How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)

[toppstuff]

Balmoral said:

Question for the remainers calling for a second referendum. If the vote had gone your way and leave was calling for a second referendum, you would be supporting that entirely wouldn't you?

Did Farage not say that if it was 52/48 against leave he would want another vote ?

Mogg even suggested we had one vote first followed by a second on the deal.

[ITP]

rigga said:

We can indeed sign loads of trade deals around the world after we leave, we however cannot enact them until a trade agreement is reached between the UK and eu ..... and I think any deal we do agree cannot be detrimental to the EU ..

So it’s like divorcing your wife, making plans to hook up with several other attractive women, but not being able go near any of them unless your ex wife approves it. Good luck.

[Sway]

toppstuff said:

Balmoral said:

Question for the remainers calling for a second referendum. If the vote had gone your way and leave was calling for a second referendum, you would be supporting that entirely wouldn't you?

Did Farage not say that if it was 52/48 against leave he would want another vote ?

Mogg even suggested we had one vote first followed by a second on the deal.

What was the response to Farage's comments? Wholesale criticism if I remember correctly...

Mogg made that suggestion prior to the vote to hold a referendum, did he not?

If we're going back that far - there are plenty of remain campaigners who were absolutely clear this was a one and done irrespective of the outcome, who now are saying that there must be another vote. Do you think they'd be doing that if remain won and a new Treaty was announced? Like hell they would - they were the ones blocking any previous referendum.

[Russian Troll Bot]

Sway said:

toppstuff said:

Balmoral said:

Question for the remainers calling for a second referendum. If the vote had gone your way and leave was calling for a second referendum, you would be supporting that entirely wouldn't you?

Did Farage not say that if it was 52/48 against leave he would want another vote ?

Mogg even suggested we had one vote first followed by a second on the deal.

What was the response to Farage's comments? Wholesale criticism if I remember correctly...

Mogg made that suggestion prior to the vote to hold a referendum, did he not?

If we're going back that far - there are plenty of remain campaigners who were absolutely clear this was a one and done irrespective of the outcome, who now are saying that there must be another vote. Do you think they'd be doing that if remain won and a new Treaty was announced? Like hell they would - they were the ones blocking any previous referendum.

If it had been 52% remain the matter would be considered settled. Farage may well be calling for another vote, but he would be a fringe figure and there would be zero chances of another one happening for decades.

[Balmoral]

toppstuff said:

Balmoral said:

Question for the remainers calling for a second referendum. If the vote had gone your way and leave was calling for a second referendum, you would be supporting that entirely wouldn't you?

Did Farage not say that if it was 52/48 against leave he would want another vote ?

Mogg even suggested we had one vote first followed by a second on the deal.

So if they were, would you be supporting it?

[toppstuff]

Balmoral said:

o if they were, would you be supporting it?

Yes. Personally I think a vote this important ( if voting is not made compulsory) should have a winning threshold of maybe 55-60%.

[Balmoral]

Thanks for the answer tc, I believe you, probably wouldn't of many others

[PRTVR]

toppstuff said:

Balmoral said:

o if they were, would you be supporting it?

Yes. Personally I think a vote this important ( if voting is not made compulsory) should have a winning threshold of maybe 55-60%.

Percentage, why ? Over a million people more got off their bottoms and put a cross to leave and that is in one of the largest turnouts in history, perhaps the next referendum should be do you want to rejoin the EU, then we will go for your threshold.

[anonymous-user]

Balmoral said:

toppstuff said:

Balmoral said:

Question for the remainers calling for a second referendum. If the vote had gone your way and leave was calling for a second referendum, you would be supporting that entirely wouldn't you?

Did Farage not say that if it was 52/48 against leave he would want another vote ?

Mogg even suggested we had one vote first followed by a second on the deal.

So if they were, would you be supporting it?

I guess the real question is would you vote for Brexit knowing that Mays deal is what you are voting for.

[Coolbanana]

Russian Troll Bot said:

If it had been 52% remain the matter would be considered settled. Farage may well be calling for another vote, but he would be a fringe figure and there would be zero chances of another one happening for decades.

Yes, it would have been settled on that occasion. Until a Pro-Leave Party or Group garnered enough support to convince the Government a majority of the Nation may have changed their minds. That's how Democracy works. It really isn't difficult to understand.

The result of the 2016 Referendum was settled too, it was a Leave victory. But, because the UK is a Democracy, campaigners for Remain got straight onto the case for overturning that result as quickly as they could. There is no law, no moral obligation, to prevent anyone from campaigning for a different result if they are not happy with the prevailing one.

It isn't a Remain fault that the result of the Leavers win has taken 2 years and more to be delivered, therefore allowing them sufficient time to do what they can to get another result. That's just tough tits. Get over it. Democracies allow anyone to keep having a go.

As has been explained many times, some democratic processes do have timeframes attached to them - G.E.'s for example. That doesn't stop the Opposition Party immediately building their case to win the next G.E. by pointing out where they believe the incumbent Party of No.10 is going wrong. It is, in effect, campaigning. Immediately.

The difference with Referenda, is that there is no limit or timeframe to them and they occur at the behest of the Government. They are relatively rare and while a democracy allows for anyone to campaign for one as often as they like - even to repeat them as often as they like - the reality is that it is exceedingly difficult to get a Referendum agreed. But that doesn't mean it is undemocratic to request them.

Had Remain won, Leavers would not have shut shop and conceded for a time - they have been asking for 40 years! They wouldn't just abandon their Dream if Remain had won - and certainly not if the result had been so close! Indeed, a narrow defeat would have seen Team Leave encouraged, emboldened with a possible Victory in sight if they kept the pressure on!


Democracy - it is for everyone, not just the Victors of one result!

Edited by Coolbanana on Thursday 6th December 19:00

Edited by Coolbanana on Thursday 6th December 19:00

[_Sorted_]

ITP said:

So it’s like divorcing your wife, making plans to hook up with several other attractive women, but not being able go near any of them unless your ex wife approves it. Good luck.

Laughed out loud at your comment. My ex-wife said she would stay if I kept shaking the money tree in her direction, but I had to agree to her being able to have ladies and gentleman with whoever she liked. Nice. Said no and was met with the comment 'You' re my f'ing meal ticket, so get working c***. ' What a charmer.

Sure there must be a UK/EU parallel in above.

[Russian Troll Bot]

Coolbanana said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

If it had been 52% remain the matter would be considered settled. Farage may well be calling for another vote, but he would be a fringe figure and there would be zero chances of another one happening for decades.

Yes, it would have been settled on that occasion. Until a Pro-Leave Party or Group garnered enough support to convince the Government a majority of the Nation may have changed their minds. That's how Democracy works. It really isn't difficult to understand.

The result of the 2016 Referendum was settled too, it was a Leave victory. But, because the UK is a Democracy, campaigners for Remain got straight onto the case for overturning that result as quickly as they could. There is no law, no moral obligation, to prevent anyone from campaigning for a different result if they are not happy with the prevailing one.

It isn't a Remain fault that the result of the Leavers win has taken 2 years and more to be delivered, therefore allowing them sufficient time to do what they can to get another result. That's just tough tits. Get over it. Democracies allow anyone to keep having a go.

As has been explained many times, some democratic processes do have timeframes attached to them - G.E.'s for example. That doesn't stop the Opposition Party immediately building their case to win the next G.E. by pointing out where they believe the incumbent Party of No.10 is going wrong. It is, in effect, campaigning. Immediately.

The difference with Referenda, is that there is no limit or timeframe to them and they occur at the behest of the Government. They are relatively rare and while a democracy allows for anyone to campaign for one as often as they like - even to repeat them as often as they like - the reality is that it is exceedingly difficult to get a Referendum agreed. But that doesn't mean it is undemocratic to request them.

Had Remain won, Leavers would not have shut shop and conceded for a time - they have been asking for 40 years! They wouldn't just abandon their Dream if Remain had won - and certainly not if the result had been so close! Indeed, a narrow defeat would have seen Team Leave encouraged, emboldened with a possible Victory in sight if they kept the pressure on!


Democracy - it is for everyone, not just the Victors of one result!

Except that you are wanting extra democracy before the previous democracy has been enacted. We were told in no uncertain terms that this was a once in a generation vote, there would not be another and the result would be respected. Remain had the backing of almost the entire establishment, so to say that we would be seriously debating the prospect of another vote is fantasy. The only reason people are calling for another go is they didn't like the result the first time, and you can bet that if Remain win, the people currently shouting that democracy never stops and people are allowed to change their minds would go very, very quiet.

[davey68]

Based on that theory we will be having a referendum on EU membership every couple of years as it is such a close and divided electorate. If there was a 2nd referendum and it was leave 52:48 again, the suggestion is campaigning would continue for another go immediately afterwards etc etc. Likewise the same goes for leave, a narrow remain win implies leave would replicate the vocal remainers 'campaign' for the last two years and push for Ref3. A lot of time and money wasted and continued uncertainty for companies. Not a great way to run a country. Everyone made clear the referendum was a once in a generation decision, the publics decision would be implemented. Repeating it every few years would be ridiculous.

[Piha]

Russian Troll Bot said:

Except that you are wanting extra democracy before the previous democracy has been enacted. We were told in no uncertain terms that this was a once in a generation vote, there would not be another and the result would be respected. Remain had the backing of almost the entire establishment, so to say that we would be seriously debating the prospect of another vote is fantasy. The only reason people are calling for another go is they didn't like the result the first time, and you can bet that if Remain win, the people currently shouting that democracy never stops and people are allowed to change their minds would go very, very quiet.

There is a new generation of voters that weren't allowed to vote in the previous referendum and surely it would be democratic to allow this new generation of voters to have a say in their future?

These young 'uns are desperate to have their say in their future, they are intelligent, informed and in my opinion it would be incredibly disrespectful and undemocratic not allow the young 'uns a vote. Go and talk to some young people and see how they feel, many of them are starting to feel incredibly resentful of the old people and their perceived selfishness.

[alfie2244]

Piha said:

There is a new generation of voters that weren't allowed to vote in the previous referendum and surely it would be democratic to allow this new generation of voters to have a say in their future?

These young 'uns are desperate to have their say in their future, they are intelligent, informed and in my opinion it would be incredibly disrespectful and undemocratic not allow the young 'uns a vote. Go and talk to some young people and see how they feel, many of them are starting to feel incredibly resentful of the old people and their perceived selfishness.

Generation = 2yrs?

[davey68]

That argument stands every year though as a new group of teenagers becomes old enough to vote. You are only suggesting it is a good thing as you want the leave vote overturned.

[Russian Troll Bot]

Piha said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

Except that you are wanting extra democracy before the previous democracy has been enacted. We were told in no uncertain terms that this was a once in a generation vote, there would not be another and the result would be respected. Remain had the backing of almost the entire establishment, so to say that we would be seriously debating the prospect of another vote is fantasy. The only reason people are calling for another go is they didn't like the result the first time, and you can bet that if Remain win, the people currently shouting that democracy never stops and people are allowed to change their minds would go very, very quiet.

There is a new generation of voters that weren't allowed to vote in the previous referendum and surely it would be democratic to allow this new generation of voters to have a say in their future?

These young 'uns are desperate to have their say in their future, they are intelligent, informed and in my opinion it would be incredibly disrespectful and undemocratic not allow the young 'uns a vote. Go and talk to some young people and see how they feel, many of them are starting to feel incredibly resentful of the old people and their perceived selfishness.

What about those who will be too young to vote in the second referendum? When do they get a say in their future?

[Tuna]

Ghibli said:

I guess the real question is would you vote for Brexit knowing that Mays deal is what you are voting for.

What a ridiculous question. You know full well that pretty much no-one who voted Leave wanted what May's deal is threatening to deliver. It's being referred to as Remain minus minus for a reason.

You also know (or at least have been told, repeatedly) that an FTA agreement was reached early on in the discussions, but was discarded by May.

So by any stretch, May's deal is not the only possible outcome of voting to Leave (a different set of negotiators may well have reached a different agreement), and there is still plenty of time for us to move to something that looks like a stronger position for leaving (May has to hold on for quite a while yet if her deal is going to be the one we sign off).

A cynical person might think you were asking deliberately provocative questions in order to get a rise from those evil Leavers. That would be unfortunate, as I believe people get breaks from posting if they are seen to be trolling. Posting endless series of 'leading questions' is not really a positive way to contribute to the threads on here.

[tumble dryer]

Tuna said:

Ghibli said:

I guess the real question is would you vote for Brexit knowing that Mays deal is what you are voting for.

What a ridiculous question. You know full well that pretty much no-one who voted Leave wanted what May's deal is threatening to deliver. It's being referred to as Remain minus minus for a reason.

You also know (or at least have been told, repeatedly) that an FTA agreement was reached early on in the discussions, but was discarded by May.

So by any stretch, May's deal is not the only possible outcome of voting to Leave (a different set of negotiators may well have reached a different agreement), and there is still plenty of time for us to move to something that looks like a stronger position for leaving (May has to hold on for quite a while yet if her deal is going to be the one we sign off).

A cynical person might think you were asking deliberately provocative questions in order to get a rise from those evil Leavers. That would be unfortunate, as I believe people get breaks from posting if they are seen to be trolling. Posting endless series of 'leading questions' is not really a positive way to contribute to the threads on here.

Well said.

[Tuna]

Mrr T said:

Go and check the earlier PH treads. Almost everything negative predicted by any remain group was denied by leavers and call project fear. That’s still happening.

To claim the mandate for leaving the SM and CU are documents published by the remain campaign is bizarre.

They weren't documents published by the remain campaign, they were documents published by the government who magically avoided £9 million pounds being attributed to Remain campaign spending, by doing so just outside of the campaign period.

Project Fear gained traction as a meme when all of the consequences of a Leave vote (exiting the SM, CU, ECJ) were predicted to have a catastrophic economic and social effect. Project Fear did not refer to the idea of leaving the SM/CU/ECJ - something that both sides agreed were a consequence of wanting to discard any of the Four Freedoms. It was an extrapolation of that to some Mad Max apocalypse that would follow.

So, no it wasn't a 'mandate', it was simply an accepted part of leaving that we would not be able to continue as fully signed up members of the SM/CU/ECJ (not least because everyone was made very well aware of the Four Freedoms).

As for the Remain groups right now - after crying wolf before, there are still some shrill commentators who just cannot help themselves, and continue to over-egg the pudding. Rather than trying to get a good deal for the country, a certain portion of Remain campaigners see only the possibility that they might completely undo Brexit - and they will say pretty much anything to achieve that goal. Claims like "You must support May's deal, it's what you voted for" are so transparently dishonest that they're probably having the opposite effect than the poster intended.