How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
Elysium said:
...
The contribution from the UK economy is attractive to an EU trying to build scale, but less relevant to a US with an internal market of 320m people.
...
The EU is an internal market of 440m people (sans UK) isn't it?The contribution from the UK economy is attractive to an EU trying to build scale, but less relevant to a US with an internal market of 320m people.
...
Murph7355 said:
Elysium said:
...
I don’t want the EU to become a federalist state. I think it is a stronger institution as a collective of free independent nations. Whilst we are members we act as an anchor against such ideas. I know that is welcomed by other nations who feel the same (e.g the Dutch).
If we leave, federalism is more likely....
How so? Surely if the powers that be in the union actually care what the member states and their electorates feel, it shouldn't need us to act as a drag anchor? If there is so much happiness with the direction of travel, are we actually not a thorn rather than an aid?I don’t want the EU to become a federalist state. I think it is a stronger institution as a collective of free independent nations. Whilst we are members we act as an anchor against such ideas. I know that is welcomed by other nations who feel the same (e.g the Dutch).
If we leave, federalism is more likely....
The other countries need to stand up for themselves. I think the UK has done what it can to "change from the inside". We've made it clear what we think of key elements of the EU and this still isn't changing anything. If you stay within the relationship under those circumstances, you should prepare for more of the same...eventually it's very much piss or get off the pot.
We voted to get off.
(In theory us dealing with a "superstate" later on, or a collective of 27 countries surely makes no difference? From a trade perspective (which is the primary argument for staying) it currently makes no odds as we are all told we are dealing with one body.
Some people clearly felt that the vote gave us a way out and that if they did not take it they may not be asked again.
I was not worried about that as I feel 100% confident that the UK is not going to allow itself to be consumed by a federalist state. I didn't see the vote as a 'last ditch' opportunity to avoid that, because I think we would avoid it anyway if push came to shove.
So my decision is one of pragmatism, which is why you won't see me defending the EU project or criticising leave voters for their decision.
Edited by Elysium on Monday 26th August 09:12
pgh said:
frisbee said:
Apparently blind slavish devotion to an incompetent buffoon is even easier.
Too early to judge his competence. Certainly not possible for you either given the lack of any actual substance behind your criticisms. Boris is looking good, he’s achieved more in 30 days than the Maybot in 30 months
There’s bluff and bluster but time will tell if there is substance.. I think there’s a good chance there will be
He has certainly managed to change the whole tone of the conversation from “NO” to “OK let’s see”
From me so far it’s all positive
frisbee said:
pgh said:
frisbee said:
An independent self-governing nation with a leader currently crawling up the backside of his royal Trumpness and his even more delightful South American cousin.
And if he wasn’t talking to them, you’d be typing here how unlikely our prospects of deals with non E.U. nations are. It’s an easy job throwing criticism around, less so actually doing something. Elysium said:
If the EU is truly become a federalist state, I would want to have some influence over it. That influence is always going to be greater as an insider, than as an outsider reliant on its neighbours goodwill for essential trade.
I don't think we are anywhere close to a real surrender of sovereignty on the part of the UK, or the French or the Germans.
Like the influence Hong Kong has over China you mean? And why would we be any more reliant on goodwiil for trade outside the EU rather than inside?I don't think we are anywhere close to a real surrender of sovereignty on the part of the UK, or the French or the Germans.
Earthdweller said:
So far,
Boris is looking good, he’s achieved more in 30 days than the Maybot in 30 months
There’s bluff and bluster but time will tell if there is substance.. I think there’s a good chance there will be
He has certainly managed to change the whole tone of the conversation from “NO” to “OK let’s see”
From me so far it’s all positive
He's made some popular spending pledges in the UK and paid more vocal tribute to No Deal than May did, but I don't think it's right to say he has achieved more than May did yet- she did at least conclude a deal with the EU even if she couldn't make it fly in parliament, Boris has brought nothing yet.Boris is looking good, he’s achieved more in 30 days than the Maybot in 30 months
There’s bluff and bluster but time will tell if there is substance.. I think there’s a good chance there will be
He has certainly managed to change the whole tone of the conversation from “NO” to “OK let’s see”
From me so far it’s all positive
As a caution against too much faith in your leaders, here's quote 1, page 1 from the Teresa May thread. She also said lots of things which delighted leavers at the time, imagine eriting this now-
don4l said:
l'm surprised that we don't already have a thread about this great woman.
Margaret Thatcher took a couple of years to demonstrate her greatness. Theresa May only took a couple of hours.
Today, she is going to announce her intention to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.
She has severly clipped the wings of the civil service.
Sir What'sHisName, the civil servant who used to chair many government commitees, is no longer even able to attend the meetings.
By God, this woman is impressive.
Margaret Thatcher took a couple of years to demonstrate her greatness. Theresa May only took a couple of hours.
Today, she is going to announce her intention to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.
She has severly clipped the wings of the civil service.
Sir What'sHisName, the civil servant who used to chair many government commitees, is no longer even able to attend the meetings.
By God, this woman is impressive.
Elysium said:
I guess we have different ideas about the level of cooperation and compromise that is acceptable in return for EU membership. I am comfortable with where we are now and see only economic risk in leaving.
Some people clearly felt that the vote gave us a way out and that if they did not take it they may not be asked again.
I was not worried about that as I feel 100% confident that the UK is not going to allow itself to be consumed by a federalist state. I didn't see the vote as a 'last ditch' opportunity to avoid that, because I think we would avoid it anyway if push came to shove.
So my decision is one of pragmatism, which is why you won't see me defending the EU project or criticising leave voters for their decision.
This is where we will have to agree to disagree. It had been over 40 years since the last vote. I could not see us ever being asked again within my lifetime anyway. The EU Act 2011 was made as a sop to the skeptics in order to limit the changes that could be made to our membership of the EU without a referendum to agree them . If remain had won I would have expected that act to have been quietly repealed. After all we would have had a referendum and voted to remain. As far as I was concerned it was the one and only opportunity to leave. Some people clearly felt that the vote gave us a way out and that if they did not take it they may not be asked again.
I was not worried about that as I feel 100% confident that the UK is not going to allow itself to be consumed by a federalist state. I didn't see the vote as a 'last ditch' opportunity to avoid that, because I think we would avoid it anyway if push came to shove.
So my decision is one of pragmatism, which is why you won't see me defending the EU project or criticising leave voters for their decision.
Edited by Elysium on Monday 26th August 09:12
The whole remain movement and their attempts to avoid what was voted for proves to me that I was correct...
JuanCarlosFandango said:
The trouble with the idea that we'll be an inconsequential minnow outside the EU is that we would still be the same size inside it. The only difference being that outside we would have less need to influence it.
I don't see our need to influence things ever reducing. Our ability to influence the EU will almost certainly diminish, and others will have greater ability to influence us.Whether this can be compensated for by greater influence in other spheres or some calamity avoided by leaving remains to be seen but I find it as unlikely now as I did in 2016.
Edited by glazbagun on Monday 26th August 11:10
Otis Criblecoblis said:
DeepEnd said:
As I understood it, the bit in bold broadly was the argument being made. You seem OK with that, so perhaps we can drop all this “idiocy” & “lies” language? It’s just a misunderstanding.
A mandate in this case however - in my opinion - is linked to what is promised - i.e. campaigned for.
Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.
No, Banjo has insisted on trying to bluff his way out of the original incorrect assertion that no deal was never a possible outcome from the way the referendum was set up. It's just plain dishonest the pretend this was blocked from happening or that you went to the polls that day knowing there was no route to leaving without a deal.A mandate in this case however - in my opinion - is linked to what is promised - i.e. campaigned for.
Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.
Elysium's claim the only mandate was to leave with a decent deal is a different question.
It was originally an almost anecdotal point that the referendum was rather reckless if you favour Remain , as Cameron and Co bet everything on winning with no thought to what that meant if they failed. From your point of view, they should have categorically ruled out leaving without an agreement in place. They've moved to change the goal posts after the vote, but the day we voted, no deal was a possible outcome.
You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
DeepEnd said:
No?
You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
There seems to be confusion here. The leave campaign has no mandate, they didnt get elected. The only mandate is that of the Tory government, given in the 2017 election (with the DUP). The question is what was in the Tory manifesto that they got elected to do?You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
JuanCarlosFandango said:
The trouble with the idea that we'll be an inconsequential minnow outside the EU is that we would still be the same size inside it. The only difference being that outside we would have less need to influence it.
Who said we would be an inconsequential minnow? One the reasons we have stayed in the eu is the single market. It’s useful to business and the economy.
If we leave, and we want to continue to benefit from things like mutual recognition, we end up tied to EU regulations anyway. If we step away from those, we lose the benefits of membership.
Which ever way you cut it, we are likely to reduce the potential for future growth in our economy by leaving.
Leavers say that’s a price worth paying, but I don’t see what we are going to get in return?
s2art said:
DeepEnd said:
No?
You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
There seems to be confusion here. The leave campaign has no mandate, they didnt get elected. The only mandate is that of the Tory government, given in the 2017 election (with the DUP). The question is what was in the Tory manifesto that they got elected to do?You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
Edit to add - much of the leave campaign committee did get elected in 2017 and they are now on Govt
Elysium said:
s2art said:
DeepEnd said:
No?
You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
There seems to be confusion here. The leave campaign has no mandate, they didnt get elected. The only mandate is that of the Tory government, given in the 2017 election (with the DUP). The question is what was in the Tory manifesto that they got elected to do?You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
Elysium said:
s2art said:
DeepEnd said:
No?
You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
There seems to be confusion here. The leave campaign has no mandate, they didnt get elected. The only mandate is that of the Tory government, given in the 2017 election (with the DUP). The question is what was in the Tory manifesto that they got elected to do?You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
s2art said:
Elysium said:
s2art said:
DeepEnd said:
No?
You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
There seems to be confusion here. The leave campaign has no mandate, they didnt get elected. The only mandate is that of the Tory government, given in the 2017 election (with the DUP). The question is what was in the Tory manifesto that they got elected to do?You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
Good job they are in charge now so they can prove their point.
gooner1 said:
Elysium said:
s2art said:
DeepEnd said:
No?
You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
There seems to be confusion here. The leave campaign has no mandate, they didnt get elected. The only mandate is that of the Tory government, given in the 2017 election (with the DUP). The question is what was in the Tory manifesto that they got elected to do?You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
Elysium said:
s2art said:
Elysium said:
s2art said:
DeepEnd said:
No?
You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
There seems to be confusion here. The leave campaign has no mandate, they didnt get elected. The only mandate is that of the Tory government, given in the 2017 election (with the DUP). The question is what was in the Tory manifesto that they got elected to do?You don’t agree with this then?
“Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.”
Good job they are in charge now so they can prove their point.
Elysium said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
The trouble with the idea that we'll be an inconsequential minnow outside the EU is that we would still be the same size inside it. The only difference being that outside we would have less need to influence it.
Who said we would be an inconsequential minnow? One the reasons we have stayed in the eu is the single market. It’s useful to business and the economy.
If we leave, and we want to continue to benefit from things like mutual recognition, we end up tied to EU regulations anyway. If we step away from those, we lose the benefits of membership.
Which ever way you cut it, we are likely to reduce the potential for future growth in our economy by leaving.
Leavers say that’s a price worth paying, but I don’t see what we are going to get in return?
Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue? It's a big old world out there, plenty of opportunities
Elysium said:
Johnson refused to negotiate unless the backstop was removed as a precondition.
Nope. He said the WA is dead and any future deal can not include the backstop. The EU said the WA is closed and they will not negotiate further on it.
Boris has managed to get them to move and they are now prepared to discuss solutions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff