How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 2)
Discussion
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?
Medling by Junker & Co. It wasn't their business. I'd imagine that was a huge boost to leave campaign. An opinion, don't have data to show either way.
andymadmak said:
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! hehe ) 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.)
I'm on record predicting a win for leave campaign three months before the vote. (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.)
There was nothing that Remain campaign could do to counter decades of conditioning by mostly anti-EU press/media. How do you counter Turkey and 70mil muslims are joining EU and are heading for the white cliffs of Dover? Get in first with effective one-liners like 'take back control' and 'project fear', and the masses will just parrot that. What's left for the other side? To say; 'No, you are doing project fear by scarring people s
tless that hordes of undesirables are going to move in next door to them.'? Most effective campaigns were always fought on the basis of persuading population at large that they are under attack. That part doesn't change, only thing that changes is the designated attacker, and it will always trump (!) any positive message. Rudimentary psychology, proven over hundreds of years.
The EU and pro-EU sections of the government shouldn't have sat on their arses for 44yrs allowing the sentiment to build against them.
They should have set out the benefits of their intentions/direction of travel clearly and got buy in (to my mind they should have insisted all states carry out referendums at each treaty change).
They shouldn't have frigged about with their own rules and entry criteria and they should have been significantly more considered about expansionism.
This would inevitably have meant slower "progress" and may have severely curbed some of their greater ideas. But IMO it would have been a better way to grow.
I agree that allowing halfwits like Juncker to comment was stupid. Ditto Blair, Obama and the rest. Was always going to cause more harm than good. Ditto the scare mongering (possibly arrogance thinking people wouldn't understand the subtler realities of life).
But fundamentally there was little to no positive outlook being pushed to even try and counter the Leave arguments. Nothing.
Complacency? Arrogance? Both quite possibly from what we continue to see from some Remain quarters. No clear benefits to shout about? You do have to wonder...
They should have set out the benefits of their intentions/direction of travel clearly and got buy in (to my mind they should have insisted all states carry out referendums at each treaty change).
They shouldn't have frigged about with their own rules and entry criteria and they should have been significantly more considered about expansionism.
This would inevitably have meant slower "progress" and may have severely curbed some of their greater ideas. But IMO it would have been a better way to grow.
I agree that allowing halfwits like Juncker to comment was stupid. Ditto Blair, Obama and the rest. Was always going to cause more harm than good. Ditto the scare mongering (possibly arrogance thinking people wouldn't understand the subtler realities of life).
But fundamentally there was little to no positive outlook being pushed to even try and counter the Leave arguments. Nothing.
Complacency? Arrogance? Both quite possibly from what we continue to see from some Remain quarters. No clear benefits to shout about? You do have to wonder...
Troubleatmill said:
jjlynn27 said:
How do you counter Turkey and 70mil muslims are joining EU and are heading for the white cliffs of Dover?
How about FMOL and the rising number of Eastern Europeans inhabiting EU and UK jails?As for the rising numbers, first google, from fullfacts;
Does it matter if crim is eastern european or local? Is the crim from Norway better than crim from Wales or Sao Tome and Principe?
I read an article a week or two ago (I can't find it again), which made the argument that Cameron got as good a deal as he could have expected from his negotiations with the EU for two reasons.
The first was that the EU was constrained by its treaties, and it couldn't offer the UK something that ran contrary to these.
The second was that the UK was seeking a special status within the EU, and therefore negotiating for its own interests. Cameron might have had more success pushing for universal changes, as other countries would have benefited from them.
Incidentally, the author (who was a senior civil servant or diplomat) reckoned that the exemption of the UK from "ever closer union" bit was a really big deal, as it fundamentally recast the country's relationship with the EU.
The fact that the UK is looking for a special status looks like a continuation of what Cameron was up to. I suspect that it'll prove to be as unsuccessful.
Going back to the Remain campaign, the fact that Cameron wasn't seen as achieving much was an easy criticism for Leave to make. But I think that there was a more subtle point, in that we were being offered a choice of "less EU" or "no EU", so membership was being portrayed as being bad at some level.
The continuing Remain campaign strikes me as fighting the last war. They're still saying it'll be bad, rather than making a positive case for scrapping the result.
As for Dominic Cummings, I read a version of the Spectator article last year. He writes in a particular, academic style, which I find obfuscatory. Some of his comments and arguments seem self-serving, other claims have been called out, and I suspect that he's not as clever as he thinks he is.
The first was that the EU was constrained by its treaties, and it couldn't offer the UK something that ran contrary to these.
The second was that the UK was seeking a special status within the EU, and therefore negotiating for its own interests. Cameron might have had more success pushing for universal changes, as other countries would have benefited from them.
Incidentally, the author (who was a senior civil servant or diplomat) reckoned that the exemption of the UK from "ever closer union" bit was a really big deal, as it fundamentally recast the country's relationship with the EU.
The fact that the UK is looking for a special status looks like a continuation of what Cameron was up to. I suspect that it'll prove to be as unsuccessful.
Going back to the Remain campaign, the fact that Cameron wasn't seen as achieving much was an easy criticism for Leave to make. But I think that there was a more subtle point, in that we were being offered a choice of "less EU" or "no EU", so membership was being portrayed as being bad at some level.
The continuing Remain campaign strikes me as fighting the last war. They're still saying it'll be bad, rather than making a positive case for scrapping the result.
As for Dominic Cummings, I read a version of the Spectator article last year. He writes in a particular, academic style, which I find obfuscatory. Some of his comments and arguments seem self-serving, other claims have been called out, and I suspect that he's not as clever as he thinks he is.
Graemsay said:
..
<sensible post>
..
As for Dominic Cummings, I read a version of the Spectator article last year. He writes in a particular, academic style, which I find obfuscatory. Some of his comments and arguments seem self-serving, other claims have been called out, and I suspect that he's not as clever as he thinks he is.
The article that I linked to, was not intended as a link to an unbiased, factual representation of the campaign. It was a view from the vantage point of director of vote leave (or whatever his particular group was called). He is, intentionally and understandably, underplaying influence of Farage and UKIP, I would imagine that was clear to everyone reading the article. From what I've heard from people who personally know him, is that he is quite clever, but also quite arrogant. What I've read, both from him and about him doesn't contradict that. <sensible post>
..
As for Dominic Cummings, I read a version of the Spectator article last year. He writes in a particular, academic style, which I find obfuscatory. Some of his comments and arguments seem self-serving, other claims have been called out, and I suspect that he's not as clever as he thinks he is.
jjlynn27 said:
Troubleatmill said:
jjlynn27 said:
How do you counter Turkey and 70mil muslims are joining EU and are heading for the white cliffs of Dover?
How about FMOL and the rising number of Eastern Europeans inhabiting EU and UK jails?As for the rising numbers, first google, from fullfacts;
Does it matter if crim is eastern european or local? Is the crim from Norway better than crim from Wales or Sao Tome and Principe?
jjlynn27 said:
Why would you want to counter free movement of labour? I think that competition is good, don't you?
As for the rising numbers, first google, from fullfacts;
Does it matter if crim is eastern european or local? Is the crim from Norway better than crim from Wales or Sao Tome and Principe?
Yes.As for the rising numbers, first google, from fullfacts;
Does it matter if crim is eastern european or local? Is the crim from Norway better than crim from Wales or Sao Tome and Principe?
If they hadn't been let in the first place the crime wouldn't have happened.
jjlynn27 said:
What's left for the other side? To say; 'No, you are doing project fear by scarring people stless that hordes of undesirables are going to move in next door to them.'?
Hmm. Of course, when the Remain side mentioned Turkey and membership endless TV stations playing back speeches by Cameron praising the virtues of Turkish membership and talking about accelerating a road to membership might have somewhat blunted any message....tless that hordes of undesirables are going to move in next door to them.'? Sometimes I think politicians have forgotten the VCR was invented decades ago and anything they say might come back to haunt them if they suddenly say the opposite...
PurpleMoonlight said:
B'stard Child said:
Ahh but most of the pre referendum polls were wrong - you know it I know it 
What happens if you take the result (unexpected for some) and back model the prior polling to see what the trend really was......
You get this
Sounds like hindsight cheating to me.What happens if you take the result (unexpected for some) and back model the prior polling to see what the trend really was......
You get this
jjlynn27 said:
Why would you want to counter free movement of labour? I think that competition is good, don't you?
As for the rising numbers, first google, from fullfacts;
Does it matter if crim is eastern european or local? Is the crim from Norway better than crim from Wales or Sao Tome and Principe?
That chart doesn't counter what he said. As for the rising numbers, first google, from fullfacts;
Does it matter if crim is eastern european or local? Is the crim from Norway better than crim from Wales or Sao Tome and Principe?
No crims are desirable. Foreign ones are less desirable as they didn't need to be here in the first place. Sadly we have no choice but to accept the local ones.
jjlynn27 said:
The article that I linked to, was not intended as a link to an unbiased, factual representation of the campaign. It was a view from the vantage point of director of vote leave (or whatever his particular group was called). He is, intentionally and understandably, underplaying influence of Farage and UKIP, I would imagine that was clear to everyone reading the article. From what I've heard from people who personally know him, is that he is quite clever, but also quite arrogant. What I've read, both from him and about him doesn't contradict that.
I came across a group of postmodern / Continental philosophers at university who wrote like Cummings does, and I got the impression that they were using jargon and mathematical or scientific terms (often incorrectly) to make their arguments more obtuse, but also sound more impressive. I'm probably lumping him in with that in a straightforward ad hominem attack.He'd probably reply that I'm another example of someone with too much education being biased. :P
I'd agree that he's underplaying some of the other influences that Leave benefited from, in particular a virulently Eurosceptic press, and there's an argument that Corbyn sabotaged Labour's campaign.
He does seem to be getting confused about data analytics (which appears to have been outsourced to AggregateIQ), and the VICS program (which was a voter database, with no data science in it).
In fact, I'd love to hear the full story of what was going on with AggregateIQ and the alleged collusion between the various Leave groups in funneling money to them.
That said, Cummings is right in saying that Leave had a better, simpler message.
Graemsay said:
He does seem to be getting confused about data analytics (which appears to have been outsourced to AggregateIQ), and the VICS program (which was a voter database, with no data science in it).
i thought he cleared that up at the end of the article ? article said " On data science, digital marketing, canvassing software made available for download. (NB. There has been some confusion about this blog. The VICS system is a web-based canvassing tool, the first proper one that works in the UK – it was one component of our overall data science approach and should not be equated with it. It is not a data science tool – it provided data to the data science team.)"
Murph7355 said:
The EU and pro-EU sections of the government shouldn't have sat on their arses for 44yrs allowing the sentiment to build against them.
They should have set out the benefits of their intentions/direction of travel clearly and got buy in (to my mind they should have insisted all states carry out referendums at each treaty change).
They shouldn't have frigged about with their own rules and entry criteria and they should have been significantly more considered about expansionism.
This would inevitably have meant slower "progress" and may have severely curbed some of their greater ideas. But IMO it would have been a better way to grow.
I agree that allowing halfwits like Juncker to comment was stupid. Ditto Blair, Obama and the rest. Was always going to cause more harm than good. Ditto the scare mongering (possibly arrogance thinking people wouldn't understand the subtler realities of life).
But fundamentally there was little to no positive outlook being pushed to even try and counter the Leave arguments. Nothing.
Complacency? Arrogance? Both quite possibly from what we continue to see from some Remain quarters. No clear benefits to shout about? You do have to wonder...
politicians of all persuasions in the western world need to realise their populations moved on long ago. they need to get back to the basics of public service . endless pontificating about various things like ideological constructs very few give a flying fThey should have set out the benefits of their intentions/direction of travel clearly and got buy in (to my mind they should have insisted all states carry out referendums at each treaty change).
They shouldn't have frigged about with their own rules and entry criteria and they should have been significantly more considered about expansionism.
This would inevitably have meant slower "progress" and may have severely curbed some of their greater ideas. But IMO it would have been a better way to grow.
I agree that allowing halfwits like Juncker to comment was stupid. Ditto Blair, Obama and the rest. Was always going to cause more harm than good. Ditto the scare mongering (possibly arrogance thinking people wouldn't understand the subtler realities of life).
But fundamentally there was little to no positive outlook being pushed to even try and counter the Leave arguments. Nothing.
Complacency? Arrogance? Both quite possibly from what we continue to see from some Remain quarters. No clear benefits to shout about? You do have to wonder...
k about while feathering their own nests is about all most people see. the only people that don't see it are those that mix in those circles (as evidenced by one particular contributor to these threads) . i doubt there has ever been a time when as a group they were held in such low regard.i mean ffs, look at the endless photo shoots in and around various eu meetings/global summits. the daft f
ks really are so conceited they think people regard them as celebrities and wish to see their pictures.they are beyond delusional. politics now appears to me to be as relevant to the general public as the hollywood set. completely detached from the reality of the majority and almost as irrelevant .for me the current political system is near the end of its natural useful lifespan. it will be interesting to see what comes next .
b2hbm said:
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.
Its worth watching this again, Cameron on the EU coke and hookers bill.It wasn't just the number that pissed people off, it was the attitude of the EU commissioners, Cameron doesn't hold back on that.
https://youtu.be/o-kk18AbdeI?t=3m27s
Followed by this
https://youtu.be/Xj9NTcLlyQg
Followed by this
https://youtu.be/woMGJwLNFxM
Makes the whole shebang look like a racket.
Then you have Cameron saying he negotiated a stop on migrant worker benefits, only for Barosso to go on newsnight to say it wont make any difference to the number of migrants that will come to the UK. So another scam. He also dismisses the issue of the 1 million new migrants to Germany soon having the right to come to the UK.
https://youtu.be/299zIEm8Q64
There was zero trust in the UK having a voice that would change the EU in a way that leavers would see as addressing their concerns.
confused_buyer said:
jjlynn27 said:
What's left for the other side? To say; 'No, you are doing project fear by scarring people stless that hordes of undesirables are going to move in next door to them.'?
Hmm. Of course, when the Remain side mentioned Turkey and membership endless TV stations playing back speeches by Cameron praising the virtues of Turkish membership and talking about accelerating a road to membership might have somewhat blunted any message....tless that hordes of undesirables are going to move in next door to them.'? 
confused_buyer said:
Sometimes I think politicians have forgotten the VCR was invented decades ago and anything they say might come back to haunt them if they suddenly say the opposite...
Either that, or Cameroon was dangling carrot to persuade Turkey to do whatever was of a concern at the time, knowing full well that it'll never happen. Diplomacy or outright lie?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff