How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
Zod said:
I’m sorry, but without an understanding of the relationship and the implications of changing it, there is no question of its being appropriate to put a question of the electorate.
Says who? For some people, those things don't rate in relation to the principle. Some clearly saw it as a question of freedom versus serfdom for example, in which case your concern is largely irrelevant - the cost was always going to be worth it. Others saw it as a choice between free trade and protection, probably ditto. Some might have seen other issues.
Who are you to say they were wrong?
Zod said:
I’m sorry, but without an understanding of the relationship and the implications of changing it, there is no question of its being appropriate to put a question of the electorate.
But basically you are saying we could never leave ? One has to ask who and why did we end up in this position, it's not just a gym membership, it sounds like a cult membership to me.PRTVR said:
Zod said:
I’m sorry, but without an understanding of the relationship and the implications of changing it, there is no question of its being appropriate to put a question of the electorate.
But basically you are saying we could never leave ? One has to ask who and why did we end up in this position, it's not just a gym membership, it sounds like a cult membership to me.It's not likely, not even remotely likely. Let Remainers dream - it's all they've got.
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 28th July 22:38
psi310398 said:
Says who?
For some people, those things don't rate in relation to the principle. Some clearly saw it as a question of freedom versus serfdom for example, in which case your concern is largely irrelevant - the cost was always going to be worth it. Others saw it as a choice between free trade and protection, probably ditto. Some might have seen other issues.
Who are you to say they were wrong?
A sane person.For some people, those things don't rate in relation to the principle. Some clearly saw it as a question of freedom versus serfdom for example, in which case your concern is largely irrelevant - the cost was always going to be worth it. Others saw it as a choice between free trade and protection, probably ditto. Some might have seen other issues.
Who are you to say they were wrong?
Some things are priceless. A slightly different degree of economic and regulatory integration is not one of those things.
If the public thought leaving the EU would cost each of us even £100 per year, Remain would have won with a landslide.
People don’t and cannot take into account what they don’t know or understand.
Zod said:
crankedup said:
Yes I second that, cuts through all the bullsh*te.
No, it’s obviously heartfelt and thought through, but it’s wrong. The question was about whether to discard an arrangement that was over forty years old and reached into every aspect of our economy and nobody fully understood the outcome, whether expert or ordinary voter. Two (or more years) for pro, anti- and neutral experts to evaluate the effects of leaving and present them to the electorate would have been a good idea as a preliminary step before calling the referendum, Cameron’s manifesto almost gave enough time for that.
ORD said:
A sane person.
Some things are priceless. A slightly different degree of economic and regulatory integration is not one of those things.
If the public thought leaving the EU would cost each of us even £100 per year, Remain would have won with a landslide.
People don’t and cannot take into account what they don’t know or understand.
Neither can you, it seems.Some things are priceless. A slightly different degree of economic and regulatory integration is not one of those things.
If the public thought leaving the EU would cost each of us even £100 per year, Remain would have won with a landslide.
People don’t and cannot take into account what they don’t know or understand.
avinalarf said:
janesmith1950 said:
There are some bold assumptions in your post that perhaps deserve some critique.
The question of our EU membership has been rumbling on for a number of years. The rise of UKIP as effectively a single issue party and, importantly, their inroads against BOTH sides of The House, illustrated that it was becoming an issue at the forefront of the electorate's mind.
If no referendum were held, it was more likely than not the next GE would be fought with EU membership at the heart of it. Neither Labour nor Tory parties are internally aligned enough to have had a clear mandate to run on a promise of in or out. This would have left the electorate having to vote UKIP to demonstrate their desire to leave the EU. A GE is not the correct forum for that decision, as the vote for UKIP would have involved consideration of many other elements- predominantly, are they fit to govern on ALL issues, rather than just one?
In short, it would have meant that a large proportion of people who would choose to leave the EU, would not vote for the only party offering it overtly, as they would not want UKIP to govern on a daily basis. Single issue parties don't tend to win elections, they influence by partaking in the debate.
Which takes us to a referendum. 'Direct Democracy' may not be desirable, however this is a decision with great ramifications. As we've already pointed out, a GE was not able to be used to ask that same question and achieve a decisive result. A government in power who had not won an election on a specific mandate to remain or leave could not assume sufficient authority to answer on the country's behalf. The closeness of the referendum result when it did happen, illustrates this point. A referendum wasn't only a valid choice, it was the ONLY valid choice in the circumstances.
Your second and third points are interconnected and I think are illustrative of a lack of understanding. The choice was not a detailed one to ask about shades of grey within an already agreed outcome. It was a principled one; do we want to be in or out of the EU?
It is a purposefully simple choice, that does not require the public to understand the infinite variaties of middle ground. A referendum should give a clear result and mandate to the winning side. The only way to achieve that is for the voters to be given the opposite sides of the spectrum.
As the 'leave' choice did not pose any further question on the severity, those ticking that box logically had to accept any method of leaving, up to the hardest brexit possible. Equally, those voting to stay would have to accept, at the very least, the status quo would continue and at its highest, we may integrate more heavily with the EU.
In other words, those ticking one option or the other would have to be sure and committed to wanting to leave absolutely or stay and continue within the EU. People who voted one way or the other would have little confusion over the choice or room to introduce conditional ifs or buts.
Whilst the result was close, the answerer given by the electorate was clear and unambiguous; the country wants to leave the EU. This gives the government a strong mandate and, further, an explicit instruction, to leave the EU.
This leaves us with your point 2. Your choice of language is interesting. By claiming the electorate lacked the knowledge AND understanding, the inference to be drawn is that, the topic is too sophisticated for the electorate to give an educated answer. There are a myriad of equally if not more complex issues at stake every time we have an election. Individuals typically have very limited understanding of economic and foreign policy mechanisms, the NHS, Policing and justice and so on, yet we do not question the electorates right to choose a government on the above policies via a general election. Why should the public have a choice of government in a GE, a far more complex decision than in/out of the EU, with much further reaching consequences, yet it is ill equipped to give an opinion on our membership of the EU?
In any case, it's a moot point, as we've already discussed above, the question was a principled, rather than detailed one. People can form an opnion on a principle without having to have a detailed construct of every permutation and possible result stemming from that it.
For me, the biggest failing in this sorry affair has been a government as equally split on the matter as the electorate, with a weak leader, who have dallied as a result. This has left us without a clear plan of action or confidence.
It is not the electorate who are short of knowledge or capacity to understand that has caused this problem, it is a government without direction or strength of convictions.
Excellent post.The question of our EU membership has been rumbling on for a number of years. The rise of UKIP as effectively a single issue party and, importantly, their inroads against BOTH sides of The House, illustrated that it was becoming an issue at the forefront of the electorate's mind.
If no referendum were held, it was more likely than not the next GE would be fought with EU membership at the heart of it. Neither Labour nor Tory parties are internally aligned enough to have had a clear mandate to run on a promise of in or out. This would have left the electorate having to vote UKIP to demonstrate their desire to leave the EU. A GE is not the correct forum for that decision, as the vote for UKIP would have involved consideration of many other elements- predominantly, are they fit to govern on ALL issues, rather than just one?
In short, it would have meant that a large proportion of people who would choose to leave the EU, would not vote for the only party offering it overtly, as they would not want UKIP to govern on a daily basis. Single issue parties don't tend to win elections, they influence by partaking in the debate.
Which takes us to a referendum. 'Direct Democracy' may not be desirable, however this is a decision with great ramifications. As we've already pointed out, a GE was not able to be used to ask that same question and achieve a decisive result. A government in power who had not won an election on a specific mandate to remain or leave could not assume sufficient authority to answer on the country's behalf. The closeness of the referendum result when it did happen, illustrates this point. A referendum wasn't only a valid choice, it was the ONLY valid choice in the circumstances.
Your second and third points are interconnected and I think are illustrative of a lack of understanding. The choice was not a detailed one to ask about shades of grey within an already agreed outcome. It was a principled one; do we want to be in or out of the EU?
It is a purposefully simple choice, that does not require the public to understand the infinite variaties of middle ground. A referendum should give a clear result and mandate to the winning side. The only way to achieve that is for the voters to be given the opposite sides of the spectrum.
As the 'leave' choice did not pose any further question on the severity, those ticking that box logically had to accept any method of leaving, up to the hardest brexit possible. Equally, those voting to stay would have to accept, at the very least, the status quo would continue and at its highest, we may integrate more heavily with the EU.
In other words, those ticking one option or the other would have to be sure and committed to wanting to leave absolutely or stay and continue within the EU. People who voted one way or the other would have little confusion over the choice or room to introduce conditional ifs or buts.
Whilst the result was close, the answerer given by the electorate was clear and unambiguous; the country wants to leave the EU. This gives the government a strong mandate and, further, an explicit instruction, to leave the EU.
This leaves us with your point 2. Your choice of language is interesting. By claiming the electorate lacked the knowledge AND understanding, the inference to be drawn is that, the topic is too sophisticated for the electorate to give an educated answer. There are a myriad of equally if not more complex issues at stake every time we have an election. Individuals typically have very limited understanding of economic and foreign policy mechanisms, the NHS, Policing and justice and so on, yet we do not question the electorates right to choose a government on the above policies via a general election. Why should the public have a choice of government in a GE, a far more complex decision than in/out of the EU, with much further reaching consequences, yet it is ill equipped to give an opinion on our membership of the EU?
In any case, it's a moot point, as we've already discussed above, the question was a principled, rather than detailed one. People can form an opnion on a principle without having to have a detailed construct of every permutation and possible result stemming from that it.
For me, the biggest failing in this sorry affair has been a government as equally split on the matter as the electorate, with a weak leader, who have dallied as a result. This has left us without a clear plan of action or confidence.
It is not the electorate who are short of knowledge or capacity to understand that has caused this problem, it is a government without direction or strength of convictions.
janesmith1950 said:
Not sure I agree, for reasons I'll explain in a second, however before I do that, I should declare my position. I voted to leave. I did it not because I thought it imperative that we do. I would have accepted and remained positive whatever the outcome of the vote. I happen to believe as a nation, we are risilient, resourceful and innovative. Whatever the structure we're in, we will make the best of it. Whether I'm right or wrong in reality, I believe the EU feels it needs us more than we feel we need it. To me, we hold the balance of power.
The reason I disagree with you, is that the question, as I saw it, was about the principal of our relationship with the EU rather than the detail. Do we, as a nation, feel more comfortable as part of the EU club, accepting we're part of the team, that we may have to give to get and that the benefit of the reward outweighs the negative of losing some control?
In some ways, almost like an abusive marriage. We might lose the fancy house and the posh meals out, but we also get control of our life back and don't dread every difficult conversation. If we end up with less cash than before, that's fine if we enjoy our life more.
I'm not saying this is how I myself feel about Europe, however anyone who's had a beer or two at the bar with a cross section of the public would likely see that it's not the detail or the financials that drive the thoughts, rather it's the principles.
I don't know for a fact, but I can have an educated guess l, that the profile of those who voted leave will be broadly different from those who voted remain. I'd imagine the former are generally, though not exclusively, blue collar and the latter white collar. Generalising, I realise, however I'd then go on to suggest the former group have less asset, less to lose, more to grumble about, in their minds, than those in the latter.
It's logical that those in the blue group would be less concerned by a leave result and would see themselves as seeing a potential gain. Those with something to lose, the white collars, faced with uncertainty are less motivated for change and why would a turkey vote for a potential Christmas?
In either case, distilling the thing down over 2 years to 'educate the people' would have been futile. Why would the two main parties, who have been unable to gain traction armed with a positive vote from the public, be any more effective at informing or winning hearts and minds without one? The Tories and Labour would still be split, the argument would still be muddled and muddied. The public would be no further forward. The feeling and decision would still be based in the principle.
Back to what I said at the beginning- whichever way the vote had gone, I would have been content with it. For me, the electorate needed to be given the choice, the timing was right, the planning was bad and the execution has been atrocious. Despite all of that, the principle, for me, is that if you ask the electorate for an answer, and they give it clearly, you ought to respect it and do your best to deliver on your obligation. And that's all we should expect and respect.
I cannot disagree more over the timing being right. Brexit was always going to cause a bit of economic uncertainty regardless of whether the final result was positive or negative and as such calling a vote when we were still just scraping our way out of recession was not in my opinion a smart move. Surely it was clear to all that it was not in the countries best interest to do something so big at that particular time, afterall a referendum could be called at any time with very little notice, there was nothing on the table at the time that was a red line for us (something like single currency membership or the like). The referendum was called when it was because the polls showed a healthy win for Remain and UKIP were pinching votes from the Tories but the Tories had a few years to play with, they got impatient and surprise surprise we voted to leave, the £ plummeted and the PM fThe reason I disagree with you, is that the question, as I saw it, was about the principal of our relationship with the EU rather than the detail. Do we, as a nation, feel more comfortable as part of the EU club, accepting we're part of the team, that we may have to give to get and that the benefit of the reward outweighs the negative of losing some control?
In some ways, almost like an abusive marriage. We might lose the fancy house and the posh meals out, but we also get control of our life back and don't dread every difficult conversation. If we end up with less cash than before, that's fine if we enjoy our life more.
I'm not saying this is how I myself feel about Europe, however anyone who's had a beer or two at the bar with a cross section of the public would likely see that it's not the detail or the financials that drive the thoughts, rather it's the principles.
I don't know for a fact, but I can have an educated guess l, that the profile of those who voted leave will be broadly different from those who voted remain. I'd imagine the former are generally, though not exclusively, blue collar and the latter white collar. Generalising, I realise, however I'd then go on to suggest the former group have less asset, less to lose, more to grumble about, in their minds, than those in the latter.
It's logical that those in the blue group would be less concerned by a leave result and would see themselves as seeing a potential gain. Those with something to lose, the white collars, faced with uncertainty are less motivated for change and why would a turkey vote for a potential Christmas?
In either case, distilling the thing down over 2 years to 'educate the people' would have been futile. Why would the two main parties, who have been unable to gain traction armed with a positive vote from the public, be any more effective at informing or winning hearts and minds without one? The Tories and Labour would still be split, the argument would still be muddled and muddied. The public would be no further forward. The feeling and decision would still be based in the principle.
Back to what I said at the beginning- whichever way the vote had gone, I would have been content with it. For me, the electorate needed to be given the choice, the timing was right, the planning was bad and the execution has been atrocious. Despite all of that, the principle, for me, is that if you ask the electorate for an answer, and they give it clearly, you ought to respect it and do your best to deliver on your obligation. And that's all we should expect and respect.
ked off to the Caribbean. 2 years down the line we still don’t know what the future really looks like and it’s become abundantly clear that the people left in charge of negotiations are not up to the task, something that really should have been nailed down before we envoked article 50. It’s all been a bit of a catastrophe, let’s hope the long term turns out to be brighter than the short term because so far it’s been a catalogue of clusterfks.ORD said:
A sane person.
Some things are priceless. A slightly different degree of economic and regulatory integration is not one of those things.
If the public thought leaving the EU would cost each of us even £100 per year, Remain would have won with a landslide.
People don’t and cannot take into account what they don’t know or understand.
Donald Rumsfeld would differSome things are priceless. A slightly different degree of economic and regulatory integration is not one of those things.
If the public thought leaving the EU would cost each of us even £100 per year, Remain would have won with a landslide.
People don’t and cannot take into account what they don’t know or understand.
. Of course you can take into account what you don't know or don't understand. Almost all of us do all the time, every day. As it is you seem to be arguing that democracy itself is a bad thing.
Sane people deal with the facts that do exist, and consider the likely impact of things happening or emerging. Do you have to know what the run of interest rate decisions over the next twenty-five is going to be - if so, how are you (sanely) going to get a mortgage? How do other people manage - or are they insane?
At a voter level, do you understand the arguments for or against quantitative easing? How about aid economics? Why it is worth using a longer time period and different test discount rate when assessing forestry investments as opposed to, say, building an office block. To what extent should we take intergenerational impacts into account when making public investments. The pros and cons of a hypothecated sovereign investment fund? Professional economists spend years arguing about these things, and yet governments have to make choices despite the arguments. And voters have to choose governments.
I have not seen much evidence that Brexit is any more complex than some of the above. At its root, and why it is so emotive, the argument is largely about two different and incompatible world views. No amount of further information is likely to change that.
You also offer a counterfactual which, for once, is provably wrong: Remain was waving all kinds of shrouds during the campaign and a £100 a year per person cost was at the lower end of their predictions. The fact is that a majority of those who voted either didn't believe the claim or thought the cost worth it.
I entirely agree that some things are priceless. Freedom to me is top of that list and if the cost is only £100 a year, it is well worth it.
On the other hand, if you are correct that Leave/Remain is only a question of a slightly different degree of economic and regulatory integration (which I don't), I 'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about.
psi310398 said:
I entirely agree that some things are priceless. Freedom to me is top of that list and if the cost is only £100 a year, it is well worth it.
You have posted some decent and sensible stuff over the past few days, but Jesus Christ to infer that we are enslaved to the EU is just utterly ridiculous.Membership of the EU has very little impact on peoples daily lives and overall costs very little.
janesmith1950 said:
I don't know for a fact, but I can have an educated guess l, that the profile of those who voted leave will be broadly different from those who voted remain. I'd imagine the former are generally, though not exclusively, blue collar and the latter white collar. Generalising, I realise, however I'd then go on to suggest the former group have less asset, less to lose, more to grumble about, in their minds, than those in the latter.
It's logical that those in the blue group would be less concerned by a leave result and would see themselves as seeing a potential gain. Those with something to lose, the white collars, faced with uncertainty are less motivated for change and why would a turkey vote for a potential Christmas?
We had a fascinating poll in my office just before the referendum which ended up 50/50 so just below the eventual results in Swindon, so plenty of "white collar" voters for it once you were out of London. It's logical that those in the blue group would be less concerned by a leave result and would see themselves as seeing a potential gain. Those with something to lose, the white collars, faced with uncertainty are less motivated for change and why would a turkey vote for a potential Christmas?
Aside from that it fitted many of the national trends. The younger ones tended to vote Remain. There were a number with pan European connections voting Remain as well (Portuguese mother and in another case Polish grandparents). Finally there were a number of "Tory Wives" , living in wealthy areas with their salary more pocket money for the family who also voted Remain. Because as you say if you have significant assets you have far more to lose.
Where it also fitted the stereotype is that one of the young recent graduates was asking me just before the vote what is it all about, very puzzled. Then just after the result were ranting about "Chavs" having taken us out
. From complete ignorance to slasher levels of invective in three days.PRTVR said:
But basically you are saying we could never leave ? One has to ask who and why did we end up in this position, it's not just a gym membership, it sounds like a cult membership to me.
A very good example 
. As with a gym membership we have given the required notice to leave, but apparently the cult wont let us go. turbobloke said:
PRTVR said:
Zod said:
I’m sorry, but without an understanding of the relationship and the implications of changing it, there is no question of its being appropriate to put a question of the electorate.
But basically you are saying we could never leave ? One has to ask who and why did we end up in this position, it's not just a gym membership, it sounds like a cult membership to me.It's not likely, not even remotely likely. Let Remainers dream - it's all they've got.
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 28th July 22:38
Question: Once negotiations complete & terms agreed should there be a referendum to accept/reject..
June 20
Should 37%
Should not 45%
July 10
Should 37%
Should not 41%
July 26
Should 42%
Should not 40%
YouGov data
Personally, for all sorts of reasons it's a very naive question on its own as there needs to be any number of caveat questions needed, particularly around the possible implications of a vote to reject the agreed terms. Still it will keep Remainers dreaming, unfortunately.
PurpleMoonlight said:
psi310398 said:
I entirely agree that some things are priceless. Freedom to me is top of that list and if the cost is only £100 a year, it is well worth it.
You have posted some decent and sensible stuff over the past few days, but Jesus Christ to infer that we are enslaved to the EU is just utterly ridiculous.Membership of the EU has very little impact on peoples daily lives and overall costs very little.
I really do understand the arguments about trading bits of sovereignty in exchange for other good things but if we are unable to exert democratic control over most of what gets legislated in this country, we really are not free. This is further demonstrated by the reaction shown when we try to remove ourselves from those arrangements.
Laws and regulations are enacted that our Parliament is obliged to read into UK law. We have no veto over them. I know that those are the rules of the game but IMO the game deprives us of freedom.
It goes further. My vote or your's or anybody else's in the EU has absolutely no impact on the behaviour of the EU or the Commission. We, the people, are never given an opportunity to kick them out and replace them with others. That is not democratic. That is, however benevolent you might feel it to be, a dictatorship.
We have never been given the chance to vote for JCJ or Selmayr. I don't recall our being invited to vote on Angela Merkel's decision to throw open Europe's borders, or even see our national governments being consulted. I don't recall ever being asked my views on hosing French farmers down with my taxes or allowing Spanish trawlers to hoover up our fish stocks.
Russian Troll Bot said:
The latest one: the army is on standby for brexit
If we leave with no deal whatsoever it will indeed be very disruptive, and you can be certain the EU will try and ensure it is as disruptive as possible . Sensible precautions will indeed include the army.I am not willing to continue as a vassal state for the sake of a few months disruption and, as long as we are properly prepared, it is nothing to fear.
This country was not only cut off from Europe in WW2 it had uboats attacking ships bringing supplies from the rest of the world. But we survived, endured, and later prospered.
About to hit vol 4 on this thread. Who would have thought this could be such a divisive issue.
Gina Miller appears in a Times article today about the need for a 2nd ref to reinforce democracy and over come divisions in society. Not sure she realises she could be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Gina Miller appears in a Times article today about the need for a 2nd ref to reinforce democracy and over come divisions in society. Not sure she realises she could be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Jockman said:
About to hit vol 4 on this thread. Who would have thought this could be such a divisive issue.
Gina Miller appears in a Times article today about the need for a 2nd ref to reinforce democracy and over come divisions in society. Not sure she realises she could be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
"could be"?!Gina Miller appears in a Times article today about the need for a 2nd ref to reinforce democracy and over come divisions in society. Not sure she realises she could be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff