How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 5)

[wc98]

toppstuff said:

And as I have maintained - it doesn’t matter.

Employees will see how their employers have set up alternative manufacture elsewhere ( Mini factory in Malaysia, Thailand and Netherlands for example ) and the threat will be made. It may swing the vote.

Just occurred to me how amusingly ironic it would be if you were offered a job inside the Eurozone. That would be a giggle.

well i can offer some insight into thailand. while i was there we spoke to employees from kawasaki and honda facilities that assured us we could buy factory products out the back door for cash. in the case of the kawasaki bloke he actually had a couple of the bikes with him at the time. can't remember what they were called, similar things to the honda grom. i seem to remember somewhere around 8 or 900 quid it would work out per bike. i can't see uk nissan employees punting product out the back door for cash in hand. the honda bloke may have been b/s ing, but the kawasaki bloke definitely wasn't.

[wc98]

B'stard Child said:

Just comfirmed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46419790

3 hrs ago?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/03/br...

9 hrs ago

scratches chin and wonders should i go back and quote those that disagreed this was the case when i already heard may state it on a bbc interview days ago nah, can't be arsed,knowing i was right will do,they will just moan about something else anyway

[anonymous-user]

Just read the text. its plain as day UK can't leave unilaterally.

[Kermit power]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kermit power said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

The availability of more information (over 40 years worth) is exactly why many of those who voted for the UK to be a member of the EEC in 1975, then voted to leave the EU in 2016.
In 1975 the EU did not even exist!. How could people (in 1975) be asked to vote for something that did not even exist in 1975, let alone have any information on what it would become and subsequently do?
The information available to the voting public in the run up to the 2016 referendum was galaxies greater than that available to the ordinary UK voter in 1975, and yet even now, some are saying they did not have enough information on the UK`s relationship with the EU in the run up to the 2016 vote.
So in answer to the question, Yes, people have changed their minds on the basis of the much greater information available to them in the run up to the 2016 vote, The fact that they voted leave, may not be to some peoples taste, but leave is what the majority of those eligible to vote in 2016 decided to do.

A wonderful example of swerving the question actually asked and answering the one you would've liked me to ask! You'd do well in national politics!

Here are two simple questions for you, which you can answer with a simple yes/no response, just like in the referendum:

1. Do you think there is far, far more information available now than there was at the time of the referendum relating to what "Leave" will actually look like?

2. Do you think it is reasonable for people to be allowed to reaffirm their positions based on that new information?

You clearly have a view that you want to leave at absolutely any cost, regardless of any further information coming to light. I don't think that view is at all reasonable. If your claim in bold was actually true, then your position now would be far more reasonable, btw.

And yet you seem to have no problem in swerving the question regarding how much information about the EU was available to the people of the UK in 1975 .

I will answer your second question first. Yes I do believe it is reasonable for people to be able to re affirm their positions based on new information. This is exactly why many of those who voted to remain in the EEC in 1975, voted to leave the EU, when given the chance in the 2016 referendum, on the basis of 40 plus years of extra information.
.
Do you think there was far far more information available to people regarding the EU in 2016, than was available to the ordinary voter in 1975? especially when in 1975 the EU did not even exist, let alone the people then, even knowing what the EU was and what it was going to do.
How can people be asked to vote on something that does not exist? No ordinary citizen then even knew what an EU was, let alone what it would do.
Not a single ordinary citizen was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU, until that is 2016 where the majority of those eligible to vote, chose for the UK to leave the EU.
Strange how selective some can be, about who had the most information to influence their vote. They do not seem worried that citizens in 1975 had no information on which to base a vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU (because, as posted above, they could not have, because the EU did not exist then), and yet now they want to base a second referendum on the notion that people did not have enough information in 2016. Talk about double standards!
On the basis of the above, most can see that the call for second referendum based on amounts of information available, is just a weak and biased excuse from those who did not get the result `they' wanted in 2016. to get yet another go at changing the vote to the one `they' wanted.
If a second referendum is held, then a third and final vote would be compulsory to settle the vote one way, or the other, otherwise it would be a case of those who voted remain only wanting to accept the result of a referendum if and when it gives the result `they' want. Totally un democratic.

I can't see that the EU as it is now is anything other than the logical progression of the very first page of the Treaty of Rome, which had been kicking around for the best part of 20 years by 1975. Yes, I realise that the internet and 24 hour news channels weren't around back then, but that excuse only goes so far.

With regards to a new referendum, though, I'm actually surprised that it's not the Leave camp clamouring for it. I bet you they will be if May's proposal somehow manages to make its way through parliament!

[B'stard Child]

Kermit power said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kermit power said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

The availability of more information (over 40 years worth) is exactly why many of those who voted for the UK to be a member of the EEC in 1975, then voted to leave the EU in 2016.
In 1975 the EU did not even exist!. How could people (in 1975) be asked to vote for something that did not even exist in 1975, let alone have any information on what it would become and subsequently do?
The information available to the voting public in the run up to the 2016 referendum was galaxies greater than that available to the ordinary UK voter in 1975, and yet even now, some are saying they did not have enough information on the UK`s relationship with the EU in the run up to the 2016 vote.
So in answer to the question, Yes, people have changed their minds on the basis of the much greater information available to them in the run up to the 2016 vote, The fact that they voted leave, may not be to some peoples taste, but leave is what the majority of those eligible to vote in 2016 decided to do.

A wonderful example of swerving the question actually asked and answering the one you would've liked me to ask! You'd do well in national politics!

Here are two simple questions for you, which you can answer with a simple yes/no response, just like in the referendum:

1. Do you think there is far, far more information available now than there was at the time of the referendum relating to what "Leave" will actually look like?

2. Do you think it is reasonable for people to be allowed to reaffirm their positions based on that new information?

You clearly have a view that you want to leave at absolutely any cost, regardless of any further information coming to light. I don't think that view is at all reasonable. If your claim in bold was actually true, then your position now would be far more reasonable, btw.

And yet you seem to have no problem in swerving the question regarding how much information about the EU was available to the people of the UK in 1975 .

I will answer your second question first. Yes I do believe it is reasonable for people to be able to re affirm their positions based on new information. This is exactly why many of those who voted to remain in the EEC in 1975, voted to leave the EU, when given the chance in the 2016 referendum, on the basis of 40 plus years of extra information.
.
Do you think there was far far more information available to people regarding the EU in 2016, than was available to the ordinary voter in 1975? especially when in 1975 the EU did not even exist, let alone the people then, even knowing what the EU was and what it was going to do.
How can people be asked to vote on something that does not exist? No ordinary citizen then even knew what an EU was, let alone what it would do.
Not a single ordinary citizen was even given the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU, until that is 2016 where the majority of those eligible to vote, chose for the UK to leave the EU.
Strange how selective some can be, about who had the most information to influence their vote. They do not seem worried that citizens in 1975 had no information on which to base a vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU (because, as posted above, they could not have, because the EU did not exist then), and yet now they want to base a second referendum on the notion that people did not have enough information in 2016. Talk about double standards!
On the basis of the above, most can see that the call for second referendum based on amounts of information available, is just a weak and biased excuse from those who did not get the result `they' wanted in 2016. to get yet another go at changing the vote to the one `they' wanted.
If a second referendum is held, then a third and final vote would be compulsory to settle the vote one way, or the other, otherwise it would be a case of those who voted remain only wanting to accept the result of a referendum if and when it gives the result `they' want. Totally un democratic.

I can't see that the EU as it is now is anything other than the logical progression of the very first page of the Treaty of Rome, which had been kicking around for the best part of 20 years by 1975. Yes, I realise that the internet and 24 hour news channels weren't around back then, but that excuse only goes so far.

Well it seems from reading stuff released under FOI that the government at the time had a very clear plan of what they were prepared to release and an even clearer plan of how they knew they would need to manipulate the narrative.

They even put guidelines together for future governments

Kermit power said:

With regards to a new referendum, though, I'm actually surprised that it's not the Leave camp clamouring for it. I bet you they will be if May's proposal somehow manages to make its way through parliament!

You could be right - but it will take a heck of a situation to put the whole country behind another referendum.....

[jakesmith]

B'stard Child said:

Was that before or after she went all ballistic on social care cost recovery (or dementia tax) or A free vote on "blood sports"

I won't mention how she was wooden and lack lustre in terms of presentation and then she was stupid enough to make the GE about "Strong and Stable - Teresa May"

fking idiot

It was the night before the vote old bean

[B'stard Child]

jakesmith said:

B'stard Child said:

Was that before or after she went all ballistic on social care cost recovery (or dementia tax) or A free vote on "blood sports"

I won't mention how she was wooden and lack lustre in terms of presentation and then she was stupid enough to make the GE about "Strong and Stable - Teresa May"

fking idiot

It was the night before the vote old bean

There was a fresh poll the night before the GE and it came out with 100 seat majority - was everyone smoking crack!!!!

[PurpleMoonlight]

Welshbeef said:

Just confirmed attorney General - we could be stuck in the backstop into perpetuity.


Vote nein and hard Brexit.

He did not say that.

[PurpleMoonlight]

jsf said:

Just read the text. its plain as day UK can't leave unilaterally.

Neither can the EU.

[Dr Jekyll]

PurpleMoonlight said:

jsf said:

Just read the text. its plain as day UK can't leave unilaterally.

Neither can the EU.

Since it's to give the EU power over the UK for the benefit of the EU that's hardly relevant.

[glazbagun]

jsf said:

Just read the text. its plain as day UK can't leave unilaterally.

While that seems to be beyond dispute, is the argument not that, should future negotiations fail, we will have perpetual access to the single market without paying a penny or allowing FOM, which would be equally unpalatable to the EU?

[JagLover]

glazbagun said:

While that seems to be beyond dispute, is the argument not that, should future negotiations fail, we will have perpetual access to the single market without paying a penny or allowing FOM, which would be equally unpalatable to the EU?

Access to the single market for GOODS, in which we have a £95bn trade deficit with the EU, and at the cost of continued EU regulation over much of our economy with no say in those rules.

It is a very satisfactory outcome for the EU and one they would be quite happy to continue and any "negotiated" future relationship would be based on this.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Dr Jekyll said:

Since it's to give the EU power over the UK for the benefit of the EU that's hardly relevant.

Or the UK power over the EU.

Good fun huh.

[powerstroke]

Planned all along !! fk they have voted leave !!! Right lets think,.... right you resign we put May in and fk about for 2 years
pretending we will do a nice deal, that will keep the proles happy and shut that Farrage man up , we and the EU put a deal together that no one will vote for , then we say ok its the deal or remain lets have another ref .. they are so sick of it they vote remain , job jobbed pats on back all round ....

[smifffymoto]

I am nearly Brexited out and my energy levels are decreasing but I am being treated to the House of Commons doing what it should have been doing for ages.That is holding the Government to account and scrutinising its hamfisted Brexit.

[amusingduck]

biggles330d said:

amusingduck said:

Kermit power said:

Atomic12C said:

All this talk of 2nd referendum now that we have "facts"...., the 'facts' are different depending on whether it is advocating leave or remain, and on top of that there is little 'fact' when talking about future events or possibilities.

Secondly, in the case of another referendum people will likely vote in a similar manner to the first, in that many do not vote on issues that affect others, they vote on issues that affect the individual voter.
Voting is very much a selfish activity in as much as your preference is decided up on by how you perceive your future prosperity to develop as a result of your choice.

And this voting behaviour is something that is very much ignored.
I'd say its willfully ignored because it would reveal the futile nature of trying of trying to swing many people in to another choice.

That's all perfectly sensible and reasonable, but I don't understand what bearing it has on whether there should be a second referendum?

If there's a second referendum, people vote in their own self-interest and it's still a Leave, then Leave is completely vindicated, and nobody can (credibly) do anything other than get completely behind leaving, as people will have voted again with much more information as to what that vote actually means.

If there's a second referendum and people change their minds based on what they've learnt over the last couple of years, they're still acting in self-interest, and it just shows that people's self-interest has changed based on what they've learnt.

I don't see how either of those are undemocratic outcomes, just because people are, just as they've always done in every election, voting in their own self-interest?

What's the difference in principle between a second referendum and holding referendums every few years/as we are "more informed"?

Three referendums minimum if Remain wins the second, surely. Don't mind waiting a few years for "more information"

If 52% based on lots of hubris and precious little actual information about the reality of what the outcome might be, represents the 'will of the people', and it went to another referendum which was held with the benefit of vastly greater understanding of the actual issues and deal choice we have and it results in lets say 55% in favour of remaining, why wouldn't that be the 'will of the [informed] people'?
Conversely, it's just bizarre that we might dogmatically bungle our way into this when there's a very good chance that rather less than 52% of people now think its a good idea and there are open calls to take a breath and just double check.

If the result was still to exit the EU, so be it. There is no argument then that we weren't making an informed choice this time, based on actual facts, real negotiation and having properly looked over the edge.
But really, sticking to a decision made two years ago when it's blatantly obvious that the case being made was just bks, isn't democracy. It's stupidity.

Literally nothing in your post addresses my only question - What's the difference in principle between a second referendum and holding referendums every few years/as we are "more informed"?

[PurpleMoonlight]

glazbagun said:

While that seems to be beyond dispute, is the argument not that, should future negotiations fail, we will have perpetual access to the single market without paying a penny or allowing FOM, which would be equally unpalatable to the EU?

Just because neither party has a unilateral right to end it, does not mean that is cannot be ended without mutual agreement.

There is the arbitration route and the legislative basis for the backstop. Cox is confident a challenge that A50 cannot be utilised to form a long term relationship would be successful and would make the backstop unenforceable. And he stated that challenge could be brought by any of the current EU28.

[JNW1]

jsf said:

Just read the text. its plain as day UK can't leave unilaterally.

In fairness the Attorney General made that clear in the House of Commons yesterday; however, he also explained why it was not in the interests of either party for the backstop arrangement to become permanent and in particular why it wouldn't suit the EU. Therefore, whilst technically we can't leave unilaterally, his political judgement was we wouldn't be locked-in in practice, not least because that would give us an advantage over other EU members which they wouldn't want to allow to continue.

[PRTVR]

PurpleMoonlight said:

glazbagun said:

While that seems to be beyond dispute, is the argument not that, should future negotiations fail, we will have perpetual access to the single market without paying a penny or allowing FOM, which would be equally unpalatable to the EU?

Just because neither party has a unilateral right to end it, does not mean that is cannot be ended without mutual agreement.

There is the arbitration route and the legislative basis for the backstop. Cox is confident a challenge that A50 cannot be utilised to form a long term relationship would be successful and would make the backstop unenforceable. And he stated that challenge could be brought by any of the current EU28.

The EU has stated that they do not want us to leave, so we give them the keys to the door, yep sounds like a great idea.

On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair....

[Roboraver]

PRTVR said:

The EU has stated that they do not want us to leave, so we give them the keys to the door, yep sounds like a great idea.

On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair....

As they have just ruled that Article 50 can be withdrawn and brexit cancelled.

ROLF.