How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 7)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
So the commons votes against Mays deal but also comes to a consensus that it won’t accept a no-deal brexit.
I know it’s simplistic but how do you tell your negotiating adversary that you will not accept a no-deal situation?
They’ve offered a deal and we’ve refused it.
If they hold their stance surely thats what we will have, a no-deal brexit in March, whether we like it or not.
This only leaves us staying in, which, while some us would welcome, doesn’t feel like the right way to achieve it.I know it’s simplistic but how do you tell your negotiating adversary that you will not accept a no-deal situation?
They’ve offered a deal and we’ve refused it.
If they hold their stance surely thats what we will have, a no-deal brexit in March, whether we like it or not.
If parliament cannot decide, then send it back to the people. If they vote leave a second time then we just leave the following week and to hell with the consequences.
If we vote remain then it’s Dallas time.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Tuna said:
It's a fantasy that either side was voting for a known, set-in-stone, economically rosey, full employment and home in time for tea outcome.
I'm sorry as you're usually quite pragmatic but I profoundly disagree with you on this point.That's exactly what was being promised.
"Forward to Increased Prosperity, not Boom and Bust"
"Low Debt and High Employment"
"Prosperity for All"
Conservative Manifesto from 1987:
"A Strong and Stable Government"
"Building Prosperity and Employment"
Show me a vote where the campaigns didn't promise a utopian vision of the future. The political arguments being made are for a direction of travel. We vote knowing that the implementation often doesn't match the grand vision, but we choose how we want the choices to be made.
The fact that Leave did not specify the exact deal (or no deal) we would reach with the EU is interesting - people voted anyway. Which surely suggests that they were not concerned so much with the how, but the basic principle? Do we want to be part of Europe or not?
I don't see how this is different from the usual elections where we choose Labour, Conservative, LibDems... when they subsequently do things we don't like (tuition fees, tax increases, you name it), we don't have long arguments over "You didn't know what you were voting for" or "but they promised Wealth for All". So why now?
PurpleMoonlight said:
May's deal is leaving the EU.
I trust you are therefore supporting it.
And that is exactly the remaining question, May's deal (well, the Eu's only offer) or No Deal. MP's need to decide now and it can be a planned one as well.I trust you are therefore supporting it.
Brexit has never been a "Party" thing with the public.
Glad you have finally got there ~
Helicopter123 said:
This only leaves us staying in, which, while some us would welcome, doesn’t feel like the right way to achieve it.
If parliament cannot decide, then send it back to the people. If they vote leave a second time then we just leave the following week and to hell with the consequences.
If we vote remain then it’s Dallas time.
As was pointed out in the last volume, the time for a second ref appears to have gone. We can't have one between now and March 29th, and the EU are unlikely to extend A50 beyond May 23rd (EU elections), so there's not time between March and May either.If parliament cannot decide, then send it back to the people. If they vote leave a second time then we just leave the following week and to hell with the consequences.
If we vote remain then it’s Dallas time.
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.
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Tuna said:
It's a fantasy that either side was voting for a known, set-in-stone, economically rosey, full employment and home in time for tea outcome.
I'm sorry as you're usually quite pragmatic but I profoundly disagree with you on this point.That's exactly what was being promised.
"Forward to Increased Prosperity, not Boom and Bust"
"Low Debt and High Employment"
"Prosperity for All"
Conservative Manifesto from 1987:
"A Strong and Stable Government"
"Building Prosperity and Employment"
Show me a vote where the campaigns didn't promise a utopian vision of the future. The political arguments being made are for a direction of travel. We vote knowing that the implementation often doesn't match the grand vision, but we choose how we want the choices to be made.
The fact that Leave did not specify the exact deal (or no deal) we would reach with the EU is interesting - people voted anyway. Which surely suggests that they were not concerned so much with the how, but the basic principle? Do we want to be part of Europe or not?
I don't see how this is different from the usual elections where we choose Labour, Conservative, LibDems... when they subsequently do things we don't like (tuition fees, tax increases, you name it), we don't have long arguments over "You didn't know what you were voting for" or "but they promised Wealth for All". So why now?
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 can just all be bulls
t with no consequences and no chance to correct it once we find out it's bullst?You should expect better.
The Dangerous Elk said:
And that is exactly the remaining question, May's deal (well, the Eu's only offer) or No Deal. MP's need to decide now and it can be a planned one as well.
Brexit has never been a "Party" thing with the public.
Glad you have finally got there ~
I don't have an issue with May's deal. I think she has done an amazing job getting something unique out of the EU.Brexit has never been a "Party" thing with the public.
Glad you have finally got there ~
I don't see the EU trying to lock us into the backstop.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I don't have an issue with May's deal. I think she has done an amazing job getting something unique out of the EU.
I don't see the EU trying to lock us into the backstop.
Then they could just put that in legally. It is between us and the Irish to sort out the Good Friday Agreement and quite frankly, the Eu putting itself forward as judge and moral jury on than, well they can "do one".I don't see the EU trying to lock us into the backstop.
The Dangerous Elk said:
Then they could just put that in legally. It is between us and the Irish to sort out the Good Friday Agreement and quite frankly, the Eu putting itself forward as judge and moral jury on than, well they can "do one".
Does it occur to you that Ireland may want the backstop?PurpleMoonlight said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
And that is exactly the remaining question, May's deal (well, the Eu's only offer) or No Deal. MP's need to decide now and it can be a planned one as well.
Brexit has never been a "Party" thing with the public.
Glad you have finally got there ~
I don't have an issue with May's deal. I think she has done an amazing job getting something unique out of the EU.Brexit has never been a "Party" thing with the public.
Glad you have finally got there ~
I don't see the EU trying to lock us into the backstop.
The issue is that, without an end to the backstop, we have no negotiation power. They can hold us to ransom until we agree to their terms.
The issue with Mays Deal is the problem of being forced to keep using the EU tariffs rather being able to do our own trade deals. That is definitely not what Leave means.
loafer123 said:
In the spirit of positiveness, I am also not particularly worried about the backstop itself.
The issue is that, without an end to the backstop, we have no negotiation power. They can hold us to ransom until we agree to their terms.
The issue with Mays Deal is the problem of being forced to keep using the EU tariffs rather being able to do our own trade deals. That is definitely not what Leave means.
No, they have to negotiate the new trade agreement in good faith.The issue is that, without an end to the backstop, we have no negotiation power. They can hold us to ransom until we agree to their terms.
The issue with Mays Deal is the problem of being forced to keep using the EU tariffs rather being able to do our own trade deals. That is definitely not what Leave means.
I'm sure the EU don't want this all dragging on for years as we don't.
PurpleMoonlight said:
loafer123 said:
In the spirit of positiveness, I am also not particularly worried about the backstop itself.
The issue is that, without an end to the backstop, we have no negotiation power. They can hold us to ransom until we agree to their terms.
The issue with Mays Deal is the problem of being forced to keep using the EU tariffs rather being able to do our own trade deals. That is definitely not what Leave means.
No, they have to negotiate the new trade agreement in good faith.The issue is that, without an end to the backstop, we have no negotiation power. They can hold us to ransom until we agree to their terms.
The issue with Mays Deal is the problem of being forced to keep using the EU tariffs rather being able to do our own trade deals. That is definitely not what Leave means.
I'm sure the EU don't want this all dragging on for years as we don't.
It is a terrible deal from a negotiation standpoint.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff