How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)
Discussion
kurt535 said:
WHY DO YOU WANT TO STAY IN THE EU ????????? - for genuine economic stability for a start, plus a number of other fact based far less laughable baseless romantic notions than you've posted. Dreaming is well and truly over right now. Have a look at sterling chart for a guide how great your new world looks to everyone else in the world. Im failing to see anyone buy into it.
Pretending the EU offers financial stability now is laughable, let alone in the future.gregs656 said:
popeyewhite said:
There will be no other referendum for in/out. If there was it would totally undermine the idea of a democratic, fair vote...quite apart from making all future referendums pointless as the losers would simply demand another vote. I'm staggered people are still suggesting this when 1,000,000 more people voted for out than in. AFAIK the meaning of 'leave' hasn't changed, so we go - deal or no deal.
I don't agree with any of that. We've come a long way in two years. There is nothing undemocratic about asking the same question twice, nor for people to repeatedly demand something. The only reason I think another referendum is unlikely is because it would be very difficult to come up with two positions and I think the people are so fractious that the result would remain (ha) a marginal victory.
I think the referendum is a fantastic example of why direct democracy can lead to messy politics.
Vanden Saab said:
Max_Torque said:
Vanden Saab said:
What possible use is another non-binding vote?
It's acts as a check and balance on the popular will of the majority at THIS (crucial) moment in time.It gives MPs a legitimacy to their action. We live in a Democracy, the people hold the power, our MPs are our representatives. Today, nearly 2 years after Brexit was started there is little clarity on the actual MAJORITY position of our countries population. A second vote, a vote of confirmation or retroversion will ensure that our political system goes forwards with the will of the majority. (and as mentioned, that will is time dependant, not fixed in stone, both able to change and necessitating of change itself)
It gives MPs a legitimacy to their action. We live in a Democracy, the people hold the power, our MPs are our representatives. Today, nearly 2 hours after the last referendum was started there is little clarity on the actual MAJORITY position of our countries population.. A third vote, a vote of confirmation or retroversion will ensure that our political system goes forwards with the will of the majority. (and as mentioned, that will is time dependant, not fixed in stone, both able to change and necessitating of change itself)
we voted, by a narrow majority on Thursday 23 June, 2016 to leave the EU. Today is Monday 10 December, some 2.5 years later, after an enormous amount of extra details and information have become available in the public domain about what are the likely effects of leaving.
To suggest that because 2.5 years later we can have another vote does not logically suggest we can have one 2 days later, ie on Saturday 25th June 2016. However, given the suprise that many people felt when the leave decision was announced, even then, just two days later the majority vote may have swung, as 30% of the population (15 times the winning majority) did not vote the first time around, and may (note "may") have joined a second vote.
It's precisely those sorts of silly, impractical suggestions that got us in the mess in the first place.
Pan Pan Pan said:
If there is another leave / remain referendum, and remain win it, then there will have to be a compulsory further referendum to settle the matter for once and for all..
This ^^^ is a good idea.We hold a vote in the next week to "press pause" on leaving, to remove the time pressure and risk of a "No deal" event. In order to vote at this referendum involves COMPULSORY voting at the decider in say 3 months time, at that vote, the full picture in terms of what is and what isn't being offered can be present by the "leave" and the "remain" parties.
mikal83 said:
Does Corbyn and other labour/snp mp's really believe if they just keep on saying the same thing...………..another GE, another Ref, the Guvmint will cave in???
The bit i don't understand is he seems to be saying that he can go back to the EU and re-negotiate? As far as i can tell, he holds no more Aces than does May at the bargaining table, and as far as i can tell, the EU doesn't care about the colour of the ties worn by the negotiators?There is no magic to be had, no way to make 2+2=5 another time around?
mikal83 said:
Does Corbyn and other labour/snp mp's really believe if they just keep on saying the same thing...………..another GE, another Ref, the Guvmint will cave in???
No idea what they're thinking, Yvette Cooper raised a Point of Order just now asking for clarification that if the Government doesn't bring forward a vote at all before March 29, the house cannot do anything to interfere with our exit. She looked surprised by the answer, when it's been obvious for months.Jonesy23 said:
Derek Smith said:
I know how to research. It is what I've done for years, and do so on a weekly basis. I should be doing it now. However, I could not find anything evidenced as to what an exit would mean. There was nothing. Guesses galore, but no one could back up what they were saying. Obviously the likes of Johnson and his lies could be dismissed in a few seconds' work, but what it meant for me was impossible to find.
Everyone was guessing, rather like you guess as to why so many did not vote.
When it came to the vote, it was easy for me. I just asked my kids what they wanted and went with the overwhelming majority.
Given what I read on the matter in the run up to the vote, the main criticisms, and it was mine, was that there were no plans. We did not know what we were voting for. Was it Johnson's Norwegian option? Was it to save £[think of a figure] savings? One would hope few believed him.
Was hard brexit mentioned on the paper? Was Norway or Iceland? Did everyone know that in order to trade with the EU we would have to comply with many of their directives, but with no chance of input into them?
We were told nothing concrete. People voted for myths.
So because you had no idea and went with the flow you assume everyone else was the same.Everyone was guessing, rather like you guess as to why so many did not vote.
When it came to the vote, it was easy for me. I just asked my kids what they wanted and went with the overwhelming majority.
Given what I read on the matter in the run up to the vote, the main criticisms, and it was mine, was that there were no plans. We did not know what we were voting for. Was it Johnson's Norwegian option? Was it to save £[think of a figure] savings? One would hope few believed him.
Was hard brexit mentioned on the paper? Was Norway or Iceland? Did everyone know that in order to trade with the EU we would have to comply with many of their directives, but with no chance of input into them?
We were told nothing concrete. People voted for myths.
I spent years having to research obscure subjects. I was good at it, that's why I was given so much. I retired and now use my skills in a new job. I'm not the best in the world, but I'm pretty good. I've gone to court with my research and been challenged. I was never proved wrong. I'm proud of what I did.
So if someone whose professional role included lots of research that had to be supported can't get convincing results, I'd suggest that there are a few out there who were the same.
I didn't say I went with the flow. I didn't say I had no idea. I read any number of commentators and none, absolutely none, got it right. It was all guesswork. Some might have been informed, but they still got much of it wrong.
Care to tell me what the impact of a no deal brexit will be for me and mine? And then back it up with facts? I'll give you a clue; the answer to both begins with an N. No bugger knows. I've done the research.
Some on here suggested, right after the vote, that there would still be free movement and that we would not secure our fishing borders. They were reasonable assumptions, but they could still be way, way off the mark. They were merely informed guesses. No one knows.
pistonheads2018 said:
kurt535 said:
WHY DO YOU WANT TO STAY IN THE EU ????????? - for genuine economic stability for a start, plus a number of other fact based far less laughable baseless romantic notions than you've posted. Dreaming is well and truly over right now. Have a look at sterling chart for a guide how great your new world looks to everyone else in the world. Im failing to see anyone buy into it.
Pretending the EU offers financial stability now is laughable, let alone in the future.Based off your comments you also need to warn all those financial companies plowing cash into german financial services which jumped some 64% last year, unlike our own services....
Raygun said:
mikal83 said:
Does Corbyn and other labour/snp mp's really believe if they just keep on saying the same thing...………..another GE, another Ref, the Guvmint will cave in???
Corbyn really is a shyster, no answers just stirring the pot trying to make things worse so he can gain out of it.Derek Smith said:
I didn't suggest it would be useful. However, as an unrelated example, MPs might honestly believe that brexit would harm the UK. They might see the plebiscite as a hurdle to do what they think is right. They might think, if they read PH, that there would be a mass of middle class and over middle-aged voters putting on yellow vests. Another vote might well allow them to do what they think is right without the risk of an uprising. And, of course, give their paymasters a bit back for funding them.
We've just had Russell Bishop tried twice. The grounds were new evidence that might persuade the voters - jury. There's a lot of new evidence out there as to what was the result of the vote.
given the warnings of armageddon we were promised just on a vote to leave, note a vote, not actually leaving ,don't you think many took the potential for short term harm into consideration when voting ? the fact that leave still won the day despite those warnings told me how strongly people felt about leaving.We've just had Russell Bishop tried twice. The grounds were new evidence that might persuade the voters - jury. There's a lot of new evidence out there as to what was the result of the vote.
the minute the government decided to hold a referendum the decision whether to leave or not was no longer theirs to decide. for me, the literal person that i am, should a party run an election campaign on a promise to start a nuclear war with russia and then win, then i expect a nuclear war with russia. i might not like it,or the russian response,but that's the way democracy works.
kurt535 said:
Suggest you convey your informed opinion to airbus/bmw/honda/jlr/flybe/ workers et al. And, lets not forget about the repo market relocating to holland. Nice chunk of change there too.
Based off your comments you also need to warn all those financial companies plowing cash into german financial services which jumped some 64% last year, unlike our own services....
Repo market relocating to Holland?Based off your comments you also need to warn all those financial companies plowing cash into german financial services which jumped some 64% last year, unlike our own services....
It's easy to grow when you are so small in the first place!
Seriously, try harder to educate yourself on this stuff. Europe has been trying to get UK staff to relocate to Frankfurt for years. There's a good reason they have been largely unsuccessful.
Derek Smith said:
Jonesy23 said:
Derek Smith said:
I know how to research. It is what I've done for years, and do so on a weekly basis. I should be doing it now. However, I could not find anything evidenced as to what an exit would mean. There was nothing. Guesses galore, but no one could back up what they were saying. Obviously the likes of Johnson and his lies could be dismissed in a few seconds' work, but what it meant for me was impossible to find.
Everyone was guessing, rather like you guess as to why so many did not vote.
When it came to the vote, it was easy for me. I just asked my kids what they wanted and went with the overwhelming majority.
Given what I read on the matter in the run up to the vote, the main criticisms, and it was mine, was that there were no plans. We did not know what we were voting for. Was it Johnson's Norwegian option? Was it to save £[think of a figure] savings? One would hope few believed him.
Was hard brexit mentioned on the paper? Was Norway or Iceland? Did everyone know that in order to trade with the EU we would have to comply with many of their directives, but with no chance of input into them?
We were told nothing concrete. People voted for myths.
So because you had no idea and went with the flow you assume everyone else was the same.Everyone was guessing, rather like you guess as to why so many did not vote.
When it came to the vote, it was easy for me. I just asked my kids what they wanted and went with the overwhelming majority.
Given what I read on the matter in the run up to the vote, the main criticisms, and it was mine, was that there were no plans. We did not know what we were voting for. Was it Johnson's Norwegian option? Was it to save £[think of a figure] savings? One would hope few believed him.
Was hard brexit mentioned on the paper? Was Norway or Iceland? Did everyone know that in order to trade with the EU we would have to comply with many of their directives, but with no chance of input into them?
We were told nothing concrete. People voted for myths.
I spent years having to research obscure subjects. I was good at it, that's why I was given so much. I retired and now use my skills in a new job. I'm not the best in the world, but I'm pretty good. I've gone to court with my research and been challenged. I was never proved wrong. I'm proud of what I did.
So if someone whose professional role included lots of research that had to be supported can't get convincing results, I'd suggest that there are a few out there who were the same.
I didn't say I went with the flow. I didn't say I had no idea. I read any number of commentators and none, absolutely none, got it right. It was all guesswork. Some might have been informed, but they still got much of it wrong.
Care to tell me what the impact of a no deal brexit will be for me and mine? And then back it up with facts? I'll give you a clue; the answer to both begins with an N. No bugger knows. I've done the research.
Some on here suggested, right after the vote, that there would still be free movement and that we would not secure our fishing borders. They were reasonable assumptions, but they could still be way, way off the mark. They were merely informed guesses. No one knows.
mx5nut said:
Raygun said:
mikal83 said:
Does Corbyn and other labour/snp mp's really believe if they just keep on saying the same thing...………..another GE, another Ref, the Guvmint will cave in???
Corbyn really is a shyster, no answers just stirring the pot trying to make things worse so he can gain out of it.
t stirs without nailing his colours to Leave or Remain. And to me that sums up what a weasel he is.kurt535 said:
Academia, knowledge and clarity of thought such as yours is mainly dismissed and mocked on here as its not what some people wish to hear. They don't know how to answer you. Respect to you.
Funny how two people can read the same thing and come to two entirely different conclusions.pistonheads2018 said:
kurt535 said:
Academia, knowledge and clarity of thought such as yours is mainly dismissed and mocked on here as its not what some people wish to hear. They don't know how to answer you. Respect to you.
Funny how two people can read the same thing and come to two entirely different conclusions.gregs656 said:
Biker 1 said:
gregs656 said:
There is nothing undemocratic about asking the same question twice,
Complete & utter bks in this case. It is usual in our democracy to be faced with the same questions again and again.
If your argument is 'but what we voted on last time hasn't been delivered yet' then I'm afraid that argument holds no water because it is also common that decisions get reversed prior to implementation. There is no requirement in a democracy to see through every decision made.
So what about it is undemocratic?
Yet that was the position at the referendum, from the Government, and both official campaigns - a vote to Leave was a vote to leave the SM&CU.
Then there was a GE, where both the Conservatives and Labour campaigned on a manifesto of implementing the vote, and that this would mean leaving the SM&CU. Parties saying this in their manifesto achieved 80% of the vote.
Finally, if the 'situation has changed' enough to warrant seeing if sufficient net movement results in a result to remain, then you'd hear the cries from those who voted Leave who now are desperate for a chance to change that mistake.
Yet those cries are silent. The only people asking for a second vote are those who lost the first. That doesn't fill me with confidence there's a mandate based upon a shift in public option.
pistonheads2018 said:
kurt535 said:
Suggest you convey your informed opinion to airbus/bmw/honda/jlr/flybe/ workers et al. And, lets not forget about the repo market relocating to holland. Nice chunk of change there too.
Based off your comments you also need to warn all those financial companies plowing cash into german financial services which jumped some 64% last year, unlike our own services....
Repo market relocating to Holland?Based off your comments you also need to warn all those financial companies plowing cash into german financial services which jumped some 64% last year, unlike our own services....
It's easy to grow when you are so small in the first place!
Seriously, try harder to educate yourself on this stuff. Europe has been trying to get UK staff to relocate to Frankfurt for years. There's a good reason they have been largely unsuccessful.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff