How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)
Discussion
Andy20vt said:
To maintain the status quo e.g. to stay out of the Euro currency but be part of the single market, customs union and allowing free movement of people. To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen. To have the ability to influence the EU from the inside, and take advantages of all the freedoms to work and travel that this affords us. Plus to retain the other huge benefits the EU currently offers (far too many to list here).
Sorry, where's the compromise?We can't "just Leave" because that ignores the wishes of the 48%, we must make concessions.
What concessions will Remain be offering up for the other half of the country?
psi310398 said:
Andy20vt said:
...
To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen.
...
Evidence/reasoning for this rather bold assertion would be helpful.To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen.
...
China seems to have done rather better for longer.
The United States ditto.
Andy20vt said:
andymadmak said:
And whilst I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to answer, I note that you, like H123 are strangely silent on what it is you are actually voting for. Yes you have suggested some checks and balances, but what is YOUR vision for the EU over the next 20 years and what is your vision for the UKs position within that? Surely you MUST know what you are voting for? Schengen perhaps? Euro membership? What about Federal taxation? What is it that you want to see?
To maintain the status quo e.g. to stay out of the Euro currency but be part of the single market, customs union and allowing free movement of people. To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen. To have the ability to influence the EU from the inside, and take advantages of all the freedoms to work and travel that this affords us. Plus to retain the other huge benefits the EU currently offers (far too many to list here).To make this work there will be some compromises we have to make, there will also be some compromises the EU's other nations will have to make. These can be assessed on a case by case basis as we always have done.
What's wrong with that - why do you expect there has to be some sort of grand plan or vision?
On the radio there was talk of a common market 2.0, interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47639946
TEKNOPUG said:
Andy20vt said:
But you are counting the Rebate/Credit as a double negative (or whatever the term is). We spend £8.9 billion NET a year on the EU. If we suddenly stop doing that it does not magic (through your maths) to become a £18.9 billion pound saving. The saving is simply £8.9 billion. We can't save what we haven't spent!!!!
The EU funded public credit is not spent on the NHS; it is spent in the UK by the EU. The net figure is therefore incorrect (unless you consider your personal taxation to be zero because the government spends all the money on "you"?). The figure we give to the EU (which could be spent elsewhere) is £13.9billion.The UK rebate has already seen a 20% reduction and it is quite clear that there is a desire to remove the rebate within the European Commission. Add to the growing pressure by the EU to move to QMV, it's quite conceivable that both the UK's veto and rebate would disappear within a couple of parliamentary cycles. So the numbers are entirely valid as a guide to potential Brexit savings given current EU expenditure.
Whether they will be spent on the NHS is moot but it also seems somewhat irrelevant given demonstrably incorrect numbers published by the chancellor at the time of the referendum. I'm not sure what the point is of continually regurgitating claim and counter-claim from 3 years ago, like some Brexit trope tourettes. Some people seem incapable of discussion current (and future) affairs for more than a couple of posts without returning to the hustings of pre June 2016. Very odd behaviour.
Andy20vt said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Andy20vt said:
But you are counting the Rebate/Credit as a double negative (or whatever the term is). We spend £8.9 billion NET a year on the EU. If we suddenly stop doing that it does not magic (through your maths) to become a £18.9 billion pound saving. The saving is simply £8.9 billion. We can't save what we haven't spent!!!!
The EU funded public credit is not spent on the NHS; it is spent in the UK by the EU. The net figure is therefore incorrect (unless you consider your personal taxation to be zero because the government spends all the money on "you"?). The figure we give to the EU (which could be spent elsewhere) is £13.9billion.The UK rebate has already seen a 20% reduction and it is quite clear that there is a desire to remove the rebate within the European Commission. Add to the growing pressure by the EU to move to QMV, it's quite conceivable that both the UK's veto and rebate would disappear within a couple of parliamentary cycles. So the numbers are entirely valid as a guide to potential Brexit savings given current EU expenditure.
Whether they will be spent on the NHS is moot but it also seems somewhat irrelevant given demonstrably incorrect numbers published by the chancellor at the time of the referendum. I'm not sure what the point is of continually regurgitating claim and counter-claim from 3 years ago, like some Brexit trope tourettes. Some people seem incapable of discussion current (and future) affairs for more than a couple of posts without returning to the hustings of pre June 2016. Very odd behaviour.
Genuine question, are you mentally ill?
Earthdweller said:
psi310398 said:
Andy20vt said:
...
To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen.
...
Evidence/reasoning for this rather bold assertion would be helpful.To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen.
...
China seems to have done rather better for longer.
The United States ditto.
gooner1 said:
Earthdweller said:
psi310398 said:
Andy20vt said:
...
To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen.
...
Evidence/reasoning for this rather bold assertion would be helpful.To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen.
...
China seems to have done rather better for longer.
The United States ditto.
Back when the original referendum happened, if we'd have put before the people three choices, Remain, a Norway + style Leave, or a No Deal Leave, you can be sure that Remain and Norway + would have cleaned up and both would have been the front runners. Only a minority ever wanted No Deal.
It has been proven time and time again that most Leave voters still wanted to stay close to the EU. Hard Brexit is only something ever dreamt up by the likes of The BNP, EDL, Britain First, UKIP, and by those on the Far Right of the Conservative Party.
It has been proven time and time again that most Leave voters still wanted to stay close to the EU. Hard Brexit is only something ever dreamt up by the likes of The BNP, EDL, Britain First, UKIP, and by those on the Far Right of the Conservative Party.
Andy20vt said:
...
It has been proven time and time again that most Leave voters still wanted to stay close to the EU. Hard Brexit is only something ever dreamt up by the likes of The BNP, EDL, Britain First, UKIP, and by those on the Far Right of the Conservative Party.
Sorry, where has this been proven? It has been proven time and time again that most Leave voters still wanted to stay close to the EU. Hard Brexit is only something ever dreamt up by the likes of The BNP, EDL, Britain First, UKIP, and by those on the Far Right of the Conservative Party.
It might have been asserted repeatedly...
Earthdweller said:
psi310398 said:
Andy20vt said:
...
To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen.
...
Evidence/reasoning for this rather bold assertion would be helpful.To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen.
...
China seems to have done rather better for longer.
The United States ditto.
amusingduck said:
Andy20vt said:
To maintain the status quo e.g. to stay out of the Euro currency but be part of the single market, customs union and allowing free movement of people. To remain part of the most successful union of Nations the world has ever seen. To have the ability to influence the EU from the inside, and take advantages of all the freedoms to work and travel that this affords us. Plus to retain the other huge benefits the EU currently offers (far too many to list here).
Sorry, where's the compromise?We can't "just Leave" because that ignores the wishes of the 48%, we must make concessions.
What concessions will Remain be offering up for the other half of the country?
With a result of 52/48 it was no mandate for a seismic shift.
Concession/compromise - should have been the order of the day from 24th June 2016 onward. That we've been unable to do this as a nation is what is most embarrassing.
We have to Brexit, that is not up for debate. Leave won the referendum.
After that though, a compromise needed to be found. It might still be found, if MPs can pull their fingers out.
andymadmak said:
Helicopter123 said:
This was answered yesterday, as far as possible.
Of course the EU will continue to evolve, and our elected governments of the day will represent our interests within any changes. As a significant member, we will have a meaningful say in any changes, and ultimately hold a veto.
And again you don't answer.Of course the EU will continue to evolve, and our elected governments of the day will represent our interests within any changes. As a significant member, we will have a meaningful say in any changes, and ultimately hold a veto.
I asked you what you wanted/expected to see. What Remain would you be voting for? We keep being told that we didn't know what Brexit we were voting for. OK, maybe for some people that is true. All I am asking is for you to articulate what voting Remain means for you for the next 20 years. ' we will have a say and we have a veto' is not an answer now is it?
Helicopter123 said:
I'm happy with the status quo and in trusting our elected governments to make decisions on my behalf over the next 20 years. That is what I would be voting for.
Except when they decide on your behalf to hold a referendum on EU membership and then enact that result? 
I think everyone is in favour of "I want the Government to decide on my behalf to do what I prefer"!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff