Why so much referendum decision remorse?

[cymtriks]

jjlynn27 said:

cymtriks said:

Is the EU doing anything to solve its crisis? No. It could offer a freeze on article 50, come up with a sensible plan to solve its many problems and then present us, probably in 5 years time, with a proper vision of EU mark 2. They could invite Norway and Greenland back in while they are at it. Sensible? Yes. Will it happen? No.

I think you are a bit confused here. 'Present us'? They are, very clear that they want to start the clock and get it over asap. From what I'm reading there is a feeling that they already bent over backwards to make exceptions for UK and they got Brexit in return. To me, from their perspective at some point you say, ok, enough, off you go.
And it seems that they have no intention of presenting us with anything really.

It really isn't confusing. We are not the only country in the EU with a large portion of the population harbouring doubts over the way things are going. It is in their interests to keep the membership happy, not at the Euro MP level but at the level of the actual voters.

A request to not invoke A50 followed by a strong drive to reconnect with voters and look as something is actually going to be done about issues such as asylum and Greece might just do it.

A proper presentation of the case to remain/join could then be made to us, Norway and Greenland plus those already in. It is certainly in their interests. If the Remainers are right then it's in our interest as well.

jjlynn27 said:

cymtriks said:

Look at the government. The house of cards is falling down. The clue is in their name, the are, wait for it, the government but right now we are leaderless on one side of house, almost leaderless on the other, no idea where we are going and, by deliberate instruction, without any plan at all.

And this is the problem. But think about it. People are voting to get more decision by that same government that you portray as totally incompetent? I don't understand that logic.

They're all we've got. I'm very disappointed with them but it's them or nothing.

If you want something important done it makes sense to get that thing done by competent people. But if those people are not available then you have to hope that less able people will still manage to do a reasonable job. It's actually very simple logic!

[cymtriks]

AJS- said:

[It's a very clear mandate from the British public that regardless of the risks of a total unknown, the current European Union is not acceptable.

If the British government and the EU choose to ignore that then it is quite clear that we are no longer living under a democratic government.

That's not the only way to view it.

Consider a pay negotiation. It could be:

I want 3%
You're not getting it, get lost.
Ok, I quit.

However usually it goes more like this:

I want 3%
I'll offer 1%
OK, can you make it 2.5%
I'll offer 1.5%
Make it 2.0% for a deal?
OK, deal, lets get on with some work

It is in everyone's interests to negotiate!

Remember the mandate is only a couple of percent and we are far from the only country with doubts over the EU and dthe direction it is taking. A proper period of discussion and a presentation of a plan to actually address these concerns could get everyone the result they actually want, or at least a bit closer to it if they actually thought about it for a bit.

Which, I'm fairly certain, they won't.

[jjlynn27]

cymtriks said:

It really isn't confusing. We are not the only country in the EU with a large portion of the population harbouring doubts over the way things are going. It is in their interests to keep the membership happy, not at the Euro MP level but at the level of the actual voters.

A request to not invoke A50 followed by a strong drive to reconnect with voters and look as something is actually going to be done about issues such as asylum and Greece might just do it.

A proper presentation of the case to remain/join could then be made to us, Norway and Greenland plus those already in. It is certainly in their interests. If the Remainers are right then it's in our interest as well.

I'm not sure where is this magical request not to invoke A50 coming from? Everything that I've seen, and I would be genuinely grateful if you can link anything said otherwise, is 'Please invoke A50 asap, so we can get that out of the way'. Why would they want us to join? As I said before, from what I've read they think, rightly or wrongly, that they bent the rules in UK favour and in return got Brexit. I really doubt that they'll do refs anywhere else after this, imo, fiasco, and even if they do how that helps us? Have a look at the video;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...

No trade negotiation until exit is completed. So after A50 invocation + 2years. Only after that trade negotiation can begin. She accepts that it'll hurt them too, 'but rules are quite clear'.

cymtriks said:

They're all we've got. I'm very disappointed with them but it's them or nothing.
If you want something important done it makes sense to get that thing done by competent people. But if those people are not available then you have to hope that less able people will still manage to do a reasonable job. It's actually very simple logic!

So all this for a hope that less able people will manage to do reasonable job.

Eta; quotes.

[Kermit power]

cymtriks said:

That's not the only way to view it.

Consider a pay negotiation. It could be:

I want 3%
You're not getting it, get lost.
Ok, I quit.

However usually it goes more like this:

I want 3%
I'll offer 1%
OK, can you make it 2.5%
I'll offer 1.5%
Make it 2.0% for a deal?
OK, deal, lets get on with some work

It is in everyone's interests to negotiate!

Remember the mandate is only a couple of percent and we are far from the only country with doubts over the EU and dthe direction it is taking. A proper period of discussion and a presentation of a plan to actually address these concerns could get everyone the result they actually want, or at least a bit closer to it if they actually thought about it for a bit.

Which, I'm fairly certain, they won't.

In theory, I think you're absolutely right. In reality, however, I think there's one big problem, which is that a large amount of what we'd need to negotiate on is actually smoke and mirrors thought up by Farage, the Wail and so on, so how do you negotiate on something that isn't there?

[Bill]

Crafty_ said:

In all honesty I see points for both sides. I'm not a fan of the Brussels red tape and bullst, the EZ seems to be a daft thing to do and now its in strife daft to continue with to some illogical conclusion somewhere in the future..

On the other hand I think we've done medium/long term damage with regards to trade. Yes, new trade deals can be arranged or we get the Norwegian thing or we can rely on WTO (once we sign up in our own right, as I understand it we are signed up via the EU currently). But non of this as far as trading in Europe will be as good as being a member, the ko member countries will always deal internally first I think.

Ultimately I think very few will really going to get what they wanted out of this whole thing and that will lead to more regret and remorse in the future.

The far left remainers won't get their "big society" thing, because we'll be out of Europe. And they aren't ever going to shut up about it.

The far right won't get restricted immigration, because we'll allow freedom of movement in return for trade deals.

In industry there will still be a lot of work to ensure that we comply with various EU directives/laws/standards etc to enable us to trade in Europe.

Those somewhere in the middle who wanted us to "look after our own" with all the money saved from the EU payments won't get that, because the money will go in to trade deals and more civil servants to perform the bureaucracy that Brussels was doing. There will be a whole new gravy train there.

Those that wanted us to re-capture our sovereignty ? Well, maybe they'll be satisfied with being pushed around by our own bureaucrats instead of those in Brussels, not too sure exactly how that makes much difference though.

I think its a rather typical English cock-up. How exactly we could get to the point of a referendum with no plan of what to do next I don't understand.. but thats where we appear to be. I just hope that it doesn't damage us too badly.

This. No one is going to be happy with the end result.

[cymtriks]

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not sure where is this magical request not to invoke A50 coming from? Everything that I've seen, and I would be genuinely grateful if you can link anything said otherwise, is 'Please invoke A50 asap, so we can get that out of the way'. Why would they want us to join?

I'm not claiming they have suggested it, I'm suggesting that it might be a good way to proceed.

jjlynn27 said:

As I said before, from what I've read they think, rightly or wrongly, that they bent the rules in UK favour and in return got Brexit. I really doubt that they'll do refs anywhere else after this, imo, fiasco, and even if they do how that helps us?

I think they are wrong, they've all bent the rules and they continue to do so to prop up Greece to the tune of squillions of Euros. It will help everyone to say "right, a large number of people are unhappy, a big chunk of people are walking away, maybe we need to stop and think a bit". That would help everyone.

jjlynn27 said:

No trade negotiation until exit is completed. So after A50 invocation + 2years. Only after that trade negotiation can begin. She accepts that it'll hurt them too, 'but rules are quite clear'.

They need our trade and our money to make their project viable unless they are prepared to go through some pain themselves. A bit less throwing toys out of the pram and a bit more thinking would help. This isn't a one month issue, it has been brewing for over a decade and is still rumbling away in other EU countries. To push on and ignore this is utterly silly for their project.

jjlynn27 said:

So all this for a hope that less able people will manage to do reasonable job.

Brexit has not changed the current lot, it has only made them step down. There is no evidence that the next lot, who will be decided on soon, will be any better or worse. Unless of course you think that the politicians who walked straight into this mess are just hiding their genius for a rainy day.

[sparkythecat]

cymtriks said:

That's not the only way to view it.

Consider a pay negotiation. It could be:

I want 3%
You're not getting it, get lost.
Ok, I quit.

However usually it goes more like this:

I want 3%
I'll offer 1%
OK, can you make it 2.5%
I'll offer 1.5%
Make it 2.0% for a deal?
OK, deal, lets get on with some work

It is in everyone's interests to negotiate!

.

You got 2%?

Pah! Bob Crow would have got at least 5%, and an extra two days holiday

[AJS-]

cymtriks said:

AJS- said:

[It's a very clear mandate from the British public that regardless of the risks of a total unknown, the current European Union is not acceptable.

If the British government and the EU choose to ignore that then it is quite clear that we are no longer living under a democratic government.

That's not the only way to view it.

Consider a pay negotiation. It could be:

I want 3%
You're not getting it, get lost.
Ok, I quit.

However usually it goes more like this:

I want 3%
I'll offer 1%
OK, can you make it 2.5%
I'll offer 1.5%
Make it 2.0% for a deal?
OK, deal, lets get on with some work

It is in everyone's interests to negotiate!

Remember the mandate is only a couple of percent and we are far from the only country with doubts over the EU and dthe direction it is taking. A proper period of discussion and a presentation of a plan to actually address these concerns could get everyone the result they actually want, or at least a bit closer to it if they actually thought about it for a bit.

Which, I'm fairly certain, they won't.

The big difference between this and a pat rise negotiation is that this was a straight binary choice. This would be more like accepting a counter offer after handing your notice in. They usually fall apart after a few months...


I wouldn't be against a sort 9f confederation of European states with free trade and voluntary cooperation, but I don't see that as being on offer, And I don't see the existing EU as a particularly good starting point for it.

Every government I can remember have said they want a more flexible and decentralised Europe, and the EU has kept going in the other direction. Cameron even attempted these reforms with a Leave referendum in mind and was made to look stupid.

Leave meant leave, not more half measures and weak attempts at reform.

[zygalski]

Kermit power said:

cymtriks said:

That's not the only way to view it.

Consider a pay negotiation. It could be:

I want 3%
You're not getting it, get lost.
Ok, I quit.

However usually it goes more like this:

I want 3%
I'll offer 1%
OK, can you make it 2.5%
I'll offer 1.5%
Make it 2.0% for a deal?
OK, deal, lets get on with some work

It is in everyone's interests to negotiate!

Remember the mandate is only a couple of percent and we are far from the only country with doubts over the EU and dthe direction it is taking. A proper period of discussion and a presentation of a plan to actually address these concerns could get everyone the result they actually want, or at least a bit closer to it if they actually thought about it for a bit.

Which, I'm fairly certain, they won't.

In theory, I think you're absolutely right. In reality, however, I think there's one big problem, which is that a large amount of what we'd need to negotiate on is actually smoke and mirrors thought up by Farage, the Wail and so on, so how do you negotiate on something that isn't there?

Hmm... not to mention if we cut a great deal to be outside the EU then other countries would be enticed out. It's in the EU's best interests to do a deal which is mutually beneficial, not one that tips the cost/benefit balance in favour of leaving.
The EU want as much stability as they can - hence all the calls for article 50 to be invoked ASAP, not on the never never.

[Matt UK]

Crafty_ said:

In all honesty I see points for both sides. I'm not a fan of the Brussels red tape and bullst, the EZ seems to be a daft thing to do and now its in strife daft to continue with to some illogical conclusion somewhere in the future..

On the other hand I think we've done medium/long term damage with regards to trade. Yes, new trade deals can be arranged or we get the Norwegian thing or we can rely on WTO (once we sign up in our own right, as I understand it we are signed up via the EU currently). But non of this as far as trading in Europe will be as good as being a member, the member countries will always deal internally first I think.

Ultimately I think very few will really going to get what they wanted out of this whole thing and that will lead to more regret and remorse in the future.

The far left remainers won't get their "big society" thing, because we'll be out of Europe. And they aren't ever going to shut up about it.

The far right won't get restricted immigration, because we'll allow freedom of movement in return for trade deals.

In industry there will still be a lot of work to ensure that we comply with various EU directives/laws/standards etc to enable us to trade in Europe.

Those somewhere in the middle who wanted us to "look after our own" with all the money saved from the EU payments won't get that, because the money will go in to trade deals and more civil servants to perform the bureaucracy that Brussels was doing. There will be a whole new gravy train there.

Those that wanted us to re-capture our sovereignty ? Well, maybe they'll be satisfied with being pushed around by our own bureaucrats instead of those in Brussels, not too sure exactly how that makes much difference though.

I think its a rather typical English cock-up. How exactly we could get to the point of a referendum with no plan of what to do next I don't understand.. but thats where we appear to be. I just hope that it doesn't damage us too badly.

Largely agree with all of this

[jjlynn27]

cymtriks said:

Sensible stuff.

I'm trying to figure out how all this will play out. The Norway doesn't seem too eager for UK to join EFTA. At this stage that seems like a least worst option for UK, but even they said 'cool, come over, join', you'd still have to deal with the fact that significant portion of Leave vote wouldn't support anything that include free movement of labour. And it'll not cost less. So two main reasons for leaving EU are not going to be realised.

[mph1977]

Kermit power said:

In theory, I think you're absolutely right. In reality, however, I think there's one big problem, which is that a large amount of what we'd need to negotiate on is actually smoke and mirrors thought up by Farage, the Wail and so on, so how do you negotiate on something that isn't there?

or something which is outside the powers of the EU to negotiate because it's a Council of Europe thing ( European courts etc) or a matter solely in control of the national government ( NHS funding )