How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 7)

[chrispmartha]

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.

So presumably you are happy that MPs who’s constituents voted to remain would be pushing for a second referendum?

[Ron Maiden]

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.

Oh yes we can, at the next GE they will get the biggest shock of their head in the sand career.

[Sway]

Greg66 said:

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"...

THx (and to others who also responded). Norway is FOM, pays into the EU budget, and has to suffer EU rules and CJEU jurisdiction, doesn't it? But OTOH it would allow unilateral exit later, so it has that "flexit" quality that was spoken about a couple of years ago and seemed to die a death. Is that more or less right?

Mostly. Few differences - Norway has the same power at WTO/ICAO/ISO/etc. as the whole EU.

So whilst they "suffer EU rules" - the oft mentioned "governed by fax", they have immense power at the level above, the global fora that actually set the rules the EU then decides how to implement.

But, and it's a big but - there is no Customs Union. There's what many would call a "hard border" between Norway and Sweden.

Exactly what the EU have said they cannot accept in Ireland.

[Digga]

Ron Maiden 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.

Oh yes we can, at the next GE they will get the biggest shock of their head in the sand career.

^This, is most definitely happening.

[The Dangerous Elk]

PurpleMoonlight said:

So what's new?

Because this time it is a REALLY BIG fib.

[JNW1]

paulrockliffe said:

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.

Fair comment but the proposal paper makes clear that a Customs Union could be temporary and that the aim is for the UK to be able to pursue things like its own trade deals.

The fact is, none of the options are ideal from my perspective. On the one hand it sounds like any no-deal would be disorderly and potentially chaotic (and probably won't be allowed by our MP's anyway) whilst on the other we have not respecting the referendum result at all and remaining. It therefore feels like a compromise deal along the lines of a Norway Plus is the only way we'll break the deadlock and come anywhere close to respecting the 2016 referendum result; certainly not ideal as far as I'm concerned but better than the most likely alternative (which looks like abandoning Brexit altogether and remaining).

[toppstuff]

Sway said:

Mostly. Few differences - Norway has the same power at WTO/ICAO/ISO/etc. as the whole EU.

So whilst they "suffer EU rules" - the oft mentioned "governed by fax", they have immense power at the level above, the global fora that actually set the rules the EU then decides how to implement.

But, and it's a big but - there is no Customs Union. There's what many would call a "hard border" between Norway and Sweden.

Exactly what the EU have said they cannot accept in Ireland.

If Norway Plus offers FOM then count me in.

Never happen IMO ( because immigrants ) but I would be up for it.

[anonymous-user]

Sway said:

Greg66 said:

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"...

THx (and to others who also responded). Norway is FOM, pays into the EU budget, and has to suffer EU rules and CJEU jurisdiction, doesn't it? But OTOH it would allow unilateral exit later, so it has that "flexit" quality that was spoken about a couple of years ago and seemed to die a death. Is that more or less right?

Mostly. Few differences - Norway has the same power at WTO/ICAO/ISO/etc. as the whole EU.

So whilst they "suffer EU rules" - the oft mentioned "governed by fax", they have immense power at the level above, the global fora that actually set the rules the EU then decides how to implement.

But, and it's a big but - there is no Customs Union. There's what many would call a "hard border" between Norway and Sweden.

Exactly what the EU have said they cannot accept in Ireland.

Ah. That would be a problem with such a deal, no? I'm just trying to work out whether and if so how attainable a Norway-based (to avoid "+") deal would be.

[Fittster]

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.

The locals may want to understand the difference between a representative and a delegate.

[Digga]

To be balanced, many Tory MPs will have had some difficult considerations to balance:

1. Their constituents majority view on Brexit
2. Their personal view on Brexit
3. The official party view - i.e. May's (st) deal

Any other politician though should IMHO have considered #1 above all else.

[Digga]

Fittster 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.

The locals may want to understand the difference between a representative and a delegate.

Semantics.

Ultimately, if democracy does not reflect the will of the nation it is a sham and a very dangerous one, because it paves the way for very real unrest. See France for details.

[Nickgnome]

Digga said:

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.

No, many have demonstrated themselves to be cynical, greedy, self-serving career politicians, keen to embark on a post-political gravy train.

You would have to be really desperate to do their job for £75K plus a few expenses for all the hassle and abuse they receive.

They are not in it for the pittance they get.

[toppstuff]

If there is another referendum I would have no problem with the question offering :

1. A "new deal" which will be something other than the TM deal, which is dead. Maybe Norway Plus.
2. No Deal
3. Remain

Preference voting system for 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference.

I think we can all be certain that our fine and noble parliamentarians, our exceptional and impartial media, and the principled, independent and wise purveyors of social media, will ensure that the information provided on all sides will be like a beacon for the rest of the world, showing how pure, unsullied information and facts, without prejudice, are given to the people so they can make a truly informed decision.

It's going to be bloody brilliant.

[Nickgnome]

Fittster said:

The locals may want to understand the difference between a representative and a delegate.

Tricky. It is Boston Lincs.

[JNW1]

toppstuff said:

If Norway Plus offers FOM then count me in.

See pages 10 and 11 in the link below.

http://betterbrexit.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019...

[PurpleMoonlight]

Nickgnome said:

You would have to be really desperate to do their job for £75K plus a few expenses for all the hassle and abuse they receive.

They are not in it for the pittance they get.

They have some stupid hours to work too, although they get lots of holidays I guess.

[Fittster]

Digga said:

Fittster 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.

The locals may want to understand the difference between a representative and a delegate.

Semantics.

Ultimately, if democracy does not reflect the will of the nation it is a sham and a very dangerous one, because it paves the way for very real unrest. See France for details.

Let me direct another one to the work of Edmund Burke.

... it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion

Now you might want to get all angry about the fact we have a representative democracy, but we do.

[Sway]

Guvernator said:

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.

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.

The nations of Continental Europe apply the restrictions to FoML afforded by the EU Treaties.

However, those restrictions do not apply at the border. They apply when gaining employment or accommodation beyond 90 day duration. They also aren't a 'visa' - they're a 'residency permit' with criteria.

Now, the key is that every single person in Germany has one. Along with their ID papers if German.

You may remember quite how much backlash there was when the government mooted the idea of ID cards in the UK. Bluntly, we have a quite deep rooted cultural suspicion of "papers please"...

[Nickgnome]

Digga said:

Semantics.

Ultimately, if democracy does not reflect the will of the nation it is a sham and a very dangerous one, because it paves the way for very real unrest. See France for details.

Then instead of constantly moaning on the internet get involved in your local party.

[Nickgnome]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Nickgnome said:

You would have to be really desperate to do their job for £75K plus a few expenses for all the hassle and abuse they receive.

They are not in it for the pittance they get.

They have some stupid hours to work too, although they get lots of holidays I guess.

I would not do it for twice what they get.