How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
Tuna said:
Gloria Slap said:
That's a great example of you taking a technicality and using it to rubbish a reasoned, fact based argument.
Well done.
Unfortunately for you it doesn't prove him wrong about the swiss having poor growth whilst outside the SM and being one of the drivers for them joining. The graph linked shows this quite clearly, but if you want to bury your head in the sand crack on.
The point was you couldn't even concede one basic fact. I wasn't saying a thing about the other stuff he went on to say - just pointing out that you steam roller over anything that doesn't suit your agenda. Doesn't matter if it's wrong, let's just ignore that and carry on.Well done.
Unfortunately for you it doesn't prove him wrong about the swiss having poor growth whilst outside the SM and being one of the drivers for them joining. The graph linked shows this quite clearly, but if you want to bury your head in the sand crack on.
From the conversations on here last week, you've made it clear you would burn this place to the ground before accepting Brexit. Your sources for information are a white van man on the James OBrian show, and a bloke on the internet who doesn't like Brexit. Who do you think you are convincing?
I wouldn't mind if you had anything useful to say about the negotiations, but instead it's the relentless need to prove Brexit wrong, and anyone who doesn't share that viewpoint is a 'Brexiteer' who has to be shouted down. What about those of us who recognise the difficulties of the current situation and actually want to move forward rather than re-fighting the Referendum?
he is in the pay of the EU , our very own lord Haw Haw ...
powerstroke said:
Just like one of those old blokes who had a sandwich board with repent sinners etc on it and were constantly loitering round some dreary town ,must be a joy to work and live with!! mind me thinks
he is in the pay of the EU , our very own lord Haw Haw ...
Leave him be.he is in the pay of the EU , our very own lord Haw Haw ...
He's like Blair, the more he opens his mouth, the more you just know that Leaving is the right thing to do
Tuna said:
The point was you couldn't even concede one basic fact. I wasn't saying a thing about the other stuff he went on to say - just pointing out that you steam roller over anything that doesn't suit your agenda. Doesn't matter if it's wrong, let's just ignore that and carry on.
From the conversations on here last week, you've made it clear you would burn this place to the ground before accepting Brexit. Your sources for information are a white van man on the James OBrian show, and a bloke on the internet who doesn't like Brexit. Who do you think you are convincing?
I wouldn't mind if you had anything useful to say about the negotiations, but instead it's the relentless need to prove Brexit wrong, and anyone who doesn't share that viewpoint is a 'Brexiteer' who has to be shouted down. What about those of us who recognise the difficulties of the current situation and actually want to move forward rather than re-fighting the Referendum?
When someone said “was switzerland in a recession”, I immediately conceded “technically not”, but the graph shows his basic message that the swiss had poor economic growth is true. From the conversations on here last week, you've made it clear you would burn this place to the ground before accepting Brexit. Your sources for information are a white van man on the James OBrian show, and a bloke on the internet who doesn't like Brexit. Who do you think you are convincing?
I wouldn't mind if you had anything useful to say about the negotiations, but instead it's the relentless need to prove Brexit wrong, and anyone who doesn't share that viewpoint is a 'Brexiteer' who has to be shouted down. What about those of us who recognise the difficulties of the current situation and actually want to move forward rather than re-fighting the Referendum?
This is one of the issues with the internet and how information is used - a single fault is used to rubbish a whole argument. A step back is needed to look at the whole story and see if it still has validity. It is a common trait - same as for including EU business costs in £20Bn - yes that could be confusing if the listener is just expecting to understand the UK cost but it is still relevant to the impact on our economy.
As for the £20Bn for the NHS and claiming a brexit dividend. Its another test of the Nation’s critical thinking skills and it is a sad reflection on the Nation that May thinks loads of her voter base will fail it/fall for it. They even mumbled about tax increases but that will get lost in the noise.
TAM - another empty post saying nothing but moaning. This is why your posts just get ignored. My posts express an opinion about part of brexit, many disagree or can’t see my points, or chose to skirt over them for other reasons. But at least they are on topic, whereas the vast majority of your contributions are literally pointless.
Edited by Gloria Slap on Sunday 17th June 09:54
Gloria Slap said:
Tuna said:
Gloria Slap said:
TonyToniTone said:
Is that Swiss bloke telling the truth when he states they had a 10 year recession in the 90's?
Perhaps not technically a recession,... but the Swiss were a bit stagnant in the 90s. Well done.
Unfortunately for you it doesn't prove him wrong about the swiss having poor growth whilst outside the SM and being one of the drivers for them joining. The graph linked shows this quite clearly, but if you want to bury your head in the sand crack on.
Deptford Draylons said:
Gloria Slap said:
Tuna said:
Gloria Slap said:
TonyToniTone said:
Is that Swiss bloke telling the truth when he states they had a 10 year recession in the 90's?
Perhaps not technically a recession,... but the Swiss were a bit stagnant in the 90s. Well done.
Unfortunately for you it doesn't prove him wrong about the swiss having poor growth whilst outside the SM and being one of the drivers for them joining. The graph linked shows this quite clearly, but if you want to bury your head in the sand crack on.
Gloria Slap said:
This is one of the issues with the internet and how information is used - a single fault is used to rubbish a whole argument. A step back is needed to look at the whole story and see if it still has validity. It is a common trait - same as for including EU business costs in £20Bn - yes that could be confusing if the listener is just expecting to understand the UK cost but it is still relevant to the impact on our economy.
No, that's been rubbished on all of the three constituent parts. Bear in mind that the rubbishing of the first £6.5bn (in that the bottom up approach is horribly misleading) also rubbishes the second £6.5bn for the same reason. Jon Thompson admits that the £7bn rules of origin cost was made up. Edited by Gloria Slap on Sunday 17th June 09:54
Gloria Slap said:
As for the £20Bn for the NHS and claiming a brexit dividend. Its another test of the Nation’s critical thinking skills and it is a sad reflection on the Nation that May thinks loads of her voter base will fail it/fall for it. They even mumbled about tax increases but that will get lost in the noise.
You mean the same critical thinking skills that had Remainers on Question Time this week stating (again) that the EU gives Wales 5 billion a year? Could you describe that as 'buying votes' when it's our own money?davepoth said:
Gloria Slap said:
This is one of the issues with the internet and how information is used - a single fault is used to rubbish a whole argument. A step back is needed to look at the whole story and see if it still has validity. It is a common trait - same as for including EU business costs in £20Bn - yes that could be confusing if the listener is just expecting to understand the UK cost but it is still relevant to the impact on our economy.
No, that's been rubbished on all of the three constituent parts. Bear in mind that the rubbishing of the first £6.5bn (in that the bottom up approach is horribly misleading) also rubbishes the second £6.5bn for the same reason. Jon Thompson admits that the £7bn rules of origin cost was made up. Edited by Gloria Slap on Sunday 17th June 09:54
Still disappointed that the extremists flatly deny, ignore and rule out the EFTA/ EEA option, but one can but hope. Although it's equally amusing to see some Remainers having shouted it down preRef now arguing for something like it. Some of us have been consistent throughout.
On the other hand I see nothing wrong with Troubleatmill popping in at monthly intervals to see if anything new, noting same old same old, and signing out again. Many of us on both sides been in that mode for months now.
Regardless I do think, whatever the outcome things will change significantly in UK politics, e.g. HoL for one. But setting the machinations of the upper house aside, changes generally are needed urgently.
FiF said:
Must admit the irony meter went full scale deflection on the single fault used to rubbish a whole argument observation. Valid for all sides that one.
Still disappointed that the extremists flatly deny, ignore and rule out the EFTA/ EEA option, but one can but hope. Although it's equally amusing to see some Remainers having shouted it down preRef now arguing for something like it. Some of us have been consistent throughout.
My position on EFTA/EEA has changed since the referendum as a result of the discussions around FoM. I have to say that immigration was not one of my reasons for voting to leave.Still disappointed that the extremists flatly deny, ignore and rule out the EFTA/ EEA option, but one can but hope. Although it's equally amusing to see some Remainers having shouted it down preRef now arguing for something like it. Some of us have been consistent throughout.
The big problem is that control of immigration is important to a lot of people who voted to leave, and full EFTA/EEA membership would require freedom of movement to be exactly as it is now. I don't think there's any way that retaining it would wash in the country. It's also more or less the only red line of TM that hasn't gone a bit pink. Everything has been driven by the understanding that migration has to be controlled, and if you look at it that way the government's positioning and actions do follow a vaguely logical pattern.
If there was a way in which the EU could have seen fit to offer EFTA/EEA except FoM (Gloria will know what I'm talking about here...) then it would have been something that a majority in the country would have got on board with, and we would probably have an agreement by now.
Unfortunately that was very quickly off the table, so we have to look at what other arrangements will allow us to control migration. That's why the Customs Union has become so "popular" since it pulls the UK closer to the EU (in arguably undesirable ways) but doesn't speak to migration - it's an easier point to argue.
Like you, I think EEA/EFTA could be a likely compromise.
The interesting new addition to the mix is the conflict over immigration in the EU. Whilst it doesn’t deal with internal migration, the issues over concentrations of immigrants causing pressures on services and cohesion are the same.
Could the EU yet realise that quotas to avoid the brain drain in some countries and population explosions in others would be sensible? Probably not, which is a shame.
loafer123 said:
Like you, I think EEA/EFTA could be a likely compromise.
The interesting new addition to the mix is the conflict over immigration in the EU. Whilst it doesn’t deal with internal migration, the issues over concentrations of immigrants causing pressures on services and cohesion are the same.
Could the EU yet realise that quotas to avoid the brain drain in some countries and population explosions in others would be sensible? Probably not, which is a shame.
Ah, I've confused things there a bit. I'm pretty sure we won't go to EEA/EFTA, not least for face saving purposes on both sides. It's not even as if the PM has suddenly latched onto immigration recently - it's been "her thing" since the day she started in the Home Office, and I really think she'll hold firm on it, precluding any membership of the Single Market if the EU don't give ground (which is not very likely, all things considered)The interesting new addition to the mix is the conflict over immigration in the EU. Whilst it doesn’t deal with internal migration, the issues over concentrations of immigrants causing pressures on services and cohesion are the same.
Could the EU yet realise that quotas to avoid the brain drain in some countries and population explosions in others would be sensible? Probably not, which is a shame.
We're in a situation where the EU has effectively given us two ways to go - full EEA and CU membership, or WTO rules and negotiate a Canada style FTA later on. IMO it's pretty likely that the Commons will reject whatever deal comes back (if a deal comes back), which would then mean we're on for no deal at all. Without significant concessions from somewhere I now see that as increasingly likely.
davepoth said:
...
Unfortunately that was very quickly off the table, so we have to look at what other arrangements will allow us to control migration. That's why the Customs Union has become so "popular" since it pulls the UK closer to the EU (in arguably undesirable ways) but doesn't speak to migration - it's an easier point to argue.
A CU means no UK solo trade deals. That will also not wash with the majority IMO. Unfortunately that was very quickly off the table, so we have to look at what other arrangements will allow us to control migration. That's why the Customs Union has become so "popular" since it pulls the UK closer to the EU (in arguably undesirable ways) but doesn't speak to migration - it's an easier point to argue.
The media may have focused on migration (fits the "racist" mantra), but trade is there. If the government fails to secure the ability to do its own trade deals, watch that being front and centre at the next GE for opposing parties.
The SM/CU are incompatible with the primary reasons people who voted Leave voted that way. So it needs to be a trade deal that acknowledges the starting positions of the two counterparties.
Murph7355 said:
davepoth said:
...
Unfortunately that was very quickly off the table, so we have to look at what other arrangements will allow us to control migration. That's why the Customs Union has become so "popular" since it pulls the UK closer to the EU (in arguably undesirable ways) but doesn't speak to migration - it's an easier point to argue.
A CU means no UK solo trade deals. That will also not wash with the majority IMO. Unfortunately that was very quickly off the table, so we have to look at what other arrangements will allow us to control migration. That's why the Customs Union has become so "popular" since it pulls the UK closer to the EU (in arguably undesirable ways) but doesn't speak to migration - it's an easier point to argue.
The media may have focused on migration (fits the "racist" mantra), but trade is there. If the government fails to secure the ability to do its own trade deals, watch that being front and centre at the next GE for opposing parties.
The SM/CU are incompatible with the primary reasons people who voted Leave voted that way. So it needs to be a trade deal that acknowledges the starting positions of the two counterparties.
I can see why hardcore remainers are clinging on to the customs union though - the immediate "benefits" of it are opaque enough that when the conversation starts the majority of people zone out, understandably so since tariffs and supply chains are dull - and I work in them!
However, if you work on the assumption that in five or ten years time a pro-EU parliament has a referendum about rejoining the EU (even on awful terms) then membership of the customs union will speed up that accession process substantially. That's why it's being floated at every opportunity IMO.
davepoth said:
Precisely where I am at this point, summed up much better than I have ever managed.
I can see why hardcore remainers are clinging on to the customs union though - the immediate "benefits" of it are opaque enough that when the conversation starts the majority of people zone out, understandably so since tariffs and supply chains are dull - and I work in them!
However, if you work on the assumption that in five or ten years time a pro-EU parliament has a referendum about rejoining the EU (even on awful terms) then membership of the customs union will speed up that accession process substantially. That's why it's being floated at every opportunity IMO.
I suspect it's the continued desire not to leave at all...you win the CU argument, the SM argument follows....etc etc. Chip chip. But time is running out.I can see why hardcore remainers are clinging on to the customs union though - the immediate "benefits" of it are opaque enough that when the conversation starts the majority of people zone out, understandably so since tariffs and supply chains are dull - and I work in them!
However, if you work on the assumption that in five or ten years time a pro-EU parliament has a referendum about rejoining the EU (even on awful terms) then membership of the customs union will speed up that accession process substantially. That's why it's being floated at every opportunity IMO.
Assuming we actually do leave fully (and I still see that as the more likely outcome - anything other now would be ruinous for this country IMO), so no reversal shenanigans during transition nor extended transition, I do not see the EU allowing us to rejoin without joining the Euro and, in all likelihood, Schengen etc. There is no way that will ever pass any sort of muster in this country. None.
I think those who favour the EU know this. Hence the desperation to prevent us leaving.
Murph7355 said:
I suspect it's the continued desire not to leave at all...you win the CU argument, the SM argument follows....etc etc. Chip chip. But time is running out.
Assuming we actually do leave fully (and I still see that as the more likely outcome - anything other now would be ruinous for this country IMO), so no reversal shenanigans during transition nor extended transition, I do not see the EU allowing us to rejoin without joining the Euro and, in all likelihood, Schengen etc. There is no way that will ever pass any sort of muster in this country. None.
I think those who favour the EU know this. Hence the desperation to prevent us leaving.
It's going to be interesting to look back at this time in history a few decades hence. Normally history is written by the winners, but in this situation, unpicking the polarisation and isolation of various cliques, and putting their arguments in context of the eventual outcome will be...Assuming we actually do leave fully (and I still see that as the more likely outcome - anything other now would be ruinous for this country IMO), so no reversal shenanigans during transition nor extended transition, I do not see the EU allowing us to rejoin without joining the Euro and, in all likelihood, Schengen etc. There is no way that will ever pass any sort of muster in this country. None.
I think those who favour the EU know this. Hence the desperation to prevent us leaving.
.. actually, it'll probably be deadly dull. One side called it right... the others complained.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff