How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)

[Elysium]

don'tbesilly said:

Elysium said:

psi310398 said:

Elysium said:

Who is ignoring the 2016 vote?

Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.

How do you expect parliament to choose between a stty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?

Which one of those honours the referendum?

Why can no leavers answer the question?

I think they have, repeatedly. Maybe, you just don't like the answer.

Simple: The no deal is the only one which honours the leave decision. The May deal is not a Leave in any meaningful sense and to suggest otherwise insults everybody's intelligence, and we have been told endlessly that there will be no renegotiation, so it's not an option.

You think leaving without a WA will be calamitous. Others don't.

Who are ‘they’ and how have they ignored the referendum?

As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.

This the ballot paper I remember being given when I visited the polling booth:




As a result of more people choosing the option of 'Leave the European Union' than the opposing option the UK invoked Article 50 back in March 2017.

Article 50 mentions:

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

No where in the above does it state that a deal must be arrived at in order for a member state to leave the European Union.

The Withdrawal Bill was given Queens assent in June 2018. Without studying the document in minutiae I don't believe the Bill contains any clauses/conditions that in order for the bill to be enforceable there has to be a deal in order for the UK to leave the EU on the 29th March, a fact that all the MP's who voted for the bill should have been aware of, if they didn't why did they vote for it?

The above begs the question, in what way was the ballot paper you were given different to the one I received?

I thought every ballot paper was the same, is that really not the case?

Are you seriously showing me a ballot paper to try to make your point? As if I have somehow never seen it before or perhaps did not read what it said?

Seriously almost 3 years later and people are still doing this Groundhog Day stuff.

I have been really clear that the deal, no deal or an extension for further negotiations are all appropriate responses to the vote.

I have not said that no-deal is not a conceivable outcome of the vote. So why try to argue that point?

The facts are clear - Brexit negotiations have failed and we have a bad deal. Then we have the option of no-deal, which many people also see as bad. Finally we could delay and try to make the deal better, which again people see as bad.

We are expecting parliament to chose from three bad options that all honour the referendum. It’s not reasonable to ‘kick off’ if MPs chose one that we don’t like.

If you want a say, then support a second referendum.

[jonnyb]

pgh said:

jonnyb said:

This is from the official “vote leave” website:

Europe yes, EU no. We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. We will take back the power to negotiate our own trade deals.

European Free Trade Zone. Doesn’t sound much like the WTO to me, sounds more like the EEA.

You're quoting a campaign group website.
Don'tbesilly is referencing the ballot paper and the text of Article 50. I can't help but feeling he has the better evidence.

I think DB just needs to get over the fact that we won’t be leaving the EU without a deal, no matter how much bleating he does.

In fact reading the official vote leave website does throw up some interesting points. Because there version of leaving the EU look totally different to the version we have ended up with.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newde...

Have a read, I’m starting to wonder if a second vote is the way to go, given just how far off reality the official campaign was.

[B'stard Child]

GT119 said:

If there is going to be a second vote it seems to me that it is in leave’s interest to hold it sooner rather than later.

Exactly why it is contantly being ruled out as an option

It needs to be left as long as possible to stand a chance of not giving the wrong answer again

Public opinion would need to shift a lot more before politicians would trust polling data to throw the switch

2 year extension should do it

[Elysium]

B'stard Child said:

psi310398 said:

Elysium said:

Who are ‘they’ and how have they ignored the referendum?

As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.

'They' are the leavers here, per your question. They haven't ignored the referendum.

Does anyone here seriously and honestly believe that signing the WA honours the referendum result in any meaningful way beyond the legality that we would no longer be voting members?

I'm sure there are lots of people here that believe it is still "brexit"

I'm of the opinion that no matter how many times you roll a turd in glitter and present it as a polished solution underneath it's still a turd

Yes - it is a stty deal. Not arguing there. But it is undeniably a version of Brexit.

No-deal is also a version of Brexit and a third version might be possible if we delay.

So which one does the referendum mandate?

Can anyone answer the question without simply choosing the one they like?

[Earthdweller]

paulrockliffe said:

mattmurdock said:

don'tbesilly said:

Vanden Saab said:

psi310398 said:

As we have our crystal balls out, might one possible unforeseen consequence of entering into the WA or remaining locked to the EU be to provoke the rise of an English independence movement?

The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.

One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.

Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.

At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.

But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.

What a great idea.

I like it, Scotland seems desperate to get away, so a vote to help them on their way would be gratefully received, can you imagine never having to listen to Sturgeon ever again, it would be like a divorcee never having to listen to the ex ever again, sheer bliss I'd guess

Brilliant, we'll solve the problem of the backstop breaking up the UK and forcing Irish re-unification by breaking up the UK and forcing Irish re-unification.

What an absolute winner, why on earth has no-one thought of it before?

What's the problem? Scotland wants to remain, Ian Blackford told me, and NI too, though I accept their election of DUP MPs is confusing. I'd keep Wales, they're behind the project too, so long as we didn't get lumbered with their politicians obviously.

Of course if Scotland and NI then want to leave the UK (and the Backstop) too and join England to create a new country unencumbered by the EU and it's backstop then they'd be welcome. If it was all done at the same time that would probably by simplest.

We’ve already got a wall.. it might be a few stones replacing though

[B'stard Child]

Elysium said:

Yes - it is a stty deal. Not arguing there. But it is undeniably a version of Brexit.

No-deal is also a version of Brexit and a third version might be possible if we delay.

So which one does the referendum mandate?

Can anyone answer the question without simply choosing the one they like?

What was the question?

[don'tbesilly]

GT119 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

In the 2016 referendum leave won with a clear majority. Do you know what 1.7 million people looks like?
What we actually have are those who only want to respect a democratic vote, if it goes they way `they' wanted it to. and consequently want go after go until or if the vote goes the way `they' wanted it to. After that they will probably call for referendums to be banned, like some of the elite in the EU suggested.
Oh for sure they will come with numerous and spurious reasons why the first vote should be ignored, but its only down to them throwing a tantrum, because they didn't get the result they wanted. people can easily see through that course of action.

The majority was actually 1.27M not 1.7M. In my opinion that has been reduced significantly and if we voted again today, leave would probably just edge it. In 1 or 2 years, who knows.

At that point remainers may arguably claim that for the foreseeable future the majority for Brexit has been lost before it could be implemented. Is that democratic or not, for sure it’s certainly not going to be a point that everyone agrees on.

If there is going to be a second vote it seems to me that it is in leave’s interest to hold it sooner rather than later.

Are you suggesting that any MP who supported leaving the EU, or any Leave voter that voted to leave the EU will get any say as to when the 2nd referendum will be held.
Both groups voted to Leave the EU in a referendum in 2016, and leaving the EU was supposed to happen in 14 days, hows that working out for the 17.4 million voters that voted to leave the EU?

[steve_k]

Maybe a Japan type deal should be looked at.

[Elysium]

B'stard Child said:

Elysium said:

Yes - it is a stty deal. Not arguing there. But it is undeniably a version of Brexit.

No-deal is also a version of Brexit and a third version might be possible if we delay.

So which one does the referendum mandate?

Can anyone answer the question without simply choosing the one they like?

What was the question?

The one in my post

[B'stard Child]

Elysium said:

B'stard Child said:

Elysium said:

Yes - it is a stty deal. Not arguing there. But it is undeniably a version of Brexit.

No-deal is also a version of Brexit and a third version might be possible if we delay.

So which one does the referendum mandate?

Can anyone answer the question without simply choosing the one they like?

What was the question?

The one in my other post

could you just ask the question without writing war and peace around it

[don'tbesilly]

jonnyb said:

I think DB just needs to get over the fact that we won’t be leaving the EU without a deal, no matter how much bleating he does.

In fact reading the official vote leave website does throw up some interesting points. Because there version of leaving the EU look totally different to the version we have ended up with.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newde...

Have a read, I’m starting to wonder if a second vote is the way to go, given just how far off reality the official campaign was.

Who's bleating? I've stated myself and in this thread and in the last week that I support a second referendum as soon as is possible.

I firmly believe a swift 2nd referendum will result in a bigger majority to Leave the EU, I stated the same in the post referred to above.

[psi310398]

Elysium said:

The one in my other post

How about a test or two?

Under which version would we able to control immigration, regulation, fishing, the City of London and the great mass of law accounting for up to 65% of the text that controls our lives? When will we be able to agree trade deals with whatever countries we like and are willing to enter into one with us?

The first is a simulacrum of Brexit. I do not agree that it is undeniably a version of Brexit. It makes a mockery of it.

The third is not on offer.

The second meets the referendum result.

Edited by psi310398 on Friday 15th March 20:15

[B'stard Child]

don'tbesilly said:

Who's bleating? I've stated myself and in this thread and in the last week that I support a second referendum as soon as is possible.

I firmly believe a swift 2nd referendum will result in a bigger majority to Leave the EU, I stated the same in the post referred to above.

Which is exactly why we won’t get one

[Vanden Saab]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Nice to see the EU know what they want...

[James 24]

Earthdweller said:

paulrockliffe said:

mattmurdock said:

don'tbesilly said:

Vanden Saab said:

psi310398 said:

As we have our crystal balls out, might one possible unforeseen consequence of entering into the WA or remaining locked to the EU be to provoke the rise of an English independence movement?

The only legal unilateral way out of the backstop that I can see is for England to leave the UK.

One of the arguments from the time of the Scottish Referendum was that if it was OK for Scotland to have a referendum to leave the UK, then surely it was equally possible for England to do the same.

Following the logic of this (and the EU's pronouncements at the time) rUK would be Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (if they didn't go with England) and it (rUK) would continue to hold the legal obligations to observe the backstop etc.

At the same time, NI could be offered a referendum (per the GFA) on whether to unite with Ireland or, failing that, join with England or stay with rUK.

But, assuming a positive vote, England (as a "new" nation) would be free and clear of any obligations to the EU.

What a great idea.

I like it, Scotland seems desperate to get away, so a vote to help them on their way would be gratefully received, can you imagine never having to listen to Sturgeon ever again, it would be like a divorcee never having to listen to the ex ever again, sheer bliss I'd guess

Brilliant, we'll solve the problem of the backstop breaking up the UK and forcing Irish re-unification by breaking up the UK and forcing Irish re-unification.

What an absolute winner, why on earth has no-one thought of it before?

What's the problem? Scotland wants to remain, Ian Blackford told me, and NI too, though I accept their election of DUP MPs is confusing. I'd keep Wales, they're behind the project too, so long as we didn't get lumbered with their politicians obviously.

Of course if Scotland and NI then want to leave the UK (and the Backstop) too and join England to create a new country unencumbered by the EU and it's backstop then they'd be welcome. If it was all done at the same time that would probably by simplest.

We’ve already got a wall.. it might be a few stones replacing though

The wall is in England. HTH

[FiF]

B'stard Child said:

don'tbesilly said:

Who's bleating? I've stated myself and in this thread and in the last week that I support a second referendum as soon as is possible.

I firmly believe a swift 2nd referendum will result in a bigger majority to Leave the EU, I stated the same in the post referred to above.

Which is exactly why we won’t get one

Problem is that the Establishment still haven't figured out why they lost, haven't changed their thinking or modus operandi and by their actions have deepened some of those reasons and divide. Therefore another referendum really wouldn't be just about the EU it would also be about the public's treatment by said Establishment. The social contract is broken and they can never be treated the same again.

[Earthdweller]

Vanden Saab said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Nice to see the EU know what they want...

[alfie2244]

Roman Rhodes said:

Bad day?

You'll get over it.

[B'stard Child]

Vanden Saab said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Nice to see the EU know what they want...

100% united thro the whole process

[Earthdweller]

FiF said:

B'stard Child said:

don'tbesilly said:

Who's bleating? I've stated myself and in this thread and in the last week that I support a second referendum as soon as is possible.

I firmly believe a swift 2nd referendum will result in a bigger majority to Leave the EU, I stated the same in the post referred to above.

Which is exactly why we won’t get one

Problem is that the Establishment still haven't figured out why they lost, haven't changed their thinking or modus operandi and by their actions have deepened some of those reasons and divide. Therefore another referendum really wouldn't be just about the EU it would also be about the public's treatment by said Establishment. The social contract is broken and they can never be treated the same again.

Not forgetting they have compounded and magnified those reasons since the referendum

Regardless of whether you voted leave or remain the antics of our elected representatives have shown them to mostly be unsuitable for their role

Something the electorate, who are not as thick or ill informed as those in the bubble believe will make them pay for in the future