How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 2)
Discussion
gooner1 said:
jjlynn27 said:
Correct.
Very good article by DC;
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cumm...
(if you exclude Gove adulation)
Thanks Jj, just had a quick skim. Interesting view on Cameron's beliefs re his election victory.Very good article by DC;
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cumm...
(if you exclude Gove adulation)
don'tbesilly said:
mike9009 said:
andymadmak said:
I will give it just one more go (third time lucky!) Would any of our Remain contingent be willing to have a go at answering these questions?
I think the biggest error made was trying to out 'headline' the Leave campaign, making more and more incredulous claims. The whole campaign revolved around soundbites and outlandish statements (from both sides). As such, the remain campaign lost credibility. They tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator. As the 'story' of Brexit unfolds the complexity of leaving, the compromises of leaving are, in my opinion, becoming apparent. The headline grabbing immediate recession, war in Europe etc were cringeworthy.andymadmak said:
1 Leaving aside for a moment the real issues with the Brexit campaign, what in your opinion were the unacceptable elements of the Remain campaign?
2. Assuming that the first Referendum had never happened, but armed with the knowledge of how badly Remains tactics worked first time out (yes, I am asking you to be a Time Lord!
) how do you think the Remain campaign should have been /be organised
(I'm couching the question like that because I don't want your responses to be based on attacking what Brexit did in Ref1, rather I want to gauge how Remain could have gone about things differently in your opinion.)
If anyone on the Remain side could answer those two in a constructive way, I promise that I will also answer them, doing my best to take the position of a Remain voter. (which ironically, I could easily have been right up to the last week of the campaign)2. Assuming that the first Referendum had never happened, but armed with the knowledge of how badly Remains tactics worked first time out (yes, I am asking you to be a Time Lord!
) how do you think the Remain campaign should have been /be organised(I'm couching the question like that because I don't want your responses to be based on attacking what Brexit did in Ref1, rather I want to gauge how Remain could have gone about things differently in your opinion.)
How should it been run?
Difficult one, but more reasons to remain in the EU with firm, factual debate rather than incredulous claims wrapped up for newspaper headlines/ sales. Robustly, debunking the 'Leave Campaigns' claims more thoroughly may help. Unfortunately the Remain campaign also did not have a 'pin-up' campaigner (like Boris, for example). The remain campaigners were seen as staid autocrats - I suspect some celeb with an ounce of credibility and eloquence (they seemed mostly pro-EU) would have been better than a politician or the governor of the BoE.
By the way, I am biased - and I may be underplaying the strong arguments to leave, but the campaign from both sides was an embarrassment to our political leaders. Now, the negotiations are also turning into another embarrassment....
Just my initial thoughts......
Beckham always comes across very well when interviewed, articulate and seemingly well educated, and Izzard's performance on QT was such a memorable event for the remain campaign that I'm surprised neither seemed to have much of an impact on those voters who were undecided on which way to vote.
I thought the Remain campaign were on to a winner having both David and Eddie onside, would you not agree?
Mike
mike9009 said:
I'll be honest, neither of them made an impact with me, but that might be my age (forgetful and/ or not impressed). I was thinking of someone with more 'seniority/ authority/ respect' than a footballer. (not sure who I would pick but 'maybe' a Hislop type personality or a humorous, quick political commentator)
Mike
Sir Bob?Mike
alfie2244 said:
mike9009 said:
I'll be honest, neither of them made an impact with me, but that might be my age (forgetful and/ or not impressed). I was thinking of someone with more 'seniority/ authority/ respect' than a footballer. (not sure who I would pick but 'maybe' a Hislop type personality or a humorous, quick political commentator)
Mike
Sir Bob?Mike
NO!andymadmak said:
Ahh the never ending tactics of the small rump that is the bitter Remainers - sneer, mock, write a mildly insulting caricature of what they hope represents a Brexit voter, exit expressing the lofty view of disinterest - only to return another day to froth and insult.
What I find genuinely amazing is that for this small group, everything is sooooo black and white. I say that the bus is a bit ambiguous, so a rump member posts an entirely different image to show I am being disingenuous! I criticise the use of the wrong amount, I criticise the infamous Farage queue poster, in fact I have criticised any number of things about the Leave campaign. And I am not alone in this. Poster after poster has agreed that not everything was done properly, fairly, honestly or accurately.
But, yea gods, trying to get a rump remainer to even acknowledge
the equally despicable tactics used by Remain, the inaccuracies, the exaggerations, the lies, the smears, and many other things is either dismissed out of hand, or swerved by playing the "whataboutery" card.
Come on guys, taking everything into account, do you not see that Remain played a reasonably strong hand incredibly badly? You had just about all the senior figures in the Government (and most in the other credible political parties) , most of the visual media (not including newspapers), a state sponsored leaflet to every household, 40 years of triumphs, an awful tragedy that was milked by elements on your side, and no end of your own spin and story telling - and yet Remain still came second?
You think it came down to a bus, Farage's poster and Xenophobia?
If you truly believe that then you're in for a shock if there ever were to be a second referendum (I doubt if there will be) because if you go about things in the same way, and rely on your bus outrage being transferred to the rest of the population to secure your majority then you are going to lose and by an even bigger margin.
Nailed it for meWhat I find genuinely amazing is that for this small group, everything is sooooo black and white. I say that the bus is a bit ambiguous, so a rump member posts an entirely different image to show I am being disingenuous! I criticise the use of the wrong amount, I criticise the infamous Farage queue poster, in fact I have criticised any number of things about the Leave campaign. And I am not alone in this. Poster after poster has agreed that not everything was done properly, fairly, honestly or accurately.
But, yea gods, trying to get a rump remainer to even acknowledge
the equally despicable tactics used by Remain, the inaccuracies, the exaggerations, the lies, the smears, and many other things is either dismissed out of hand, or swerved by playing the "whataboutery" card.
Come on guys, taking everything into account, do you not see that Remain played a reasonably strong hand incredibly badly? You had just about all the senior figures in the Government (and most in the other credible political parties) , most of the visual media (not including newspapers), a state sponsored leaflet to every household, 40 years of triumphs, an awful tragedy that was milked by elements on your side, and no end of your own spin and story telling - and yet Remain still came second?
You think it came down to a bus, Farage's poster and Xenophobia?
If you truly believe that then you're in for a shock if there ever were to be a second referendum (I doubt if there will be) because if you go about things in the same way, and rely on your bus outrage being transferred to the rest of the population to secure your majority then you are going to lose and by an even bigger margin.
Less scare tactics. More demonstrable benefits from our last 44yrs, especially the last 25yrs and why continuing on that trajectory is wise.
Openness and honesty with the numbers when painting these rainbows too would have been wise. Disarm the naysayers by acknowledging the difficult in comparisons and being clear on assumptions made.
Some of the general arguments for Leave were very difficult to counter as they're idealogical in nature. But perhaps, for example, committing to no further handing across of power without explicit consultation would have been a good offer - no “constitution is dead so we'll sneak Lisbon through" any more. Or taking a harder interpretation on EU rules as other states do. They were offered sweet FA by the EU which made arguments a lot easier for Leave. So some offer needed to be made.
Openness and honesty with the numbers when painting these rainbows too would have been wise. Disarm the naysayers by acknowledging the difficult in comparisons and being clear on assumptions made.
Some of the general arguments for Leave were very difficult to counter as they're idealogical in nature. But perhaps, for example, committing to no further handing across of power without explicit consultation would have been a good offer - no “constitution is dead so we'll sneak Lisbon through" any more. Or taking a harder interpretation on EU rules as other states do. They were offered sweet FA by the EU which made arguments a lot easier for Leave. So some offer needed to be made.
don'tbesilly said:
mike9009 said:
andymadmak said:
I will give it just one more go (third time lucky!) Would any of our Remain contingent be willing to have a go at answering these questions?
I think the biggest error made was trying to out 'headline' the Leave campaign, making more and more incredulous claims. The whole campaign revolved around soundbites and outlandish statements (from both sides). As such, the remain campaign lost credibility. They tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator. As the 'story' of Brexit unfolds the complexity of leaving, the compromises of leaving are, in my opinion, becoming apparent. The headline grabbing immediate recession, war in Europe etc were cringeworthy.andymadmak said:
1 Leaving aside for a moment the real issues with the Brexit campaign, what in your opinion were the unacceptable elements of the Remain campaign?
2. Assuming that the first Referendum had never happened, but armed with the knowledge of how badly Remains tactics worked first time out (yes, I am asking you to be a Time Lord! ) how do you think the Remain campaign should have been /be organised
(I'm couching the question like that because I don't want your responses to be based on attacking what Brexit did in Ref1, rather I want to gauge how Remain could have gone about things differently in your opinion.)
If anyone on the Remain side could answer those two in a constructive way, I promise that I will also answer them, doing my best to take the position of a Remain voter. (which ironically, I could easily have been right up to the last week of the campaign)2. Assuming that the first Referendum had never happened, but armed with the knowledge of how badly Remains tactics worked first time out (yes, I am asking you to be a Time Lord!
) how do you think the Remain campaign should have been /be organised(I'm couching the question like that because I don't want your responses to be based on attacking what Brexit did in Ref1, rather I want to gauge how Remain could have gone about things differently in your opinion.)
How should it been run?
Difficult one, but more reasons to remain in the EU with firm, factual debate rather than incredulous claims wrapped up for newspaper headlines/ sales. Robustly, debunking the 'Leave Campaigns' claims more thoroughly may help. Unfortunately the Remain campaign also did not have a 'pin-up' campaigner (like Boris, for example). The remain campaigners were seen as staid autocrats - I suspect some celeb with an ounce of credibility and eloquence (they seemed mostly pro-EU) would have been better than a politician or the governor of the BoE.
By the way, I am biased - and I may be underplaying the strong arguments to leave, but the campaign from both sides was an embarrassment to our political leaders. Now, the negotiations are also turning into another embarrassment....
Just my initial thoughts......
Beckham always comes across very well when interviewed, articulate and seemingly well educated, and Izzard's performance on QT was such a memorable event for the remain campaign that I'm surprised neither seemed to have much of an impact on those voters who were undecided on which way to vote.
I thought the Remain campaign were on to a winner having both David and Eddie onside, would you not agree?
I truly feel, and felt at the time, that Cameron was an idiot for going to the EU with assurances for the UK electorate that he'd get significant concessions. We all knew, from previous dealings with the EU, that he wasn't going to get much, if anything, and their response was all too predictable. Even those people who might have usually played safe by voting for 'no change' suddenly realised that we were unable to control even small issues without EU approval.
There was an unbelievable assumption by those in London/SE/metropolitan centres that people would just go along with the recommendations of the government. However, at the same time, many millions of 'ordinary' folk around the country had already decided to vote 'Leave' and nothing was going to change their mind - I'm not even sure that UKIP, Farage, Boris, £350m to NHS etc etc had a significant impact, their mind was made up already.
In my personal view at the time, few people would want to stay in the EU, or be part of an even greater union, or have uncontrolled migration. The fact that as many as 48% voted 'Remain' still amazes me.
There was an unbelievable assumption by those in London/SE/metropolitan centres that people would just go along with the recommendations of the government. However, at the same time, many millions of 'ordinary' folk around the country had already decided to vote 'Leave' and nothing was going to change their mind - I'm not even sure that UKIP, Farage, Boris, £350m to NHS etc etc had a significant impact, their mind was made up already.
In my personal view at the time, few people would want to stay in the EU, or be part of an even greater union, or have uncontrolled migration. The fact that as many as 48% voted 'Remain' still amazes me.
I have to agree with some of the earlier posts. The bile coming from remainers about the influence the bus had is ridiculous. Yes it may have influenced some but how they can ignore the whole remain project fear lies and the statements from Osborne and Cameron is just pro remain bias. I know several friends and colleagues who were on the fence during the referendum. Married with kids and mortgages they decided to trust the project fear BS as they didn't want to risk immediate 'financial Armageddon'. They voted to remain based on fear, simple as. I won't criticise as they made a decision based on their particular situation and what the government told them would happen. Lies.
Another brexiteer chiming in to say its nice to se epeople engaging properly and not having petty little fights.
As someone else has posted remain got it very wrong with their scare tactics. Neither group would have massively influenced my position which was always leave as its the most logical position however the amount of BS being spewed out by all and sundry in the remain camp was extremely annoying.
It was also the sneering condescension from the remainers twoards any and all who were brexiteers or considering voting brexit. In fact i think that was the biggest thing that led to people voting leave. The same condescending sneering attitude the people had got fed up of from the EU and our very own politicians.
From my view being out of the EU is very much the correct position to take as it is a dead man walking so to speak. It is going to collapse its just a question of when and how bad the fallout will be.
As someone else has posted remain got it very wrong with their scare tactics. Neither group would have massively influenced my position which was always leave as its the most logical position however the amount of BS being spewed out by all and sundry in the remain camp was extremely annoying.
It was also the sneering condescension from the remainers twoards any and all who were brexiteers or considering voting brexit. In fact i think that was the biggest thing that led to people voting leave. The same condescending sneering attitude the people had got fed up of from the EU and our very own politicians.
From my view being out of the EU is very much the correct position to take as it is a dead man walking so to speak. It is going to collapse its just a question of when and how bad the fallout will be.
Eddie Strohacker said:
<snip> There is no meeting of minds, no middle ground, only right & wrong, simple really, leavers are in the wrong & history will judge them to be the vandals who burnt down their house because they didn't like the neighbours.
And that is exactly why your own views also ruin the discussion - there is no acceptable reason in your mind for a vote to leave.17.2 Million voters had a different view 100% of them were clearly totally influenced by the bus, the poster, Farage, Boris, Gove, Project Fear (reversed), A land of milk and honey as there cannot be any good reason to leave the EU.
jsf said:
mike9009 said:
How do leavers feel the negotiations are going, especially with respect to the four main points for leaving the EU?.
1. Taking back control of our borders.
2. Spending more money on the NHS (maybe other services or reducing taxes??).
3. Leaving centralised (EU) regulation and their 'undemocratic' governance.
4. Opening more trade with ROW
(Sorry, I may have missed some other reasons to leave)
Is it going how you hoped?
Its going as broadly expected after May screwed up the election and lost the majority required to sideline the remoaner conservatives. We would have been in a better position if Cameron hadn't run away and instead did the right thing for the country. s1. Taking back control of our borders.
2. Spending more money on the NHS (maybe other services or reducing taxes??).
3. Leaving centralised (EU) regulation and their 'undemocratic' governance.
4. Opening more trade with ROW
(Sorry, I may have missed some other reasons to leave)
Is it going how you hoped?
t bag of a man.king insane. If he'd played a more sensible role in the campaign he could have continued to be PM and would have probably done a much better job of negotiation than the current bunch of loons.I'm honestly not sure if Remain could win if we went back in time to the same date and did it again, even with the knowledge of what happened.
The Leave campaign got in early with the "project fear" answer to any negative prediction. It worked brilliantly then and still is.
Remain played in to the hands of the "project fear" line with negative predictions about what would happen if we left (easily spun to "even if it's true, it's the big bad EU punishing us") rather than positive statements about the benefits we've enjoyed for 40 years.
Leave also managed to get themselves established in some circles as a vote for the "status quo" of times gone by, with Remain a vote for big change (joining up to an EU army, Turkish immigrants flooding in etc). The message was that we weren't voting for big change in leaving the EU. We were voting for something we always had.
They were free to make claims about where the £350m could go, knowing they wouldn't be held to account to make it happen. The Remain campaign, lead by the incumbent government, could not as they would be held to account if they won - being destroyed at the next GE if they weren't able to deliver.
Perhaps Cameron and Osbourne coming out so publicly for Remain cost a few votes. It was an easy protest vote against them without risking a Labour government.
By the day of the vote - Leave voters, anecdotally, seemed excited (with emotions ranging from nervous to paranoid in some cases - #usepens) to be going to place their vote. Remain voters were quietly confident, but going to the polling station was more of a chore - "just to make sure". Doubtless, some will have put it off - to their cost.
The Leave campaign got in early with the "project fear" answer to any negative prediction. It worked brilliantly then and still is.
Remain played in to the hands of the "project fear" line with negative predictions about what would happen if we left (easily spun to "even if it's true, it's the big bad EU punishing us") rather than positive statements about the benefits we've enjoyed for 40 years.
Leave also managed to get themselves established in some circles as a vote for the "status quo" of times gone by, with Remain a vote for big change (joining up to an EU army, Turkish immigrants flooding in etc). The message was that we weren't voting for big change in leaving the EU. We were voting for something we always had.
They were free to make claims about where the £350m could go, knowing they wouldn't be held to account to make it happen. The Remain campaign, lead by the incumbent government, could not as they would be held to account if they won - being destroyed at the next GE if they weren't able to deliver.
Perhaps Cameron and Osbourne coming out so publicly for Remain cost a few votes. It was an easy protest vote against them without risking a Labour government.
By the day of the vote - Leave voters, anecdotally, seemed excited (with emotions ranging from nervous to paranoid in some cases - #usepens) to be going to place their vote. Remain voters were quietly confident, but going to the polling station was more of a chore - "just to make sure". Doubtless, some will have put it off - to their cost.
Ghibli said:
The trouble with the remain campaign was that it couldn't offer something that we haven't already got and could only show what the leave campaign will actually get or not get as the case may be.
Who would buy a lottery ticket knowing that the prize would be what they already had.
That is a good point too, which I had missed.....Who would buy a lottery ticket knowing that the prize would be what they already had.
mike9009 said:
Ghibli said:
The trouble with the remain campaign was that it couldn't offer something that we haven't already got and could only show what the leave campaign will actually get or not get as the case may be.
Who would buy a lottery ticket knowing that the prize would be what they already had.
That is a good point too, which I had missed.....Who would buy a lottery ticket knowing that the prize would be what they already had.
k right off 
I'll not mention Eurovision but that can f
k right off too mx5nut said:
(part quote)
The Leave campaign got in early with the "project fear" answer to any negative prediction. It worked brilliantly then and still is.
Remain played in to the hands of the "project fear" line with negative predictions about what would happen if we left (easily spun to "even if it's true, it's the big bad EU punishing us") rather than positive statements about the benefits we've enjoyed for 40 years.
Now I can agree with you on that post (despite being in the Leave camp The Leave campaign got in early with the "project fear" answer to any negative prediction. It worked brilliantly then and still is.
Remain played in to the hands of the "project fear" line with negative predictions about what would happen if we left (easily spun to "even if it's true, it's the big bad EU punishing us") rather than positive statements about the benefits we've enjoyed for 40 years.
) Personally I think the big mistake was that the government came out too heavily on the Remain side and refused to consider anything else which meant they were on the back foot when Leave started to come out with positive promises. And when their campaign didn't strike up the expected support they went into bullying tactics - "vote remain or else....", and trying to convince people by fear rarely works for long. It might work for a 15st thug taking the purse of an OAP, but not your average voter.
If they had been able to demonstrate benefits of retaining membership or how influential the UK was in the EU then it would have swayed the floating vote because "business as usual" is generally seen as the safe option. But they didn't and all Leave had to do was point at the "coke & hookers" bill and how Cameron started off with "no way" and then quietly paid up as examples of the lack of UK influence.
You win over people by being positive and showing them what can be, not threatening them with negativity. Despite the incredible advantage that the Remain campaign started off with the blew it on completely the wrong tactics.
Robertj21a said:
Interesting to see 'The Times' today reporting the comments of the City of London's policy head - 'The financial services industry will suffer far fewer job losses than first feared'.
You do realise he is basically a salesman for the City of London? Anything governments or companies say about job losses or gains is going to be shrouded in ulterior motives.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff