How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)
Discussion
jonnyb said:
Nowhere were people told that leaving without a deal was even an option.
June 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron:“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
steve_k said:
June 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron:
“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
But leavers said every thing Cameron said was a lie. So clearly this was a lie.“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
Mrr T said:
steve_k said:
June 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron:
“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
But leavers said every thing Cameron said was a lie. So clearly this was a lie.“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
jonnyb said:
And the leave campaign said we would be part of a free trade area that stretched from Iceland to the Russian boarder. So was that a lie as well?
You do need to remember that not a single leave voter listened to a single word or claim a single leave promoting politician said or made.They all made their minds up independently.
Mrr T said:
steve_k said:
June 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron:
“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
But leavers said every thing Cameron said was a lie. So clearly this was a lie.“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
Mrr T said:
steve_k said:
June 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron:
“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
But leavers said every thing Cameron said was a lie. So clearly this was a lie.“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
Nowhere were people told that leaving without a deal was even an option.
don'tbesilly said:
Mrr T said:
steve_k said:
June 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron:
“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
But leavers said every thing Cameron said was a lie. So clearly this was a lie.“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:jonnyb said:
And the leave campaign said we would be part of a free trade area that stretched from Iceland to the Russian boarder. So was that a lie as well?
You do need to remember that not a single leave voter listened to a single word or claim a single leave promoting politician said or made.They all made their minds up independently.
It makes any campaigns a pointless exercise, although the Remain campaign from 2016 was just that
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:jonnyb said:
And the leave campaign said we would be part of a free trade area that stretched from Iceland to the Russian boarder. So was that a lie as well?
You do need to remember that not a single leave voter listened to a single word or claim a single leave promoting politician said or made.They all made their minds up independently.
jonnyb said:
Mrr T said:
steve_k said:
June 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron:
“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
But leavers said every thing Cameron said was a lie. So clearly this was a lie.“The British public would be voting if we leave would be to leave the EU and leave the single market. We’d then have to negotiate a trade deal from outside with the European Union... But if we leave the EU and the German finance minister was very clear, you’re either in or you’re out, leaving the single market, you’ve then got to negotiate a trade deal.”
Maybe you didn't understand or were just not listening to what the PM said.
I still think the best mutually beneficial trade will require a clean break first, every part of a deal that is agreed is an improvement on the no deal position instead of the current negotiations of trying to build a deal from the top down with strings attached at every point.
I feel the current negotiations and MPs behaviour are to wear down the electorate and reverse the referendum result they are not working on any sort of meaningful exit negotiations.
jonnyb said:
And this is the main problem for me. At some point our country has to come back together. Which is one reason a hard brexit on WTO terms would be a disaster, how would that heal our country? 17.4m people voted to leave, but 16.2m voted to stay, and we all have to live together afterwards.
How you know it "would" be a disaster, yes it could be but staying in could also be especially if we end up getting caught up in the next round of Euro bailouts.Elysium said:
In the short term it will break the deadlock and confirm what the majority want.
That won’t make the minority position any easier, but over time we will at least be able to get on with other things.
May could do that tomorrow if she wanted to - no need for a nine month bun fight. Announce she doesn't think another meaningful vote will resolve things and state that No Deal planning is advanced enough to make that the best decision. It wouldn't make the minority position any easier, but over time we will at least be able to get on with other things.That won’t make the minority position any easier, but over time we will at least be able to get on with other things.
I actually think a better politician could get away with that - it would be hard for Remain to argue it wasn't within the Government's remit, it would bring certainty, and after a short period of gnashing of teeth, most of the country would just get on with it. So long as we don't suffer actual Armageddon, the public would very quickly start thinking the hysteria was overblown. There would be more respect for someone making a clear decision than May's endless prevarication.
It is about the only bold decision that could be made though. Rescinding A50 is just not within the remit of the Government and would make a lot of people very angry - not just Leavers. A second referendum is the weakest way out (and a complete gamble as it would be unlikely to 'resolve' anything to the general public's satisfaction). A General Election would stuff the country up worst of all - we either end up with the same lot of morons back again and no further on, or we get the other lot of morons who don't actually have any meaningful plan other than wanting to have got to this point with a completely different deal (that also involves unicorns and cake).
Red Devil said:
crankedup said:
Given that it is a majority of constituencies that voted leave along with individual voters voting to exit it seems to me MPs have lost sight of thier responsibility to thier electorate.
As far as the referendum is concerned, you're making a fundamental error when saying that constituencies voted leave. Constituencies are an artificial line on a map which groups people together for a GE to send an MP to the HoC under our parliamentary system and constitution.
It has no meaning in a referendum which is a concept at complete loggerheads with the aforementioned system. It is why, until very recently, we have had so few of them.
In a referendum there is only one 'constituency': all those eligible to vote. The existing parliamentary constituencies are merely used for administrative convenience;
Namely for counting the votes which are then aggregated to decide which of the two propositions on the ballot paper has gained a majority.
crankedup said:
Having looked at the voting record of ‘my own’ Tory MP it is pleasing that she is at least broadly supporting her constituents wish to leave the EU.
This perfectly encapsulate why referendums and the UK's (fundamentally two party) politics is such a divisive and unworkable combination.Our entire system, both political and legal, is founded on an adversarial conttest. A throwback to the days of medieval jousting.
The parties are so entrenched in fighting each other with a eye to the next GE that they are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.
With the exception of the recent one of Dave and Nick, pretty much all of them have been when the UK has been fighting in a strategic European or World War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_coali...
Helicopter123 said:
Elysium said:
I just read a comment piece in today’s times that makes a lot of sense.
The people’s vote and labour second ref supporters referred to the Kyle Wilson amendment as a preferential route to a second ref.
This was supposed to be tabled on Tuesday when the EU deal was put to the second meaningful vote. However it was withdrawn. The amendment would see labour support the deal in return for an undertaking that it would go to a plebiscite (second ref) who would choose between ‘the deal’ and ‘remain’
The Times piece suggests that this could now reappear for the third meaningful vote as a high stakes manoeuvre for Corbyn and May.
It makes a lot of sense as it crystallises a number of things.
Good post, and this would work in that it gets May's deal through (I would think) subject to final approval by the people.The people’s vote and labour second ref supporters referred to the Kyle Wilson amendment as a preferential route to a second ref.
This was supposed to be tabled on Tuesday when the EU deal was put to the second meaningful vote. However it was withdrawn. The amendment would see labour support the deal in return for an undertaking that it would go to a plebiscite (second ref) who would choose between ‘the deal’ and ‘remain’
The Times piece suggests that this could now reappear for the third meaningful vote as a high stakes manoeuvre for Corbyn and May.
It makes a lot of sense as it crystallises a number of things.
psi310398 said:
Nickgnome said:
Has he been resurrected? Descendant perhaps.
By the way the old one failed.
He came pretty damned close before he was arrested, however By the way the old one failed.
A substantial amount of the gunpowder deteriorated and the plotters had to replace it.
The King then got off the fence which meant the plotters had to accelerate purchase of the fresh explosive. This aroused suspicion.
Francis Tresham then made the fatal mistake of sending an anonymous warning to Lord Monteagle telling him not to attend.
Monteagle took the letter to Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, James's first minister. Game over.
Cecil was the son of Elizabeth I's spymaster William Cecil, Lord Burghley.
The divorce analogy mentioned by a previous poster is very apt. Article 50 is written in such a way that it favours the respondent to the petition.
It doesn't want a divorce but if it has to have one (which under the rules it can't prevent) it will use its collective muscle to make the terms of the petitioner obtaining one hard to swallow..
The latter then has a difficult choice. Walk away and accept that rebuilding your life will be challenging or live a separate life but still be married with many of the legal and financial obligations that entails.
The only other option is to abandon the petition and ask for forgiveness. Then wait to see on what terms the respondent will agree to resume the marriage. Which will for sure come at a cost.
You need to be very sure that their future plans are what you're prepared to tolerate. Especially when you have had plenty of warning over four decades what those are going to be..
Not only that but the signs of what kind of person you were getting into bed with were there to be seen before you got engaged.
You were just blind to them and, for their own reasons, your parents went out of their way to tell you it would all be wine and roses.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I understand why people who want out at any price would accept May's deal, but my personal view is that, from an economic perspective, it would be the worst of all worlds and set this country back 40 years. I really hope that the ERG and DUP don't get behind the third vote, even if it means suffering more months of Brexit mania and uncertainty.Vanden Saab said:
mike9009 said:
In fact, a 'No Deal' Brexit would be my preference now.... If we are gambling, why not go all in?
That will never happen because the Utter bullst about cliff edges, catastrophes and every other 'bad' thing that has been guaranteed for the UK population if we leave with a hard but smart brexit will be shown to be rubbish. And as you can see from these pages there is a large number of people on the remain side who don't take being wrong very well.I as a leaver feel the opposite of you and am now hoping that we cancel brexit so the horrors of remaining will be there for all to see and we will leave properly after the next election.
Unfortunately I think there will be however some ridiculous half in half out mess also called May's deal that will utterly f
k the country up and allow remainers to blame Brexiteers. 'If' the UK make a success of Brexit, how would you feel about 'other' countries joining our Economic Union?
Mike
Tuna said:
May could do that tomorrow if she wanted to - no need for a nine month bun fight. Announce she doesn't think another meaningful vote will resolve things and state that No Deal planning is advanced enough to make that the best decision. It wouldn't make the minority position any easier, but over time we will at least be able to get on with other things.
I actually think a better politician could get away with that - it would be hard for Remain to argue it wasn't within the Government's remit, it would bring certainty, and after a short period of gnashing of teeth, most of the country would just get on with it. So long as we don't suffer actual Armageddon, the public would very quickly start thinking the hysteria was overblown. There would be more respect for someone making a clear decision than May's endless prevarication.
It is about the only bold decision that could be made though. Rescinding A50 is just not within the remit of the Government and would make a lot of people very angry - not just Leavers. A second referendum is the weakest way out (and a complete gamble as it would be unlikely to 'resolve' anything to the general public's satisfaction). A General Election would stuff the country up worst of all - we either end up with the same lot of morons back again and no further on, or we get the other lot of morons who don't actually have any meaningful plan other than wanting to have got to this point with a completely different deal (that also involves unicorns and cake).
Couldn't agree more. Well said.I actually think a better politician could get away with that - it would be hard for Remain to argue it wasn't within the Government's remit, it would bring certainty, and after a short period of gnashing of teeth, most of the country would just get on with it. So long as we don't suffer actual Armageddon, the public would very quickly start thinking the hysteria was overblown. There would be more respect for someone making a clear decision than May's endless prevarication.
It is about the only bold decision that could be made though. Rescinding A50 is just not within the remit of the Government and would make a lot of people very angry - not just Leavers. A second referendum is the weakest way out (and a complete gamble as it would be unlikely to 'resolve' anything to the general public's satisfaction). A General Election would stuff the country up worst of all - we either end up with the same lot of morons back again and no further on, or we get the other lot of morons who don't actually have any meaningful plan other than wanting to have got to this point with a completely different deal (that also involves unicorns and cake).
.
Mrr T said:
So help me to understand.
The WA is leaving the EU, Y/N...
These are like the classic Groucho questions, "are you still beating your wife?" The WA is leaving the EU, Y/N...
You haven't mentioned the political declaration, and doing so really over simplifies the consequences of May's deal. Taken together, the WA and PD commit to a very specific vision of the final agreement we will reach with the EU - and various commentators argue it binds the future negotiators into that vision, as dictated by the EU.
Specifically, the WA commits us to regulatory oversight by the EU with no voting rights, and prevents us from making independent trade deals - subject to the EU's own trade deals over which (again) we will have no voting rights.
As a definition of 'leaving the EU' it is questionable at best. Economically, it appears to be extremely harmful for the UK., Y/N...
wc98 said:
ITP said:
No deal is not anyone’s first choice in an ideal world.
However, it is exactly what I expected from day 1, yes. This is because the EU was never going to agree to a nice smooth friendly deal that benefitted both sides.
Barnier even stated right at the start it was his job to come up with a deal so bad for us no one else would ever try to leave. Maybe someone can find the actual words, but it was pretty much along those lines.
We have known for years how the EU operates with other countries that have tried to leave. What is shocking to me is how so many people, even the allegedly much better educated remain voters, were unaware of this fact, and seem to actually think a ‘deal’ actually was ever going to be offered by the EU which wasn’t massively biased in their favour. It’s always been clear to see the stance they would take. And sure enough, they have. I can’t understand why people seem to be surprised, and why everyone keeps blaming May. It doesn’t matter who was in power, conservative or labour, any leader of any party, the EU offer would be the same.
What May has catastrophically failed to do since day 1 is plan for no deal, as this is the only way to leave the EU that they have no control over.
I don’t blame the EU for their stance, it’s their club we said we want to leave after all. But for the reasons above we would only ever be able to leave with no deal, followed by a trade deal discussion when the EU couldn’t hold a gun to our heads legally. The businesses of the EU will of course still want to trade with us, as we do with them, but there will always be a period of disruption of course, mainly because the EU politicians will probably try to be as obstructive as possible to ‘teach us a lesson’.
But the bottom line is, I personally believe the integrity of our democracy, which both parties are playing fast and loose with at the moment, is worth a lot more than a period of short term disruption.
Other people take the opposite view, which is fine for them.
And no, the current deal on offer is not enacting the pledge all parties gave the electorate to leave, that is not possible when the EU still holds legal control over what we can do.
In my opinion of course.
i think a lot of people are of that opinion.However, it is exactly what I expected from day 1, yes. This is because the EU was never going to agree to a nice smooth friendly deal that benefitted both sides.
Barnier even stated right at the start it was his job to come up with a deal so bad for us no one else would ever try to leave. Maybe someone can find the actual words, but it was pretty much along those lines.
We have known for years how the EU operates with other countries that have tried to leave. What is shocking to me is how so many people, even the allegedly much better educated remain voters, were unaware of this fact, and seem to actually think a ‘deal’ actually was ever going to be offered by the EU which wasn’t massively biased in their favour. It’s always been clear to see the stance they would take. And sure enough, they have. I can’t understand why people seem to be surprised, and why everyone keeps blaming May. It doesn’t matter who was in power, conservative or labour, any leader of any party, the EU offer would be the same.
What May has catastrophically failed to do since day 1 is plan for no deal, as this is the only way to leave the EU that they have no control over.
I don’t blame the EU for their stance, it’s their club we said we want to leave after all. But for the reasons above we would only ever be able to leave with no deal, followed by a trade deal discussion when the EU couldn’t hold a gun to our heads legally. The businesses of the EU will of course still want to trade with us, as we do with them, but there will always be a period of disruption of course, mainly because the EU politicians will probably try to be as obstructive as possible to ‘teach us a lesson’.
But the bottom line is, I personally believe the integrity of our democracy, which both parties are playing fast and loose with at the moment, is worth a lot more than a period of short term disruption.
Other people take the opposite view, which is fine for them.
And no, the current deal on offer is not enacting the pledge all parties gave the electorate to leave, that is not possible when the EU still holds legal control over what we can do.
In my opinion of course.
We followed the pied piper Farage, Gove and Johnson and made our bed.
All the way through the EU has been crystal clear that you can't have all the benefits and none of the pain. You can't cherry pick what you want, but so many of our politician for whatever reason seem to have total belief that we can and haven't made plans for the reality of this.
Not so long ago the EU very clearly demonstrated - rightly or wrongly - to the Greeks that it has to swollow a bitter pill to fix itself and endure much hardship as a result. Why we thought they wouldn't take the same view with us baffles me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff