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

[andymadmak]

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).

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.

OK, so your view is that the UK would return to the status quo ante 2016, and that that position will not change in the next 20 years..... but then you go on to talk about compromises.... Can you give an example of one of these case by case compromises that you would be happy for the UK to compromise on? Otherwise it all sounds a bit woolly and unspecific.

Andy20vt said:

What's wrong with that - why do you expect there has to be some sort of grand plan or vision?

Well two things. Firstly you realistically cannot be part of something which has its own vision for the future unless you yourself have a vision of what that future should look like. Otherwise, how will you know when your own vision contradicts the EU vision? How will you know when to say 'enough, no further'?

Secondly, in 2016 a majority of the British public that took part expressed the view that it did not agree with the vision of the future for the EU as it was understood at that time. During that debate, some of that vision was aired ( EU army is just one example) - Those leading the the Remain side went out of their way to say this the EU army was a Brexiteers fantasy, was not under consideration, will never happen.... and yet just a few months after the vote it became VERY clear that some of the other big players in Europe are very much aligned with the idea of an EU army and that when the UK leaves the EU this is likely to happen.
This being the case, you'll understand the confusion. Either there never was a plan and it was all Brexiteer fantasy, or there was a plan, but Remainers were too embarrassed to admit it? Maybe Mr Clegg just assumed that we (UK) could continue to veto it ad nauseam... in which case why not just say so?
The utter dishonesty of Remain is exposed right there. The reality is that Remaining means staying in that pan of water and putting up with whatever eventually gets voted through, which more and more will be less under UK control as Vetos are abolished and QMV is extended.
You talk of safeguards, and I do not doubt that you believe in them, but the reality is that they are phantom when considered against the vision that the EU already has.

I genuinely believe that this is the last chance for the UK to leave the EU (unless and until the whole project collapses). There won't be further referenda on the subject in years to come because no Government would risk another exit vote. Assurances that 'we'll respect the next one, honest guv' simply don't wash.

And lastly, it's interesting that you talk about compromises being in the EU. Pray tell what compromises have the Remain camp offered to those who voted Brexit? (the majority of those that voted) It seems to me that Remain compromises amount to doing anything and everything to stay in the EU, regardless of what millions of people say.

[loafer123]

Helicopter123 said:

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.
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?

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.

[Dr Jekyll]

oyster said:

This is a very good question, but one that both sides of the debate need to be asking.

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.

So if the vote had been 52/48 the other way then what compromises would there be?

[Helicopter123]

amusingduck said:

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"!

If a government isn't of your liking, you can always vote for something else at the next GE.

That's how democracy works.

Funny, isn't it?

[Catatafish]

I don't understand this hindsight/ retro-fitting of people's leave fantasies into the ballot. The wording was quite simple:

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

There are no conditions stated for either, therefore both votes are unconditional. You're opting for leave at any cost, with nothing guaranteed, or you're opting to remain.

Anyone with a brain knows that the EU would never have given favourable leave options beforehand, enabling a friendly leave option condition on the ballot.

[Robertj21a]

Andy20vt said:

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.

At least you're consistent - more wild sweeping statements without any facts at all. Wouldn't it be easier to just say that you haven't a clue but your wishlist includes Remain as the only way forward ?

[andymadmak]

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.

So you don't know what you're voting for. OK. Bit hypocritical of you to be criticising Brexit voters for doing the same (according to you) wasn't it?

[amusingduck]

Helicopter123 said:

amusingduck said:

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"!

If a government isn't of your liking, you can always vote for something else at the next GE.

That's how democracy works.

Funny, isn't it?

Where do I vote for a different flavour of EU governance?

[SeeFive]

Helicopter123 said:

amusingduck said:

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"!

If a government isn't of your liking, you can always vote for something else at the next GE.

That's how democracy works.

Funny, isn't it?

What if the result of that vote is usurped by the minority of voters and not implemented?

[Piha]

WinstonWolf said:

Mate with due respect, stop trying to flog this dead horse.

Genuine question, are you mentally ill?

My word...!! Aren't you the charmer.....

[anonymous-user]

Has anyone else noticed the lack of ethnic minorities or 'non-white' on Nigels little pub crawl?

From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?

Coincidence?

[gooner1]

Helicopter123 said:

amusingduck said:

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"!

If a government isn't of your liking, you can always vote for something else at the next GE.

That's how democracy works.

Funny, isn't it?

You mean having a bit of schlepp round London and having a minority of the British
voting public sign a petition won't change a democratically reached decision?
Oh dear. How dissapointing.

[SeeFive]

Andy20vt said:

Has anyone else noticed the lack of ethnic minorities or 'non-white' on Nigels little pub crawl?

From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?

Coincidence?

Just like my dark skinned wife, we could both have attended but chose not to.

What point are you trying to make? Do you think it was invite only? Or do you feel that leaving the EU only appeals to white people? If so, you had better have a little chat with my missus

[Tuna]

Andy20vt said:

What's wrong with that - why do you expect there has to be some sort of grand plan or vision?

This sums up your logic perfectly:

Andy: "Leaving would be worse than staying!!"

Forum: "OK, let's compare the options. What would staying involve?"

Andy "I don't know! Why should I know that?"

[Tuna]

Elysium said:

Lets say it was 300k people. That is a big number and its reasonable to assume that is only a small cross section of the people who support a second referendum.

That would be a problem for Remain, wouldn't it? Fewer people on this second march than the one held last year?

I wonder why the People's Vote aren't calling for a Second Referendum today. Surely after the march, now is the best time whilst it's fresh in everyone's minds?

[ElectricSoup]

Dr Jekyll said:

oyster said:

This is a very good question, but one that both sides of the debate need to be asking.

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.

So if the vote had been 52/48 the other way then what compromises would there be?

This is what you lot will never get. Our bespoke, specialist membership was the result of decades of compromise. No Euro, No Schengen, vetos on new member countries etc etc etc. It already WAS the compromise position, and even better still we were part of all decision making with an influential seat at the top table. Without it there would never have been peace in Northern Ireland.

But oh no, not good enough. You couldn't accept the copious, massive compromises as enough. Nasty nasty foreigners telling us what to do.

Give me strength.

[mattmurdock]

amusingduck said:

Where do I vote for a different flavour of EU governance?

How about at the EU Parliament elections and by voting for a party in the General Election who will represent you most effectively at the EU Council .

[gooner1]

Andy20vt said:

Has anyone else noticed the lack of ethnic minorities or 'non-white' on Nigels little pub crawl?

From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?

Coincidence?

I hadn't noticed, partly because I cba to watch it but mainly because I tend
not to notice what hue a percentage of a particular British group consists of.
But feel free to apply your own prejudices.

[Helicopter123]

andymadmak said:

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.

So you don't know what you're voting for. OK. Bit hypocritical of you to be criticising Brexit voters for doing the same (according to you) wasn't it?

I know exactly what I voted for in 2016, the status quo.

Did you vote for May's deal, no-deal, Canada + or something else?

[amusingduck]

mattmurdock said:

amusingduck said:

Where do I vote for a different flavour of EU governance?

How about at the EU Parliament elections and by voting for a party in the General Election who will represent you most effectively at the EU Council .

Good post!!