How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 7)
Discussion
B'stard Child said:
I shall commit right from the start that I will not use the expression F*xtr*tt O***r again having served my ban from this thread
Apologies to those who were offended and for the additional work caused to the moderators in cleaning up the thread
Thanks to those on both sides who enabled this thread to progress from 117 pages to 125 pages and consequently reduce the length of my Ban.
Why thank you, Mr Child. I was, quite naturally, deeply upset and cried myself to sleep. Apologies to those who were offended and for the additional work caused to the moderators in cleaning up the thread
Thanks to those on both sides who enabled this thread to progress from 117 pages to 125 pages and consequently reduce the length of my Ban.
Not. On either score.
I can’t now recall what I said to you but I’m sure it was immaculate in both conception and execution, had ladies fainting and gentlemen gaffawing but embarrassed at the same time. Certain of it.
Best though that we all pretend to be nice to each other.
B'stard Child said:
Scrump said:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Volume 6 lasted less than 6 weeks.
Please keep the discussion away from personal insults.
I shall commit right from the start that I will not use the expression F*xtr*tt O***r again having served my ban from this thread Volume 6 lasted less than 6 weeks.
Please keep the discussion away from personal insults.
Apologies to those who were offended and for the additional work caused to the moderators in cleaning up the thread
Thanks to those on both sides who enabled this thread to progress from 117 pages to 125 pages and consequently reduce the length of my Ban.
Mrr T said:
Tuna said:
Plus, as is regularly pointed out, the 'Dallas option' only works on bad TV Soaps. Even if we can rescind A50, things don't go back to how they were. Our contributions are set to double over the next decade as we loose the rebate, we've already lost over 25% of EU Grants and Funding that are not automatically restored by taking back A50, and in the last 2.5 years, the EU itself has changed politically. We cannot go back to how it was, and a second ref can't even promise that rescinding A50 would be accepted by the ECJ.
Project fear 1.2?The ECJ would only get to consider the matter if the EU refered the matter to it.
And IIRC the CJEU said that we’re we to revoke, we would go back to precisely the status and relationship we had pre-service of A50. That obviously doesn’t speak to what would have been in store from 2016 onwards had we never served the A50 notice, but the starting point is nonetheless a return to exactly the relationship we had.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Politicians of all colours do that, we all know that.
The point is that you can vote politicians out at a general election if you don't think they've done what they promised.
We had two General Elections in as many years which demonstrates that point pretty well.
This was a "once in a generation" decision with such profound consequences for our nations future.
Why even bother to run campaigns if it could just all be bullst with no consequences and no chance to correct it once we found out it was bullst?
You should expect better.
I think my concern here really is that most of the comments appear to be attempts to remove the legitimacy of those voters, not calls for the government to do better. The point is that you can vote politicians out at a general election if you don't think they've done what they promised.
We had two General Elections in as many years which demonstrates that point pretty well.
This was a "once in a generation" decision with such profound consequences for our nations future.
Why even bother to run campaigns if it could just all be bulls
t with no consequences and no chance to correct it once we found out it was bullst?You should expect better.
"You voted to take back control, but look, our government are too incompetent to take back control! Ha!"
Isn't that a problem?
"You voted to do something about immigration, but we could have done something at any point! Now we should go back to how it was!"
Isn't that failing to solve people's concerns about immigration, sweeping them under the carpet?
"You don't feel part of the EU, but you're WRONG, because I do feel part of the EU!"
So how does that make that voter feel more European, to be told they're just not doing it right?
The Leave Campaign used a whole load of slogans, and now we have people basically trying to assert that none of those things that actually convinced 17.4 million people to vote are valid. That seems to me to be a fundamental failure to answer people's concerns, understand their motives, or find consensus. The overall point of the Leave campaign convinced 17.4 million people to vote to make the biggest change in our political history. It does rather suggest that the spirit of what was offered was absolutely what a large part of the population actually wanted (and a smaller portion of the population were sufficiently unconcerned about that they didn't feel they had to vote).
But yeah.. this government has royally screwed up implementing the vote. How does that reduce the legitimacy of what was being asked of them?
Isn’t it extraordinary that the 27 EU countries, and a parliament and a bureaucracy have negotiated with a single voice, while we have negotiated as we are the equivalent of 27 or perhaps 600 dissonant voices.
David Davis, who spectacularly failed to build a cohesive vision and broad support for Brexit, and then ran away having had to be bailed out by his boss, must shoulder much of the blame.
David Davis, who spectacularly failed to build a cohesive vision and broad support for Brexit, and then ran away having had to be bailed out by his boss, must shoulder much of the blame.
Tony427 said:
That entirely depends on whether you think that the decimation of existing political parties and the rise of a far right alternative garnering votes from disenfranchised Labour and Conservative voters is a good or a bad thing.
If the political classes really want to see how much damage can be done to the UK political lanscape by over 17 million voters, who feel betrayed by those who they entrusted with their decision, they are going about it in exactly the correct way.
Every constituency that voted to leave that has a sitting MP that refuses to carry out that decision will be in play in the next election. These MP's seats will be targetted remorslessly as they will be easy prey. The only MP's that can feel safe will be those in Remain voting seats and perhaps Lib Dems.
Labour, thanks to fence sitting and a disgraceful attitude of political opportunism when the country really needed grown up concensus politics, will be hardest hit. And thats before Momentum start imposing their loony left candidates on the population.
Peak Corbyn has passed, the young have seen through the sham, and every day that goes by simply exposes the intellectual poverty of the Labour front bench.
We, the general public, had better buckle up for a bumpy ride and a sequence of short lasting coalition governments.
It will be like Italy but without the sunshine.
Cheers,
Tony
Good post. I'm going to quote this lock stock on a Facebook thread I'm having an argument on if you don't mind. If the political classes really want to see how much damage can be done to the UK political lanscape by over 17 million voters, who feel betrayed by those who they entrusted with their decision, they are going about it in exactly the correct way.
Every constituency that voted to leave that has a sitting MP that refuses to carry out that decision will be in play in the next election. These MP's seats will be targetted remorslessly as they will be easy prey. The only MP's that can feel safe will be those in Remain voting seats and perhaps Lib Dems.
Labour, thanks to fence sitting and a disgraceful attitude of political opportunism when the country really needed grown up concensus politics, will be hardest hit. And thats before Momentum start imposing their loony left candidates on the population.
Peak Corbyn has passed, the young have seen through the sham, and every day that goes by simply exposes the intellectual poverty of the Labour front bench.
We, the general public, had better buckle up for a bumpy ride and a sequence of short lasting coalition governments.
It will be like Italy but without the sunshine.
Cheers,
Tony
Greg66 said:
Quite. And since the only way I can see A50 being revoked is in the aftermath of Ref#2 voting to remain, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that a revocation would be queried by the EU or looked at by the CJEU.
And IIRC the CJEU said that we’re we to revoke, we would go back to precisely the status and relationship we had pre-service of A50. That obviously doesn’t speak to what would have been in store from 2016 onwards had we never served the A50 notice, but the starting point is nonetheless a return to exactly the relationship we had.
We've covered this enough times to know that you and I fundamentally disagree here.And IIRC the CJEU said that we’re we to revoke, we would go back to precisely the status and relationship we had pre-service of A50. That obviously doesn’t speak to what would have been in store from 2016 onwards had we never served the A50 notice, but the starting point is nonetheless a return to exactly the relationship we had.
It's funny that every step of Brexit has been subject to legal challenges "because we have to be sure it's done right", yet rescinding A50 would just be accepted by everyone.
It's also clearly not the case that the legal relationship between the UK and EU will automatically make all the other things that have changed go back to the way they were. We've lost 25% of our university and research funding, we're constantly reminded that companies are moving workers, financial services are being moved to the continent - none of those things will be reversed by A50 being rescinded.
And the political effect of saying our own government is not capable of governing the country just cannot be underestimated. It's amazing that anyone can attempt to brush that one under the carpet.
Greg66 said:
Quite. And since the only way I can see A50 being revoked is in the aftermath of Ref#2 voting to remain, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that a revocation would be queried by the EU or looked at by the CJEU.
And IIRC the CJEU said that we’re we to revoke, we would go back to precisely the status and relationship we had pre-service of A50. That obviously doesn’t speak to what would have been in store from 2016 onwards had we never served the A50 notice, but the starting point is nonetheless a return to exactly the relationship we had.
Good Post, and of course this would be a great economic solution. I’m sure jobs lost already would be welcomed back and a full on investment backed boom would be seen.And IIRC the CJEU said that we’re we to revoke, we would go back to precisely the status and relationship we had pre-service of A50. That obviously doesn’t speak to what would have been in store from 2016 onwards had we never served the A50 notice, but the starting point is nonetheless a return to exactly the relationship we had.
Leavers can’t admit it of course.
Tuna said:
But yeah.. this government has royally screwed up implementing the vote. How does that reduce the legitimacy of what was being asked of them?
Perhaps a good start would be to have known what was being asked of them.I'd pretty much guarantee you that if you went and asked 1000 leave voters what they wanted you wouldn't come back with 1000 identical replies and the reasons people may not like the EU are a completely different thing to what they were told would happen if they voted to leave it.
Run a campaign was run on "No Deal" then I might not like it but I'd accept it.
Instead, people were promised the moon on a stick which was patently bulls
t.And the best anyone can come up with is "Well we all know politicians lie" or more lies where we're told we all knew there would be some pain
It's bizarre watching people trying to rewrite history.
Helicopter123 said:
Isn’t it extraordinary that the 27 EU countries, and a parliament and a bureaucracy have negotiated with a single voice, while we have negotiated as we are the equivalent of 27 or perhaps 600 dissonant voices.
David Davis, who spectacularly failed to build a cohesive vision and broad support for Brexit, and then ran away having had to be bailed out by his boss, must shoulder much of the blame.
To be fair, I’m not sure that’s a wholly accurate portrayal of either side. David Davis, who spectacularly failed to build a cohesive vision and broad support for Brexit, and then ran away having had to be bailed out by his boss, must shoulder much of the blame.
On the EU side you have a supranational concentrated group of individuals setting policy and making decisions for negotiations. Sure, they notionally have to drag along 27 nations, but much like Labour is better than the stories at concealing dissent within its ranks, so the EU manages its member states well to present a unified front.
Whereas on our side, we started with an almost evenly divided vote, compounded it with a Parliament that was also divided (probably more remain than leave pre-vote, and post-vote more reluctant implementers than zealous beleavers (I’m quite pleased with that, TBH)). Then we added in a minority government, an opposition that can’t even identify a clear position of its own.
It’s really small wonder we haven’t had a clear or single vision of where we want to go: there are far too many discordant voices in the chorus for a tune to be heard.
Helicopter123 said:
Isn’t it extraordinary that the 27 EU countries, and a parliament and a bureaucracy have negotiated with a single voice, while we have negotiated as we are the equivalent of 27 or perhaps 600 dissonant voices.
David Davis, who spectacularly failed to build a cohesive vision and broad support for Brexit, and then ran away having had to be bailed out by his boss, must shoulder much of the blame.
Yet history and facts tell a completely different storyDavid Davis, who spectacularly failed to build a cohesive vision and broad support for Brexit, and then ran away having had to be bailed out by his boss, must shoulder much of the blame.
The Boss now has the UK where it is, with a deal that is likely to be voted down by a minimum of 76 of her own MP's with some suggesting it could be as many as 111.
May clearly now has a cohesive vision and a deal with broad support, the Boss has done well
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'd pretty much guarantee you that if you went and asked 1000 leave voters what they wanted you wouldn't come back with 1000 identical replies
Ask 1000 remain voters what they want and very few would say "the EU exactly as it is now and will be in the future"In fact, I've not heard a single remainer state they like the EU for what it is. Most seem to say it needs reform, yet forget to mention it will not reform.
A vote for remain is a vote to blindly follow whatever the EU decides.
A vote to leave is a vote to blindly follow whatever the government decides.
It's not perfect, but them's the choices.
Tuna said:
Greg66 said:
Quite. And since the only way I can see A50 being revoked is in the aftermath of Ref#2 voting to remain, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that a revocation would be queried by the EU or looked at by the CJEU.
And IIRC the CJEU said that we’re we to revoke, we would go back to precisely the status and relationship we had pre-service of A50. That obviously doesn’t speak to what would have been in store from 2016 onwards had we never served the A50 notice, but the starting point is nonetheless a return to exactly the relationship we had.
We've covered this enough times to know that you and I fundamentally disagree here.And IIRC the CJEU said that we’re we to revoke, we would go back to precisely the status and relationship we had pre-service of A50. That obviously doesn’t speak to what would have been in store from 2016 onwards had we never served the A50 notice, but the starting point is nonetheless a return to exactly the relationship we had.
It's funny that every step of Brexit has been subject to legal challenges "because we have to be sure it's done right", yet rescinding A50 would just be accepted by everyone.
It's also clearly not the case that the legal relationship between the UK and EU will automatically make all the other things that have changed go back to the way they were. We've lost 25% of our university and research funding, we're constantly reminded that companies are moving workers, financial services are being moved to the continent - none of those things will be reversed by A50 being rescinded.
And the political effect of saying our own government is not capable of governing the country just cannot be underestimated. It's amazing that anyone can attempt to brush that one under the carpet.
The second point is that things have moved on since 2016. Well yes, they have on both sides. To wheel out the tired and crap gym/divorce analogies, the gym has changed some equipment since 2016/the estranged spouse has had a couple of runs around the block (take that to mean whatever you want) since 2016. That toothpaste can’t be put back in the tube. Jobs that have moved won’t magically return simply if A50 were to be withdrawn. Accrued changes/third party actions won’t be undone.
But that’s different to re-establishing the bilateral relationship between the UK and the EU on the same terms as it was pre-A50. The CJEU was explicit on that point: we pull the A50 notice and it’s as if it had never been served in the first place so far as the relationship between the UK and the EU is concerned.
Greg66 said:
But that’s different to re-establishing the bilateral relationship between the UK and the EU on the same terms as it was pre-A50. The CJEU was explicit on that point: we pull the A50 notice and it’s as if it had never been served in the first place so far as the relationship between the UK and the EU is concerned.
Quite. And that will be the case at the outset. I would wonder how long it will be until the rebate comes under attack though, followed by all of our other opt-outs. We won't get away with cocking about so spectacularly without a cost. davepoth said:
Greg66 said:
But that’s different to re-establishing the bilateral relationship between the UK and the EU on the same terms as it was pre-A50. The CJEU was explicit on that point: we pull the A50 notice and it’s as if it had never been served in the first place so far as the relationship between the UK and the EU is concerned.
Quite. And that will be the case at the outset. I would wonder how long it will be until the rebate comes under attack though, followed by all of our other opt-outs. We won't get away with cocking about so spectacularly without a cost. Tuna said:
But yeah.. this government has royally screwed up implementing the vote. How does that reduce the legitimacy of what was being asked of them?
This works both ways though.The rhetoric from a lot of leave voters in here, especially when talking about younger remain voters, is that remain voters are naive or under researched on the EU, or that they were scared by exaggerated reports that haven’t come true and therefore their voices aren’t legitimate.
Add in to that some posters openly saying that remain voters shouldn’t have any say in what kind of brexit we get and is it any wonder that positions have become more entrenched rather than less?
And has anything that has happened since the referendum result reduced the legitimacy of remainers voices? Brexit affects us all, and should be implemented with 100% of the country in mind.
davepoth said:
Greg66 said:
But that’s different to re-establishing the bilateral relationship between the UK and the EU on the same terms as it was pre-A50. The CJEU was explicit on that point: we pull the A50 notice and it’s as if it had never been served in the first place so far as the relationship between the UK and the EU is concerned.
Quite. And that will be the case at the outset. I would wonder how long it will be until the rebate comes under attack though, followed by all of our other opt-outs. We won't get away with cocking about so spectacularly without a cost. DRAGLINE
But I got 'em to
promise if you give up peaceful,
they wouldn't even whip you this
time.
LUKE
(amused)
Do we even get our same bunks back?
DRAGLINE
Why sure, Luke. I mean I didn't talk
to them about that. But why not?
They're reasonable, Luke. Hell, we
only been gone a coupla hours.
LUKE
You don't understand a thing, do
you, Drag?
wiggy001 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'd pretty much guarantee you that if you went and asked 1000 leave voters what they wanted you wouldn't come back with 1000 identical replies
Ask 1000 remain voters what they want and very few would say "the EU exactly as it is now and will be in the future"In fact, I've not heard a single remainer state they like the EU for what it is. Most seem to say it needs reform, yet forget to mention it will not reform.
A vote for remain is a vote to blindly follow whatever the EU decides.
A vote to leave is a vote to blindly follow whatever the government decides.
It's not perfect, but them's the choices.
Deflect and deny!
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Perhaps a good start would be to have known what was being asked of them.
From my point of view, I can't speak for Leavers, but it's a fairly easy job to ask whether the deal being negotiated respects the spirit of the vote. I know it's dangerously close to saying "Leave means Leave", but if the majority of people don't think a deal is actually leaving, then maybe it isn't?Some of it is about how it's presented - at no point has there been a consensus that the current deal is a 'good Leave'. I actually think that if Remain had held back on the attacks and endorsed some of the Leave options, they could have got a hybrid customs-ish union through parliament. But because of the absolutism, the idea that any sort of leave is unacceptable, we're left in the current situation.
And again, I'll point to the Lancaster House speech - that was widely accepted as a good definition of Leave. May herself defined "what was being asked of them" - sufficiently well to satisfy just about everyone. If that was a good enough definition, why not use it? If the vote was unclear, that seemed to me to be a great achievement delivering clarity. Job jobbed.. now get on with it.
cookie118 said:
Tuna said:
But yeah.. this government has royally screwed up implementing the vote. How does that reduce the legitimacy of what was being asked of them?
This works both ways though.The rhetoric from a lot of leave voters in here, especially when talking about younger remain voters, is that remain voters are naive or under researched on the EU, or that they were scared by exaggerated reports that haven’t come true and therefore their voices aren’t legitimate.
Add in to that some posters openly saying that remain voters shouldn’t have any say in what kind of brexit we get and is it any wonder that positions have become more entrenched rather than less?
And has anything that has happened since the referendum result reduced the legitimacy of remainers voices? Brexit affects us all, and should be implemented with 100% of the country in mind.
The majority vote was to Leave - and that is what we are doing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff