How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)
Discussion
Tuna said:
toppstuff said:
NoNeed said:
one of which require a political union
Given the reality of FOM, the integration of university research under EU structures, just as two examples, it is easy to prove your statement wrong.We can commit funds, people to various common goals (worldwide) and do so - everything from putting Tim Peak in space to Relief aid in Africa. Those require extensive co-operation, sharing of funds, global travel, agreed standards and regulations - but not political union.
In reality, these things are unlikely.
By the same token, the various European structures that oversee the integration and cooperation of academics and researchers ( which took years to construct ) will effectively exclude UK institutions from March. This is why the UK's top universities spoke out a few weeks ago.
This is not project fear ( Lord what a moronic phrase that is ...)
Alternative arrangements can of course be made, just like I could start arrangements to go to the moon. Both are difficult and likely to take a long time and, in the meantime, the rest of the EU that is already in these arrangements will carry on without us. This is the bare truth. The difference between easy-to-say throwaway statement ( " of course you could be a space captain, Tuna" ) to the reality.
FiF said:
Following on from all the recent discussions around what to do if the vote goes against the Govt on Tuesday. Incidentally BBC claiming she will lose by 200+ votes, finding more converts to reject than to support. I digress.
Any comments about the claims in the Express, (sorry), that the EU Ambassador to the US has said or maybe rumoured that in the event of the deal being rejected that any Art50 extension will be very limited in time. EU wishing to be done before May, i.e. in the EU parliament elections there will be no British participation.
If this is so that then excludes the possibility of another referendum surely. Insufficient time.
Maybe this is a strategy to focus minds in Whitehall on the two options on the table, WA or no deal, and eliminate time wasting speculation on alterative lines such as discussed on here and elsewhere end of last week.
But if that scotches another referendum that's a major blow to Remainers, maybe an attempt to get sufficient of them behind the WA?
I find it amazing that at this very late stage, and despite everything the EU is saying, there are still MP's on the TV claiming Plan B could be Norway +, EFTA, etc.Any comments about the claims in the Express, (sorry), that the EU Ambassador to the US has said or maybe rumoured that in the event of the deal being rejected that any Art50 extension will be very limited in time. EU wishing to be done before May, i.e. in the EU parliament elections there will be no British participation.
If this is so that then excludes the possibility of another referendum surely. Insufficient time.
Maybe this is a strategy to focus minds in Whitehall on the two options on the table, WA or no deal, and eliminate time wasting speculation on alterative lines such as discussed on here and elsewhere end of last week.
But if that scotches another referendum that's a major blow to Remainers, maybe an attempt to get sufficient of them behind the WA?
Mad.
I also saw one of the resigned treasury assistants asking why we are agreeing to pay £39bn and getting nothing in return.
Tuna said:
There is a temptation to interpret the more nuanced posts in the light of the extreme nonsense that surrounds them - but that's not really an excuse if you've been posting on the thread for any length of time. It's fairly clear that there are relatively few "frothing at the mouth, send them all home" Leavers posting here, and relatively few "Junker is my hero, we should all speak Esperanto" Remainers.
However, both toppstuff and MrGnome in particular do both have a habit of taking neutral comments on the current situation and interpreting them as attacks on Europe. Right now, there's no direct political route to Remaining, so inevitably the conversation will often revolve around preferred ways to leave. Preferring one flavour of deal to another does not require that we have to go through yet another loop of "But the EU is lovely, why would anyone want to leave?".
I can understand that some posters will feel like they're an embattled minority (after all there's only toppstuff, MrGnome, Helocopter, Ghibli, frisbee, Mr T, Trolleys Thank You, chrispmartha, Crackie, b
hstewie, Elysium, Derek Smith, Piha, saaby93 and a bunch of other regular posters arguing against Leave) - but assuming everyone on here is just frothing with excitement at the prospect of Leaving ends in a lot of pointless arguments.
There are plenty of times I could be tempted by the emotional side of leaving.However, both toppstuff and MrGnome in particular do both have a habit of taking neutral comments on the current situation and interpreting them as attacks on Europe. Right now, there's no direct political route to Remaining, so inevitably the conversation will often revolve around preferred ways to leave. Preferring one flavour of deal to another does not require that we have to go through yet another loop of "But the EU is lovely, why would anyone want to leave?".
I can understand that some posters will feel like they're an embattled minority (after all there's only toppstuff, MrGnome, Helocopter, Ghibli, frisbee, Mr T, Trolleys Thank You, chrispmartha, Crackie, b
hstewie, Elysium, Derek Smith, Piha, saaby93 and a bunch of other regular posters arguing against Leave) - but assuming everyone on here is just frothing with excitement at the prospect of Leaving ends in a lot of pointless arguments.But on balance the practicalities win it for me as I've not yet seen a persuasive case.
The bit that summed it up for me was on one of the threads last week where someone who voted to leave knew someone who was an EU citizen who had worked here for several decades and as part of the "sixty five quid please" arms wide open welcoming gesture from our government was told they may only be able to stay for six years in spite of having made a life and career here.
They were apparently surprised that voting to leave the EU would end freedom of movement which might cause issues for people who had benefited from freedom of movement because "I didn't vote for that".
I don't remember every post but that one stuck with me because the thought process was utterly baffling and a little terrifying.
It's perhaps why I find it difficult to just sit back and read some of this stuff without querying it.
ash73 said:
A second referendum would be pathetic, as it will be obviously engineered to give only one possible outcome.
If more than 50% of the electorate voted for one position, it would be a lot easier to reconcile the different camps. This has not happened yet. Maybe if there was another vote and there was a mandate like that, the country would be less divided.
If there is a democratic impasse, using more democracy to fix it does not seem unreasonable. I wonder that some of the anti-2nd referendum rhetoric is driven by fear.
cookie118 said:
JagLover said:
Bit of a worrying article in today's Telegraph.
Looks like the Eurozone is definitely heading into recession.
Industrial production down 2.6% in Italy year on year, 2.6% in Spain, 1.3% in France and 1.9% in Germany.
This is worth quoting
"The Euro remains a relentlessly deflationary currency that has ripped demand out of whole economies. With weakened banking systems, towering imbalances between core and periphery, puny wage growth, relentless austerity and mass unemployment"
This is the economic edifice that Remainers wish to see us remain tightly bound for "economic" reasons. This is the project that centre-left politicians support as a "left wing" cause.
It’s a good job remain is the only one peddling ‘project fear’ heh? Looks like the Eurozone is definitely heading into recession.
Industrial production down 2.6% in Italy year on year, 2.6% in Spain, 1.3% in France and 1.9% in Germany.
This is worth quoting
"The Euro remains a relentlessly deflationary currency that has ripped demand out of whole economies. With weakened banking systems, towering imbalances between core and periphery, puny wage growth, relentless austerity and mass unemployment"
This is the economic edifice that Remainers wish to see us remain tightly bound for "economic" reasons. This is the project that centre-left politicians support as a "left wing" cause.
It is the economic inbalances created by the Euro that made leaving far more economically attractive. Ever since the creation of the single currency the UK's exports to the EU have grown much more slowly than imports from the EU creating a vast and growing trade deficit.
This is an article more on the structure of the UKs trade with the EU, but gives some numbers on the deteriorating trade situation.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/08/w...
All May's deal does is make the situation worse as goods trade will be unaffected while service exports face further problems. The fact that politicians keep pushing it on "economic grounds" highlights the economic illiteracy of those who believe that and the duplicity of the rest.
Tuna said:
toppstuff said:
NoNeed said:
one of which require a political union
Given the reality of FOM, the integration of university research under EU structures, just as two examples, it is easy to prove your statement wrong.We can commit funds, people to various common goals (worldwide) and do so - everything from putting Tim Peak in space to Relief aid in Africa. Those require extensive co-operation, sharing of funds, global travel, agreed standards and regulations - but not political union.
PurpleMoonlight said:
FiF said:
Following on from all the recent discussions around what to do if the vote goes against the Govt on Tuesday. Incidentally BBC claiming she will lose by 200+ votes, finding more converts to reject than to support. I digress.
Any comments about the claims in the Express, (sorry), that the EU Ambassador to the US has said or maybe rumoured that in the event of the deal being rejected that any Art50 extension will be very limited in time. EU wishing to be done before May, i.e. in the EU parliament elections there will be no British participation.
If this is so that then excludes the possibility of another referendum surely. Insufficient time.
Maybe this is a strategy to focus minds in Whitehall on the two options on the table, WA or no deal, and eliminate time wasting speculation on alterative lines such as discussed on here and elsewhere end of last week.
But if that scotches another referendum that's a major blow to Remainers, maybe an attempt to get sufficient of them behind the WA?
I find it amazing that at this very late stage, and despite everything the EU is saying, there are still MP's on the TV claiming Plan B could be Norway +, EFTA, etc.Any comments about the claims in the Express, (sorry), that the EU Ambassador to the US has said or maybe rumoured that in the event of the deal being rejected that any Art50 extension will be very limited in time. EU wishing to be done before May, i.e. in the EU parliament elections there will be no British participation.
If this is so that then excludes the possibility of another referendum surely. Insufficient time.
Maybe this is a strategy to focus minds in Whitehall on the two options on the table, WA or no deal, and eliminate time wasting speculation on alterative lines such as discussed on here and elsewhere end of last week.
But if that scotches another referendum that's a major blow to Remainers, maybe an attempt to get sufficient of them behind the WA?
Mad.
I also saw one of the resigned treasury assistants asking why we are agreeing to pay £39bn and getting nothing in return.
Robertj21a said:
Nickgnome said:
Robertj21a said:
chrispmartha said:
Can you list the number of ways ‘we’ (not sure why you speak for everyone) are ‘different, than ‘them’?
I suggest that you read the earlier posts.If i missed it please point me to that date and time please as you’ve ducked my questions to you.
If you feel that the UK as a whole blends in with the EU then fine, we all have our own opinions on the matter. Just don't assume that your view of this glorious Euro-land, with 27 brothers, all working in happy union, will suit all of us.
.
Keep in mind we'd need Norway and others to allow us to join EFTA and the last thing I read on EFTA was the leader of Norway’s European movement saying it wouldn't be in their best interests.
It's a pretty good read https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/n...
It's a pretty good read https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/n...
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Keep in mind we'd need Norway and others to allow us to join EFTA and the last thing I read on EFTA was the leader of Norway’s European movement saying it wouldn't be in their best interests.
It's a pretty good read https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/n...
It depends which paper you read and which politician they choose to quote.It's a pretty good read https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/n...
The last I read was that the Norwegian PM was guardedly okay with the UK rejoining EFTA.
toppstuff said:
ash73 said:
A second referendum would be pathetic, as it will be obviously engineered to give only one possible outcome.
If more than 50% of the electorate voted for one position, it would be a lot easier to reconcile the different camps. This has not happened yet. Maybe if there was another vote and there was a mandate like that, the country would be less divided.
If there is a democratic impasse, using more democracy to fix it does not seem unreasonable. I wonder that some of the anti-2nd referendum rhetoric is driven by fear.
king arthur said:
It depends which paper you read and which politician they choose to quote.
The last I read was that the Norwegian PM was guardedly okay with the UK rejoining EFTA.
Oh quite, I read that article by chance back in December when it was published which is why I remembered it, but I don't recall reading any others.The last I read was that the Norwegian PM was guardedly okay with the UK rejoining EFTA.
A quick google suggests that "guardedly okay" is perhaps a touch optimistic
Either way, having to accept the Four Freedoms and zero say in EU policies, it makes you wonder what the point and the benefit would be.
toppstuff said:
Tuna said:
toppstuff said:
NoNeed said:
one of which require a political union
Given the reality of FOM, the integration of university research under EU structures, just as two examples, it is easy to prove your statement wrong.We can commit funds, people to various common goals (worldwide) and do so - everything from putting Tim Peak in space to Relief aid in Africa. Those require extensive co-operation, sharing of funds, global travel, agreed standards and regulations - but not political union.
In reality, these things are unlikely.
By the same token, the various European structures that oversee the integration and cooperation of academics and researchers ( which took years to construct ) will effectively exclude UK institutions from March. This is why the UK's top universities spoke out a few weeks ago.
This is not project fear ( Lord what a moronic phrase that is ...)
Alternative arrangements can of course be made, just like I could start arrangements to go to the moon. Both are difficult and likely to take a long time and, in the meantime, the rest of the EU that is already in these arrangements will carry on without us. This is the bare truth. The difference between easy-to-say throwaway statement ( " of course you could be a space captain, Tuna" ) to the reality.
No they don't.
It's inconvenient(!) to change them when they've been built during a period of political union, but they don't require it.
If we took the X billion we pay to the EU that gets turned into Research Grants, and gave, say, one of our universities a 100 million pound grant to research Space Rodents, they could go to a French University and say "Here, want to share in this grant, to research together". That university would not say "No, we cannot do this as we don't have political union".
Sure, setting up different arrangements is going to be a pain in the ass, but arguing that we shouldn't do so is completely specious - that boat has sailed. We *have* to set up different arrangements. Even if the fantasy Remain at the last moment option came to pass, we'd still have to do a lot of work to re-establish collaborations and shared grants.
So claiming that any of those arrangements 'requires' political union is nonsense, and just delays the point at which we have to face up to the harsh reality that we have to stand on our own two feet and re-build relationships that have been broken during Brexit. Nothing, not even rescinding A50, is going to do that for us. There is no 'make it like it was' button.
toppstuff said:
ash73 said:
A second referendum would be pathetic, as it will be obviously engineered to give only one possible outcome.
If more than 50% of the electorate voted for one position, it would be a lot easier to reconcile the different camps. This has not happened yet. Maybe if there was another vote and there was a mandate like that, the country would be less divided.
If there is a democratic impasse, using more democracy to fix it does not seem unreasonable. I wonder that some of the anti-2nd referendum rhetoric is driven by fear.
And another!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46851664
Former Labour deputy leader Roy Hattersley has said he supports another Brexit referendum "very strongly".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46851664
Former Labour deputy leader Roy Hattersley has said he supports another Brexit referendum "very strongly".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff