How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 7)
Discussion
Guvernator said:
Surely we aren't the only country who has high net FOM. Do they not have the same issues in Germany and France for instance? How do they handle getting the balance right? Is it just our distorted UK viewpoint that makes it seem like it's a bigger issue here then anywhere else.
Go live in the suburbs of Paris for that answer.chrispmartha said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ron Maiden said:
steve_k said:
pgh said:
I didn't watch Question Time last night, however, seems the BBC put together a normal audience for once:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwk3YMSoMI8
If the audience is representative or the feeling in the UK it's clearly not inline with what the media keep telling us. This should be a warning to any MP who is thinking of not honoring the result of the referendum.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwk3YMSoMI8
basis, but the biggest catastrophe of all will be reserved for those currently in power if they thwart the will of the people
and don't deliver what was voted for in the referendum...to leave the EU.
Ignoring the wishes of 17M + Voters will result in a monumental catastrophe for British Politics.
Look they will say, even after such a vote, there are still those trying to ignore, over turn or subvert the democratic result. And they try to call what they are doing democracy? If the 2016 vote is ignored, why should any other vote ever held in the UK be respected?
Instead of just respecting the result of the 2016 vote, and then letting the UK government get on with the job of delivering what the people voted for, those who did not respect the result of the 2016 referendum have been doing their best to delay, overturn or otherwise subvert the democratic will of the majority. That is why other countries might believe that the UK has embarrassed itself over Brexit.
JNW1 said:
Personally I regard Norway Plus as better than May's deal; the only red line it crosses is Freedom of Movement but that wasn't one of my main motives for voting Leave and has in any event been overblown IMO (and therefore crossing that particular line has little consequence to me although I know others feel differently).
The other point is May's deal is dead in terms of getting approval in the House of Commons and would need so much tweaking to get it through that it would no longer be May's deal. In contrast, I suspect something like Norway Plus might get the support of soft-Brexiters and at least some Remainers and hence might just have a chance of getting through (and in the eyes of many that would respect the 2016 referendum result even though it wouldn't satisfy hard-Brexiters).
With no-deal effectively off the table if something like Norway Plus doesn't get approved we're probably looking at remaining in the EU and as a Leave voter I'd regard that as the least satisfactory outcome of all.
But No Deal isn't effectively off the table (at present). Isn't it still the default option ?The other point is May's deal is dead in terms of getting approval in the House of Commons and would need so much tweaking to get it through that it would no longer be May's deal. In contrast, I suspect something like Norway Plus might get the support of soft-Brexiters and at least some Remainers and hence might just have a chance of getting through (and in the eyes of many that would respect the 2016 referendum result even though it wouldn't satisfy hard-Brexiters).
With no-deal effectively off the table if something like Norway Plus doesn't get approved we're probably looking at remaining in the EU and as a Leave voter I'd regard that as the least satisfactory outcome of all.
It isn't what many want but it still could happen - at least it delivers what 17m voted for.
JNW1 said:
Personally I'd see Norway Plus as acceptable (just) in terms respecting the 2016 referendum result but nothing is forever and it could end-up being an interim step prior us to us moving towards what would in today's terms be regarded as an orderly no-deal exit.
For example, if the EU tried to increase significantly the net contributions it wanted us to make - and basically make it much more expensive to be an affiliate member of their club - I think we'd be perfectly within our rights to say we no longer wish to be an affiliate on those terms and walk away. Nothing wrong in that if we do it in a planned, organised, manner and in the meantime perhaps we'll have secured some of those trade deals with other countries that would help make us less reliant on the EU anyway?
Personally if we end up in a Norway deal the only way we would end up going. And thats closer and closer back into the EU. The argument will be that because of the shambles of trying to leave the first time that cannot be a option again. And because we are taking rules from them we may as well be part of making them rules so the only logical option is to go back in. And the public wont get another say on the matter for a generation. For example, if the EU tried to increase significantly the net contributions it wanted us to make - and basically make it much more expensive to be an affiliate member of their club - I think we'd be perfectly within our rights to say we no longer wish to be an affiliate on those terms and walk away. Nothing wrong in that if we do it in a planned, organised, manner and in the meantime perhaps we'll have secured some of those trade deals with other countries that would help make us less reliant on the EU anyway?
But having said that and my prediction of the shift in politics which would be inevitable after they let 17 million people down. Also with the trajectory of the EU and political situation in the EU and it's member states. It's hard to say what will happen.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Not quite I agree that those who did not respect the result of the 2016 referendum are the ones who have embarrassed the UK in this matter.
Instead of just respecting the result of the 2016 vote, and then letting the UK government get on with the job of delivering what the people voted for, those who did not respect the result of the 2016 referendum have been doing their best to delay, overturn or otherwise subvert the democratic will of the majority. That is why other countries might believe that the UK has embarrassed itself over Brexit.
I don't see that at all.Instead of just respecting the result of the 2016 vote, and then letting the UK government get on with the job of delivering what the people voted for, those who did not respect the result of the 2016 referendum have been doing their best to delay, overturn or otherwise subvert the democratic will of the majority. That is why other countries might believe that the UK has embarrassed itself over Brexit.
There are very few MP's actively trying to only remain in the EU.
There are a considerable number who want a second vote, but that's more because they don't want to be held responsible for leaving under no deal and would, again, prefer to pass the buck to voters.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Vaud said:
Because a referendum is not a binding vote, it is an expression of opinion.
I don’t think it should be overturned but it is technically a different kind of vote.
If referenda do not represent a binding vote, why was the result of the 1975 referendum to remain in the EEC enacted upon? Is it a case of some referenda are not binding, but others are? I don’t think it should be overturned but it is technically a different kind of vote.
We either respect the result of ALL democratic votes held in the country, (not selectively choose which ones we will adhere to, and which we will not) or we don't have a voting system at all.
Guvernator said:
Surely we aren't the only country who has high net FOM. Do they not have the same issues in Germany and France for instance? How do they handle getting the balance right? Is it just our distorted UK viewpoint that makes it seem like it's a bigger issue here then anywhere else.
The issue is not automatically FOM as such but with the interaction of FOM with an individual countries employment market, welfare system, way of financing healthcare and residency requirements.You mention France and they frequently simply deport Eastern European Roma who arrive in their country. They also have very different systems in all of the above to us.
We can change our systems, in order to combat a problem created by FOM, but it is not simply a matter of waving a magic wand and virtually all the measures needed would be bitterly opposed by your typical Guardian Remainer.
The Dangerous Elk said:
Guvernator said:
Surely we aren't the only country who has high net FOM. Do they not have the same issues in Germany and France for instance? How do they handle getting the balance right? Is it just our distorted UK viewpoint that makes it seem like it's a bigger issue here then anywhere else.
Go live in the suburbs of Paris for that answer.FOM is great in principle, but very hard to control in practice. It tends to have most impact in the nations at the opposing ends of the wealth and welfare spectrum. Even then, it can only be effectively run where the borders of the FOM zone as a whole are not porous or under continual conditions of breach.
Robertj21a said:
JNW1 said:
Personally I regard Norway Plus as better than May's deal; the only red line it crosses is Freedom of Movement but that wasn't one of my main motives for voting Leave and has in any event been overblown IMO (and therefore crossing that particular line has little consequence to me although I know others feel differently).
The other point is May's deal is dead in terms of getting approval in the House of Commons and would need so much tweaking to get it through that it would no longer be May's deal. In contrast, I suspect something like Norway Plus might get the support of soft-Brexiters and at least some Remainers and hence might just have a chance of getting through (and in the eyes of many that would respect the 2016 referendum result even though it wouldn't satisfy hard-Brexiters).
With no-deal effectively off the table if something like Norway Plus doesn't get approved we're probably looking at remaining in the EU and as a Leave voter I'd regard that as the least satisfactory outcome of all.
But No Deal isn't effectively off the table (at present). Isn't it still the default option ?The other point is May's deal is dead in terms of getting approval in the House of Commons and would need so much tweaking to get it through that it would no longer be May's deal. In contrast, I suspect something like Norway Plus might get the support of soft-Brexiters and at least some Remainers and hence might just have a chance of getting through (and in the eyes of many that would respect the 2016 referendum result even though it wouldn't satisfy hard-Brexiters).
With no-deal effectively off the table if something like Norway Plus doesn't get approved we're probably looking at remaining in the EU and as a Leave voter I'd regard that as the least satisfactory outcome of all.
It isn't what many want but it still could happen - at least it delivers what 17m voted for.
I think it's worth bearing in mind that when Boles and his ilk push for Norway+ the + is the Customs Union. Not being in the Customs Union is what differentiates Norway from the other options, so it's very disingenuous to push Norway/Norway+ as if they are the same thing and the + is a cherry on top.
The + makes a rubbish option worse than staying in the EU and both options breach May's red-lines.
That's before we consider what the cost of that + would be.
The + makes a rubbish option worse than staying in the EU and both options breach May's red-lines.
That's before we consider what the cost of that + would be.
Sway said:
Greg66 said:
As Brexiteers do you regard Norway (or Norway+) as better or worse than May's deal. I have no feel for this, so genuine question.
Personally, Norway is preferable to May's deal - it does not preclude an independent trade policy, nor does it prevent our regaining of seats at global fora (which is where the EU takes it's rules from), and has an unilateral exit capability. However, it does nothing specific for the goods borders so is insufficient for certain parties' "red lines"...
johnxjsc1985 said:
In Boston Lincs they voted to leave 76% to 24% whilst their MP voted Remain and there is the problem Parliament is filled with people who will not honour the decision made by their constituents and we cant do anything about it.
And that doesn't change with brexit.MP's are not slaves.
PurpleMoonlight said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
In Boston Lincs they voted to leave 76% to 24% whilst their MP voted Remain and there is the problem Parliament is filled with people who will not honour the decision made by their constituents and we cant do anything about it.
And that doesn't change with brexit.MP's are not slaves.
PurpleMoonlight said:
And that doesn't change with brexit.
MP's are not slaves.
that is a really strange thing to post . How on earth did you come up with that one. MP's are in Westminster at the behest of the people they represent and they are not dragged kicking and screaming to their positions. MP's are not slaves.
toppstuff said:
Back during the Iraq war, Donald Rumsfeld said something which, at the time, attracted derision, but was actually a pretty wise view of complex issues:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
This sums up brexit. I genuinely believe that a significant number of people on both sides simply Do Not have the emotional intelligence to recognise that there are things they do not know they do not know. The future of a country is being decided this way.
JRM pointed this out to Brillo earlier this week... There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
This sums up brexit. I genuinely believe that a significant number of people on both sides simply Do Not have the emotional intelligence to recognise that there are things they do not know they do not know. The future of a country is being decided this way.
I'd suggest that we have always determined the future of our country in this way - as has pretty much every nation.
I'm not aware of any nation having a calibrated and comprehensive crystal ball.
JagLover said:
The issue is not automatically FOM as such but with the interaction of FOM with an individual countries employment market, welfare system, way of financing healthcare and residency requirements.
You mention France and they frequently simply deport Eastern European Roma who arrive in their country. They also have very different systems in all of the above to us.
We can change our systems, in order to combat a problem created by FOM, but it is not simply a matter of waving a magic wand and virtually all the measures needed would be bitterly opposed by your typical Guardian Remainer.
Agree with this, FOM can be a good thing if done properly, the problem is there doesn't seem to be the will to do that. It would need investment in working out what the net benefit or cost of FOM is and what the ideal numbers need to be to balance cost vs benefit. You mention France and they frequently simply deport Eastern European Roma who arrive in their country. They also have very different systems in all of the above to us.
We can change our systems, in order to combat a problem created by FOM, but it is not simply a matter of waving a magic wand and virtually all the measures needed would be bitterly opposed by your typical Guardian Remainer.
The problem is as part of the EU we can't just chose to just the take the good without also taking some of the bad too. I do agree as a wealthy nation we do need to take in our fair share of those less fortunate be it from the EU or beyond but those numbers HAVE to be balanced carefully against the effect it might have on our own economy, something that those Gaurdian readers you mention seem to forget.
Digga also mentions a good point about porous borders although that probably applies more to illegal immigration then FOM. Controlling your border properly costs a lot of money, why should those countries bother with that cost when they know most of the traffic are just passing through and it won't be their problem for very long? If the EU wants to be fair in this regard, it needs to have a way of getting those countries to enforce proper border controls, something it seems reluctant to do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff