend their power to their MP. What should not happen is the MPs give away that power without the permission pf the people. Hence the need to consult the people before doing so. Referenda should have been held several times, certainly at the time of Maastricht as it changed the nature of the EEC. s2art said:
Not convinced with that argument. In a representative democracy the people send power to MPs. Effectively the voters lend their power to their MP. What should not happen is the MPs give away that power without the permission pf the people. Hence the need to consult the people before doing so. Referenda should have been held several times, certainly at the time of Maastricht as it changed the nature of the EEC.
If you accept the starting premise power has been ceded, which is a very arguable point. But running with it. let's see how far we bend over when America comes calling in a few months. In any event, that notion changes nothing about PPPPPP's weird 1972 fixation.
crankedup said:
s2art said:
banjowilly said:
No, it's the cowardice of Parliament subcontracting their actual job. I had a feeling you wouldn't be able to grasp that, seems I was right. The point is not that a vote was held in 2016 to leave it's that you had no right to one in 1972 & that is why your endless whining about 1972 is so wide of the mark, you're complaining about Parliament literally doing their job.
Not convinced with that argument. In a representative democracy the people send power to MPs. Effectively the voters lend their power to their MP. What should not happen is the MPs give away that power without the permission pf the people. Hence the need to consult the people before doing so. Referenda should have been held several times, certainly at the time of Maastricht as it changed the nature of the EEC. banjowilly said:
s2art said:
Not convinced with that argument. In a representative democracy the people send power to MPs. Effectively the voters lend their power to their MP. What should not happen is the MPs give away that power without the permission pf the people. Hence the need to consult the people before doing so. Referenda should have been held several times, certainly at the time of Maastricht as it changed the nature of the EEC.
If you accept the starting premise power has been ceded, which is a very arguable point. But running with it. let's see how far we bend over when America comes calling in a few months. In any event, that notion changes nothing about PPPPPP's weird 1972 fixation.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Don't worry about banjowilly, he cant answer the question about how it was OK for the government to take the people of the UK into the EU, without first asking them if this was what they wanted, but somehow it was not OK for the government to take the UK out of the EU..
Eh? First of all, I expressed no opinion on the 2016, so there's the first naught little bit of making things up. Secondly, I answered you twice on entering the EEC here:banjowilly said:
We live in a representative democracy. We elect and pay for people to make decisions on our behalf. There is moreover no tradition of referendums in the UK for that very reason. You bleat on over & over again about 1972 as if it was somehow the most egregious betrayal in our long island history when as it turns out, you don't actually know how your country is governed in the first place.
And here:banjowilly said:
No, it's the cowardice of Parliament subcontracting their actual job. I had a feeling you wouldn't be able to grasp that, seems I was right. The point is not that a vote was held in 2016 to leave it's that you had no right to one in 1972 & that is why your endless whining about 1972 is so wide of the mark, you're complaining about Parliament literally doing their job.
You're entitled to alternative opinions, old chap but not alternative facts. 
banjowilly said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I will tell you, if you first tell me why you think voting to remain in the EEC in 1975 also qualifies as a vote to go into something, that would not even exist for another 18 years, let alone allow those being asked to vote in 1975 how much they understand about an organization (that would not even exist for another 18 years).
No you won't. Your evasiveness is as obvious as your naivety on geo politics. But I'll tell you where you're wrong anyway. We live in a representative democracy. We elect and pay for people to make decisions on our behalf. There is moreover no tradition of referendums in the UK for that very reason. You bleat on over & over again about 1972 as if it was somehow the most egregious betrayal in our long island history when as it turns out, you don't actually know how your country is governed in the first place. NoNeed said:
banjowilly said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I will tell you, if you first tell me why you think voting to remain in the EEC in 1975 also qualifies as a vote to go into something, that would not even exist for another 18 years, let alone allow those being asked to vote in 1975 how much they understand about an organization (that would not even exist for another 18 years).
No you won't. Your evasiveness is as obvious as your naivety on geo politics. But I'll tell you where you're wrong anyway. We live in a representative democracy. We elect and pay for people to make decisions on our behalf. There is moreover no tradition of referendums in the UK for that very reason. You bleat on over & over again about 1972 as if it was somehow the most egregious betrayal in our long island history when as it turns out, you don't actually know how your country is governed in the first place. NoNeed said:
banjowilly said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I will tell you, if you first tell me why you think voting to remain in the EEC in 1975 also qualifies as a vote to go into something, that would not even exist for another 18 years, let alone allow those being asked to vote in 1975 how much they understand about an organization (that would not even exist for another 18 years).
No you won't. Your evasiveness is as obvious as your naivety on geo politics. But I'll tell you where you're wrong anyway. We live in a representative democracy. We elect and pay for people to make decisions on our behalf. There is moreover no tradition of referendums in the UK for that very reason. You bleat on over & over again about 1972 as if it was somehow the most egregious betrayal in our long island history when as it turns out, you don't actually know how your country is governed in the first place. reason being because it blasts open the basis of his/her contention about U.K. democracy.
crankedup said:
For some inexplicable reason banjowilly seems unable to grasp this simple notion. Obvious reason
reason being because it blasts open the basis of his/her contention about U.K. democracy.
It's a point of view Crankie but it's addressed only a few posts up. Been at the Greene King, lad? reason being because it blasts open the basis of his/her contention about U.K. democracy.
Troubleatmill said:
Brooking10 said:
I’m still not clear on why people seem vehemently opposed to a hypothetical “type of leave” vote.
How about this. It is decided to settle an issue by referendum
Govt and Parliament are pretty clear on which side they favour. Govt gifted Remain a £9 million head start.
The rules are made clear
Govt spells out that 50%+1 vote is enough to settle the issue.
Govt says it will deliver on what we decide.
We decided.
The losers then spend 3 years drumming up daily scare stories “scurvy”, “planes falling out of the sky” etc. to try to change the minds of the electorate.
A continual barrage of fear mongering. Every bloody day. And when they believe they have the numbers....
Then they say. “You need to vote again”
And if Remain wins. It is settled.
If Leave wins , as Swinson and Allen have said - they will still try to block it.
Why does Remain need to win 1 referendum and Leave needs to win 2?
Why can’t Remainers just accept that the democratic result is to leave. And let us leave ?
For clarity, this is a hypothetical and does not involve remain being an option.
So, assuming we could get to an agreement which Boris thinks he could get though parliament would you entertain a public vote to decide between that or No Deal ?
Brooking10 said:
Either you aren’t able to comprehend the question I am asking or it isn't clear enough.
For clarity, this is a hypothetical and does not involve remain being an option.
So, assuming we could get to an agreement which Boris thinks he could get though parliament would you entertain a public vote to decide between that or No Deal ?
Why would you need a public vote if Parliament would vote it through? For clarity, this is a hypothetical and does not involve remain being an option.
So, assuming we could get to an agreement which Boris thinks he could get though parliament would you entertain a public vote to decide between that or No Deal ?
banjowilly said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Can someone explain what these new border checks are supposed to be checking for? If it's just tariff enforcement then an FTA would solve the issue far more simply than a border in the Irish sea.
It's not just tariff enforcement. HTH.Brooking10 said:
Either you aren’t able to comprehend the question I am asking or it isn't clear enough.
For clarity, this is a hypothetical and does not involve remain being an option.
So, assuming we could get to an agreement which Boris thinks he could get though parliament would you entertain a public vote to decide between that or No Deal ?
You should address your question to the nutbag/ banjoman end of the Remain .For clarity, this is a hypothetical and does not involve remain being an option.
So, assuming we could get to an agreement which Boris thinks he could get though parliament would you entertain a public vote to decide between that or No Deal ?
Your idea sounds reasonable, but without a remain option, the real resistance will come from the mentioned loons of Remain.
PositronicRay said:
No thanks. I'd prefer us (RoI) to stick with what we have with the EU, no matter what pain is inflicted on us from BrexitFor me, other than a no deal, the most likely outcome would be that Boris ends up selling out the DUP, and NI stays in the CU. But we're pretty much all bracing for no deal over here
PositronicRay said:
Interesting, but I doubt it will fly. It does show however, that despite assertions from some quarters that the UK isn't coming up with anything, the reality is that behind the scenes, the thinking caps have clearly been applied. Now, that does not mean that anything of what comes out of that thinking will be any good!
But at least the ideas are flowing. I do wonder though if the solution might not be in some sort of agricultural dispensation? The fact is we are not going to have US chicken here any time soon, so maybe its possible to agree agricultural and food alignment on the Island of Ireland during the transition period? Would that be enough to protect the Irish economy? Would it be enough to placate the EU? Would the DUP object to that? I mean, as a practical matter, nothing will change in the short term anyway...
Edited for speeeeeling + to add the DUP bit
Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 21st August 16:27
Vanden Saab said:
Why would you need a public vote if Parliament would vote it through?
It’s a hypothesis.So if the WA had been approved by Parliament all would have been well in the world.
I’m genuinely interested in whether given the choice people would like the opportunity to choose the flavour of exit.
andymadmak said:
I do wonder though if the solution might not be in some sort of agricultural dispensation? The fact is we are not going to have US chicken here any time soon, so maybe its possible to agree agricultural and food alignment on the Island of Ireland during the transition period? Would that be enough to protect the Irish economy? Would it be enough to placate the EU? Would the DUP object to that? I mean, as a practical matter, nothing will change in the short term anyway...
Given that the EU managed to ban British beef in the 90s without a hard border in Ireland, I don't see that even US chicken would be a problem.Brooking10 said:
It’s a hypothesis.
So if the WA had been approved by Parliament all would have been well in the world.
I’m genuinely interested in whether given the choice people would like the opportunity to choose the flavour of exit.
That is an interesting question. I think if the WA had been approved by Parliament then probably the majority of the general public would have simply shrugged and got on with life. The fun and games would have started if it turned out the the backstop was indeed un-exitable without the UK getting royally shafted. Then I think the fur would have flown a bit. So if the WA had been approved by Parliament all would have been well in the world.
I’m genuinely interested in whether given the choice people would like the opportunity to choose the flavour of exit.
As it stands right now, I think most people just want the whole thing over and done with. But that does not mean they will just roll over or give up. Rather, I think it means that some political theatre around the backstop will have to occur.
In that regard, I think it might be possible for Boris to get something through Parliament that perhaps 6 months ago might not have been possible. That 'thing' would be the current WA, but with a removed/renamed/revised backstop arrangement (call it whatever you like for the purposes of political face) that will allow both sides to claim that a fair deal has been made.
It won't be ideal, but it will be enough to claim Brexit has happened and Boris can then go to the polls..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff