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

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

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

toppstuff

13,696 posts

192 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.
Please do, because your logic escapes me. How do either of your two examples actually require political union?

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 theory I can go to the moon. And in theory you could be Prime Minister.

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.

PurpleMoonlight

16,502 posts

102 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.

Mad.

I also saw one of the resigned treasury assistants asking why we are agreeing to pay £39bn and getting nothing in return.


ash73

16,506 posts

166 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
bhstewie said:
ash73 said:
If they're going to cancel it they should just cancel it, I don't think there'll be another referendum.

The logical thing for Labour to do is to table a no confidence vote after the deal is rejected, force a general election and pledge to withdraw article 50 if they are elected. It's what most of their voters want and they'll steal quite a few Tory remainer votes into the bargain. The problem is Corbyn is a closet leaver and won't play ball.

Any delay would be unbearable, people have had enough and too many domestic issues are being sidelined.
Labour won't offer that.

I don't believe it's anything to do with "Will of the people" I think it's as simple as "Will of the Trade Unions" which is why Corbyn has just as many issues in his own party and electorate as the old union/socialist types want out whilst at the same time he has the slight inconvenience of all the youngsters who worship "Jeremy" who mostly want in.
If Labour don't grasp the nettle I could see the Tories tabling an EFTA plan B, which could still get a majority in Parliament. The Norway option is probably the only way this is ever going to get through but it would need the EU to pull a rabbit out of the hat and (a) agree to that option and (b) drop the backstop in that context. This would be the only legitimate reason for a delay, imo. They might have to bring in Rudd (or Gove?) as leader, as May has been so dogmatic about plan A.

I think Gove saw this coming and has been covering both options recently.

If the EU rejects an EFTA plan B then someone has to grow a pair and say what needs to be said; they can't make it work and now need to do what's right for the country. That's what we elected them to do, ffs.

A second referendum would be pathetic, as it will be obviously engineered to give only one possible outcome.

Isaac Hunt

10,260 posts

156 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
crankedup said:
Are you saying that CCTV and privacy laws are bad? If so why?
Have an example. Our front wall has been demolished three times in the last ten years by vehicles who have hit and run. Last time it cost £2k to repair as they distroyed the wrought iron gate as well. Every time I have reported it to the police they want CCTV and without it do nothing. I even had two witnesses and a reg number, but no the police want CCTV.

Now in order to record the vehicle reg plate, the CCTV will need to cover the road and pavement. This is a public area and under GDPR I could be prosecuted if my CCTV extends beyond my boundary.

bitchstewie

21,650 posts

155 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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, bhstewie, 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.

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.

frisbee

1,929 posts

55 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
frisbee said:
crankedup said:
Are you saying that CCTV and privacy laws are bad? If so why?
Are you saying that taking back control is bad? Hmmm.
Is the best way to avoid answering a question to ask another?
Apparently?

Helicopter123

6,210 posts

101 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
frisbee said:
crankedup said:
Are you saying that CCTV and privacy laws are bad? If so why?
Are you saying that taking back control is bad? Hmmm.
Is the best way to avoid answering a question to ask another?
Why do you think that?

toppstuff

13,696 posts

192 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.

JagLover

26,092 posts

180 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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?
Actually project reality

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.

crankedup

21,135 posts

188 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Isaac Hunt said:
crankedup said:
Are you saying that CCTV and privacy laws are bad? If so why?
Have an example. Our front wall has been demolished three times in the last ten years by vehicles who have hit and run. Last time it cost £2k to repair as they distroyed the wrought iron gate as well. Every time I have reported it to the police they want CCTV and without it do nothing. I even had two witnesses and a reg number, but no the police want CCTV.

Now in order to record the vehicle reg plate, the CCTV will need to cover the road and pavement. This is a public area and under GDPR I could be prosecuted if my CCTV extends beyond my boundary.
That’s seems to be the BiB simply not bothering with your case, have you reported this lack of
interest to your Police Commissioner, MP, might also be worth advising your insurance Company.
Away from this example though, in general do you believe that CCTV and privacy are in the best interests of day to day life.

Edited by crankedup on Saturday 12th January 15:44

NoNeed

13,651 posts

145 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.
Please do, because your logic escapes me. How do either of your two examples actually require political union?

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.
There is no logic to their argument as not one remainer can state anything good about the EU that actually requires political union

FiF

35,686 posts

196 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.

Mad.

I also saw one of the resigned treasury assistants asking why we are agreeing to pay £39bn and getting nothing in return.
Personally I resigned myself to EEA/EFTA sadly being a dead duck months back. A whole litany of guilty sticky fingers caused that, Nick Boles being the latest in a long line. Could be wrong, been wrong before, and not be the last time, but imo it's deader than that infamous Norwegian Blue parrot.

chrispmartha

5,220 posts

74 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.
But you never answered did you?

If i missed it please point me to that date and time please as you’ve ducked my questions to you.
All very amusing. I'm surprised that you (and the current 'gang' now trailing along.....) haven't understood my original post last night. If you care to re-read what I actually said (before all the other 'frothers' decided to deliberately misinterpret everything), you will see that I put forward a number of 'Perhaps'.........I also said 'I don't know what it is'.

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.

.
I think that’s what’s called dodging the question.

bitchstewie

21,650 posts

155 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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...

king arthur

3,456 posts

206 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
bhstewie 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.

The last I read was that the Norwegian PM was guardedly okay with the UK rejoining EFTA.

loafer123

8,927 posts

160 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.
More than 50% did vote for one position, which was to Leave. Not do a deal. Not do a transition. Leave.

ash73

16,506 posts

166 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
king arthur said:
bhstewie 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.

The last I read was that the Norwegian PM was guardedly okay with the UK rejoining EFTA.
What matters is whether it changes the backstop.

bitchstewie

21,650 posts

155 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.

A quick google suggests that "guardedly okay" is perhaps a touch optimistic smile

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.

Tuna

11,723 posts

229 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.
Please do, because your logic escapes me. How do either of your two examples actually require political union?

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 theory I can go to the moon. And in theory you could be Prime Minister.

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.
Aside from the condescending tone, that's not an answer. The question was do any of these require political union?

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.

Robertj21a

6,739 posts

50 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.
Ha Ha......I never fail to be amused by the silliness of these attempts by Remainers to overturn the Referendum result !
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED