How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 10)
Discussion
Garvin said:
Elysium said:
Garvin said:
Elysium said:
Come on then - what have I made up?
It would take a (very) long time to list all your nonsense but just go back to posts at 10:31 and 10:40 am today and you will see one example of the b
ks you spout!The answer is nothing. The post you mentioned is an example of you failing to read the thread.
wisbech said:
voyds9 said:
+1
I voted to leave
I did not expect an argument about how to stay in and call it out.
I expected to sign an agreement to make our products EU compliant to sell them to the EU. As I expect to make anything I sell compliant to the country it ends up in.
Let's get out then start talks on a mutually beneficial deal
Why is an agreement needed? You make stuff compliant with US/EU/Japan standards as needed, pay for certification. Goods might get inspected/ tested by other end.I voted to leave
I did not expect an argument about how to stay in and call it out.
I expected to sign an agreement to make our products EU compliant to sell them to the EU. As I expect to make anything I sell compliant to the country it ends up in.
Let's get out then start talks on a mutually beneficial deal
This is what we are giving up:
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/fre...
Garvin said:
Elysium said:
Garvin said:
Elysium said:
Come on then - what have I made up?
It would take a (very) long time to list all your nonsense but just go back to posts at 10:31 and 10:40 am today and you will see one example of the bks you spout!The answer is nothing. The post you mentioned is an example of you failing to read the thread.
Elysium said:
Jesus wept. You are just making nonsense up.
Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
As is the fact that the E.U. refused to engage in any talks before A50 was triggered. So how was that agreeing terms supposed to be carried out, with the best will in the world when you are faced with another side that refuses to come to the table?Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
Edited by Elysium on Sunday 19th May 22:47
The inability to carry out that process has nothing to do with either remain or leave in the UK. That is entirely the making of the E.U. approach to negotiation.
SeeFive said:
Elysium said:
Jesus wept. You are just making nonsense up.
Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
As is the fact that the E.U. refused to engage in any talks before A50 was triggered. So how was that agreeing terms supposed to be carried out, with the best will in the world when you are faced with another side that refuses to come to the table?Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
Edited by Elysium on Sunday 19th May 22:47
The inability to carry out that process has nothing to do with either remain or leave in the UK. That is entirely the making of the E.U. approach to negotiation.
I realise that there are all sorts of complexities that have got us to that point and all sorts of people who can be blamed for the failure of negotiations. But that does not change the basic facts of the matter.
Elysium said:
1. We voted to leave the EU in 2016. I have not forgotten
A good start.Elysium said:
2. The Govt negotiated terms of withdrawal, as everybody expected.
It's all a case of perspective isn't it. From a remainer's perspective we've managed to negotiate the best deal we could have...….from a leaver's point of view May, her SPADS, Robbins, the CS and the EU have contrived a soft Brino with the hope that sufficient numbers of leavers will capitulate. You claim " as everybody expected ". Please clarify what you mean there because its ambiguous. a) Everybody expected the Govt to negotiate the terms of withdrawal and they have done that or b) The WA terms, negotiated by the Govt, are what everybody expected that terms to be? Elysium said:
3. You don't like them and you want to walk away without a deal. Something the leave campaign said would never happen.
Perspective again here......Leavers will claim, the government was very vocal in claiming that no deal is better than a bad deal...……..the fact that the HoC has rejected May's deal 3 times and by record breaking margins of defeat indicates that her deal is bad....seriously bad. Ergo...….no deal is better. Remainers will struggle to counter this reasonably logical conclusion so they claim, just as you do, that no deal is impossible.Elysium said:
4. The failure of the negotiations and the idea of leaving with no-deal is self evidently a significant change in circumstances. But you choose to ignore that and claim nothing has changed. Because it suits you.
Leavers wanted to leave and still do...…...if the best terms we have at this point are WTO then the Govt has fvcked up royally but nothing has changed, leavers still want to leave.Elysium said:
5. You will support any argument that walking away with no-deal is mandated by the 2016 referendum, because it is what you want.
You're assuming what other people want. I don't think anyone had ever aspired to no deal...…...until TM sprang the Chequers deal onto a shocked cabinet and nation.Elysium said:
6. You don't know if your view is in the majority and you don't care.
The part not in bold is true.....the part in bold is a stupid ad hom assumption.Elysium said:
7. You are against a second referendum because you are scared that no-deal will not be in the majority and you won't get what you want.
You would love to be the person who sets the questions on this hypothetical second ref wouldn't you. 
a) Do you want to be thought of as a thick xenophobic old racist and crash out of the EU with no deal?
b) Do you want to remain in the EU?
Elysium said:
You don't care about democracy. If you did, you would have had no problem with my post. Instead, you resorted to the sort of tired, pointless rhetoric that is endlessly rolled out by people in your position. You suggested I simply could not accept the democratic vote.
Elysium said:
It's pathetic.
Your continued sanctimony does you no favours.Edited by Crackie on Sunday 19th May 23:45
Elysium said:
SeeFive said:
Elysium said:
Jesus wept. You are just making nonsense up.
Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
As is the fact that the E.U. refused to engage in any talks before A50 was triggered. So how was that agreeing terms supposed to be carried out, with the best will in the world when you are faced with another side that refuses to come to the table?Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
Edited by Elysium on Sunday 19th May 22:47
The inability to carry out that process has nothing to do with either remain or leave in the UK. That is entirely the making of the E.U. approach to negotiation.
I realise that there are all sorts of complexities that have got us to that point and all sorts of people who can be blamed for the failure of negotiations. But that does not change the basic facts of the matter.
It was a negotiating ploy by the E.U. that the UK team failed to pick up on. Neither side was ready for WTO exit at that stage, and it wouldn’t have been too difficult to get them to the table with that suggestion at that time - nobody wanted it. Same with the “agree to pay 39m before we talk to you” demands etc.
If a serious UK “leaver” team with a true belief in getting a decent result through negotiation had been running the negotiation, then the game would have been a lot harder for the E.U. to direct. They had all they needed to give us a BRINO deal from that poor UK start.
They did well. Sadly, the people that should have been running the negotiation were not, hence we are where we are.
Edit to correct error in first sentence... doh!
To sustain calls for evidence...
Treasury report April 2016, which remain will be very familiar with given the figures were a part of the infamous project fear.
1. Britain will be worse off by £4,300 a year per household if Britain votes to leave European Union, new analysis published by HM Treasury shows
HM Treasury’s analysis has considered the three existing alternatives:
membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway
a negotiated bilateral agreement, such as that between the EU and Switzerland, Turkey or Canada
World Trade Organization (WTO) membership without any form of specific agreement with the EU - like Russia or Brazil
Source: treasury report.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eu-referendum-t...
Edited by SeeFive on Sunday 19th May 23:58
The Swiss decide to come into line with EU rules the have no input in creating.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-tax/swiss...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48328867
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-tax/swiss...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48328867
Crackie said:
Elysium said:
1. We voted to leave the EU in 2016. I have not forgotten
A good start.Elysium said:
2. The Govt negotiated terms of withdrawal, as everybody expected.
It's all a case of perspective isn't it. From a remainer's perspective we've managed to negotiate the best deal we could have...….from a leaver's point of view May, her SPADS, Robbins, the CS and the EU have contrived a soft Brino with the hope that sufficient numbers of leavers will capitulate. You claim " as everybody expected ". Please clarify what you mean there because its ambiguous. a) Everybody expected the Govt to negotiate the terms of withdrawal and they have done that or b) The WA terms, negotiated by the Govt, are what everybody expected that terms to be?Crackie said:
Elysium said:
3. You don't like them and you want to walk away without a deal. Something the leave campaign said would never happen.
Perspective again here......Leavers will claim, the government was very vocal in claiming that no deal is better than a bad deal...……..the fact that the HoC has rejected May's deal 3 times and by record breaking margins of defeat indicates that her deal is bad....seriously bad. Ergo...….no deal is better. Remainers will struggle to counter this reasonably logical conclusion so they claim, just as you do, that no deal is impossible.Crackie said:
Elysium said:
4. The failure of the negotiations and the idea of leaving with no-deal is self evidently a significant change in circumstances. But you choose to ignore that and claim nothing has changed. Because it suits you.
Leavers wanted to leave and still do...…...if the best terms we have at this point are WTO then the Govt has fvcked up royally but nothing has changed, leavers still want to leave.Crackie said:
Elysium said:
5. You will support any argument that walking away with no-deal is mandated by the 2016 referendum, because it is what you want.
You're assuming what other people want. I don't think anyone had ever aspired to no deal...…...until TM sprang the Chequers deal onto a shocked cabinet and nation.Crackie said:
Elysium said:
6. You don't know if your view is in the majority and you don't care.
The part not in bold is true.....the part in bold is a stupid ad hom assumption.Crackie said:
Elysium said:
7. You are against a second referendum because you are scared that no-deal will not be in the majority and you won't get what you want.
You would love to be the person who sets the questions on this hypothetical second ref wouldn't you. a) Do you want to be thought of as a thick xenophobic old racist and crash out of the EU with no deal?
b) Do you want to remain in the EU?
Crackie said:
Elysium said:
You don't care about democracy. If you did, you would have had no problem with my post. Instead, you resorted to the sort of tired, pointless rhetoric that is endlessly rolled out by people in your position. You suggested I simply could not accept the democratic vote.
Elysium said:
It's pathetic.
Your continued sanctimony does you no favours.SeeFive said:
Elysium said:
SeeFive said:
Elysium said:
Jesus wept. You are just making nonsense up.
Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
As is the fact that the E.U. refused to engage in any talks before A50 was triggered. So how was that agreeing terms supposed to be carried out, with the best will in the world when you are faced with another side that refuses to come to the table?Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
The inability to carry out that process has nothing to do with either remain or leave in the UK. That is entirely the making of the E.U. approach to negotiation.
I realise that there are all sorts of complexities that have got us to that point and all sorts of people who can be blamed for the failure of negotiations. But that does not change the basic facts of the matter.
It was a negotiating ploy by the E.U. that the UK team failed to pick up on. Neither side was ready for WTO exit at that stage, and it wouldn’t have been too difficult to get them to the table with that suggestion at that time - nobody wanted it. Same with the “agree to pay 39m before we talk to you” demands etc.
If a serious UK “leaver” team with a true belief in getting a decent result through negotiation had been running the negotiation, then the game would have been a lot harder for the E.U. to direct. They had all they needed to give us a BRINO deal from that poor UK start.
They did well. Sadly, the people that should have been running the negotiation were not, hence we are where we are.
Edit to correct error in first sentence... doh!
To sustain calls for evidence...
Treasury report April 2016, which remain will be very familiar with given the figures were a part of the infamous project fear.
1. Britain will be worse off by £4,300 a year per household if Britain votes to leave European Union, new analysis published by HM Treasury shows
HM Treasury’s analysis has considered the three existing alternatives:
membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway
a negotiated bilateral agreement, such as that between the EU and Switzerland, Turkey or Canada
World Trade Organization (WTO) membership without any form of specific agreement with the EU - like Russia or Brazil
Source: treasury report.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eu-referendum-t...
No one expected us to fail to negotiate basic terms of withdrawal. But that is what we are now describing as 'no-deal'.
The leave campaign were very clear that we would have terms agreed before we left. The position has now changed completely.
Elysium said:
SeeFive said:
Elysium said:
SeeFive said:
Elysium said:
Jesus wept. You are just making nonsense up.
Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
As is the fact that the E.U. refused to engage in any talks before A50 was triggered. So how was that agreeing terms supposed to be carried out, with the best will in the world when you are faced with another side that refuses to come to the table?Leave said in their referendum pamphlet that we would agree terms for our future relationship with the EU before we left.
It’s a matter of public record.
The inability to carry out that process has nothing to do with either remain or leave in the UK. That is entirely the making of the E.U. approach to negotiation.
I realise that there are all sorts of complexities that have got us to that point and all sorts of people who can be blamed for the failure of negotiations. But that does not change the basic facts of the matter.
It was a negotiating ploy by the E.U. that the UK team failed to pick up on. Neither side was ready for WTO exit at that stage, and it wouldn’t have been too difficult to get them to the table with that suggestion at that time - nobody wanted it. Same with the “agree to pay 39m before we talk to you” demands etc.
If a serious UK “leaver” team with a true belief in getting a decent result through negotiation had been running the negotiation, then the game would have been a lot harder for the E.U. to direct. They had all they needed to give us a BRINO deal from that poor UK start.
They did well. Sadly, the people that should have been running the negotiation were not, hence we are where we are.
Edit to correct error in first sentence... doh!
To sustain calls for evidence...
Treasury report April 2016, which remain will be very familiar with given the figures were a part of the infamous project fear.
1. Britain will be worse off by £4,300 a year per household if Britain votes to leave European Union, new analysis published by HM Treasury shows
HM Treasury’s analysis has considered the three existing alternatives:
membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway
a negotiated bilateral agreement, such as that between the EU and Switzerland, Turkey or Canada
World Trade Organization (WTO) membership without any form of specific agreement with the EU - like Russia or Brazil
Source: treasury report.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eu-referendum-t...
No one expected us to fail to negotiate basic terms of withdrawal. But that is what we are now describing as 'no-deal'.
The leave campaign were very clear that we would have terms agreed before we left. The position has now changed completely.
Remain seem to want to keep pushing that wish to influence by bringing up the same old nonsense, refusing to respect the documented evidence when suggesting that people didn’t know what they were voting for. It is clear that WTO was discussed widely in the run up to the referendum, and if the E.U. didn’t enter the negotiations in the right spirit, respecting a quite reasonable statement in the Leave campaign (talk before A50) then that card should have been played with commitment as soon as possible to get their attention while they were as unprepared as us.
But the thing is. If anything, given some of the things proposed on here by a few remainers and their absolute (and I mean this literally) mindset to ignore clear evidence to the contrary, it appears little has changed - to the detriment of more moderate remainers. It is still a campaign of fear and smear, but this time the fear appears to be of the Brexit Party, leading them to the mistaken thought that it is all about Farage. And your statement is leaning a little that way, not willing to recognise the reasons and laying the blame on the leave campaign alone. Again, with best will in the world... etc.
OK, so use those ideas to destroy Farage and his “charisma”, but it is beyond that now. The terms of engagement are 3 years old, and well understood. Farage goes, the next guy will step up into a well laid foundation and the groundswell will continue. As “his Nigelness” has said, this is about changing politics, and that’s is what a lot of folks are concerned about in conjunction with this debacle of leaving the E.U with BRINO.. The likelihood of that change actually happening beyond a good result for the BP next week is I believe quite slim... unfortunately.
Edited by SeeFive on Monday 20th May 01:02
Elysium said:
A - everyone expected the Govt to negotiate terms.
Fair enough......thanks for clarifying.Elysium said:
I don't like the withdrawal agreement. It is BRINO and pointless. But it is absolutely true that the leave campaign said that we would negotiate terms before leaving. The issue is that we are now pivoting to no-deal arguing this is what the referendum result mandates. That is patently untrue. Arguably it mandates a renegotiation, but no-deal is something entirely different that should be tested via a second vote.
When remainers thought there would be a BRINO they were happy to tell leavers that we live in a representative democracy and this was what the HoC had negotiated on our behalf...…...there is a strong possibility the best option that our current HoC can deliver is WTO. You can't have it both ways. Elysium said:
the terms of leaving have changed. You may be cool about that, but you have no right to speak for everyone else.
The terms of leaving are still changing. You and I don't know what they will be in the end; WTO is looking most likely right now. I'm not cool with that, as you put it, I don't want no deal and never have...……..but its currently the best thing on offer. Elysium said:
I don't like hypocrisy.
How do you get on with mirrors?Crackie said:
Elysium said:
A - everyone expected the Govt to negotiate terms.
Fair enough......thanks for clarifying.Elysium said:
I don't like the withdrawal agreement. It is BRINO and pointless. But it is absolutely true that the leave campaign said that we would negotiate terms before leaving. The issue is that we are now pivoting to no-deal arguing this is what the referendum result mandates. That is patently untrue. Arguably it mandates a renegotiation, but no-deal is something entirely different that should be tested via a second vote.
When remainers thought there would be a BRINO they were happy to tell leavers that we live in a representative democracy and this was what the HoC had negotiated on our behalf...…...there is a strong possibility the best option that our current HoC can deliver is WTO. You can't have it both ways. Elysium said:
the terms of leaving have changed. You may be cool about that, but you have no right to speak for everyone else.
The terms of leaving are still changing. You and I don't know what they will be in the end; WTO is looking most likely right now. I'm not cool with that, as you put it, I don't want no deal and never have...……..but its currently the best thing on offer. Elysium said:
I don't like hypocrisy.
How do you get on with mirrors?The path was clear from that first error by the UK team to accept that position that a bad deal was likely, and WTO would probably be better and than the eventual outcome. It should probably have been proposed by the UK much earlier to focus minds on a mutually agreeable WA, not just agreeable to the E.U. and then back to arms folded, no further negotiation. But they never really believed in WTO as an option, and the E.U. knew it. Silly buggers.
We should propose to go WTO right now. If it draws the E.U. back to negotiations, then great. If not, it should be the outcome as the current treaty with backstop is BRINO with no A50 style exit or seat at the table - worse than what we are trying to leave, the worst possible outcome IMO.
Pan Pan Pan said:
christian-ohtc3 said:
FiF said:
Meanwhile in a Gallup International survey across the EU27 nations, in a question what to do if the UK parliament fails to ratify May's deal, 52% of respondents said the EU should renegotiate the deal, 34% said it should not.
In Remain land that means the correct decision is not to renegotiate as it's not a binding vote, am I doing this right?
In 1975 only 43% of the electorate voted to remain in the EEC using remain land logic that result should be void as well.In Remain land that means the correct decision is not to renegotiate as it's not a binding vote, am I doing this right?
How in 1975 could the people of the UK be asked to vote for something that would not exist for another 18 years, let alone understand what being in an EU would mean for them and the UK?
Yet in 2016 we had some bleating that there was not enough information available to make a decision.
Well by 2016, the people of the UK had had over 40 years of `actual' experience of being in the EU, not to mention information from the internet, numerous TV channels, far more newspapers, televised HoC and HoL and other tv debates etc which did not exist in 1975, and the majority voted to leave .
Since no ordinary citizens in the UK were allowed to vote, on whether or not they wanted the UK to be in the EU, let alone be allowed to make legal challenges to the result of the 2016 democratic vote on the matter, is UK membership of the EU even legal?
Elysium said:
wisbech said:
voyds9 said:
+1
I voted to leave
I did not expect an argument about how to stay in and call it out.
I expected to sign an agreement to make our products EU compliant to sell them to the EU. As I expect to make anything I sell compliant to the country it ends up in.
Let's get out then start talks on a mutually beneficial deal
Why is an agreement needed? You make stuff compliant with US/EU/Japan standards as needed, pay for certification. Goods might get inspected/ tested by other end.I voted to leave
I did not expect an argument about how to stay in and call it out.
I expected to sign an agreement to make our products EU compliant to sell them to the EU. As I expect to make anything I sell compliant to the country it ends up in.
Let's get out then start talks on a mutually beneficial deal
This is what we are giving up:
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/fre...
The other 'three freedoms' hardly get a mention in this thread.
SeeFive said:
Elysium said:
I don't disagree with your post. Various options for future trading arrangements were discussed during the referendum campaign, which included WTO terms.
No one expected us to fail to negotiate basic terms of withdrawal. But that is what we are now describing as 'no-deal'.
The leave campaign were very clear that we would have terms agreed before we left. The position has now changed completely.
Many things claimed by both sides have failed to materialise due to incompetency in delivery, poor analysis of potential outcomes, or even because they were incorrectly stated in the first place with the wish to influence and promote fear. No one expected us to fail to negotiate basic terms of withdrawal. But that is what we are now describing as 'no-deal'.
The leave campaign were very clear that we would have terms agreed before we left. The position has now changed completely.
Remain seem to want to keep pushing that wish to influence by bringing up the same old nonsense, refusing to respect the documented evidence when suggesting that people didn’t know what they were voting for. It is clear that WTO was discussed widely in the run up to the referendum, and if the E.U. didn’t enter the negotiations in the right spirit, respecting a quite reasonable statement in the Leave campaign (talk before A50) then that card should have been played with commitment as soon as possible to get their attention while they were as unprepared as us.
But the thing is. If anything, given some of the things proposed on here by a few remainers and their absolute (and I mean this literally) mindset to ignore clear evidence to the contrary, it appears little has changed - to the detriment of more moderate remainers. It is still a campaign of fear and smear, but this time the fear appears to be of the Brexit Party, leading them to the mistaken thought that it is all about Farage. And your statement is leaning a little that way, not willing to recognise the reasons and laying the blame on the leave campaign alone. Again, with best will in the world... etc.
OK, so use those ideas to destroy Farage and his “charisma”, but it is beyond that now. The terms of engagement are 3 years old, and well understood. Farage goes, the next guy will step up into a well laid foundation and the groundswell will continue. As “his Nigelness” has said, this is about changing politics, and that’s is what a lot of folks are concerned about in conjunction with this debacle of leaving the E.U with BRINO.. The likelihood of that change actually happening beyond a good result for the BP next week is I believe quite slim... unfortunately.
I have already agreed that WTO was discussed as an option during the ref campaign. Leaving without agreed withdrawal terms was not. That brings risk of disruption and damage to the UK.
Leave campaigners said that we would not leave without first negotiating a deal. They also said that those negotiations would be easy. Again I agree with you that they were badly handled. Which has brought us to a 6 month impasse.
We also seem to agree that the current fervour around thje Brexit Party is unlikely to amount to anything. I don't think I am 'smearing' Farage. He is a controversial character and always has been. However, I think that the simple and honest way forward would be for leavers to admit that the game has changed and let the people decide if they still want Brexit on no-deal / WTO terms in the form of a second referendum.
The only reason I can see why anyone would object to that is fear the majority do not wany no-deal / WTO. If that is the case, we revoke article 50 and allow the 'new politics' to decide what happens next.
Of course someone needs to do the work required to ensure that no-deal / WTO can actually be legally delivered without breaking up the country.
SeeFive said:
I have to agree, WTO is not the best possible outcome, but was the default to be avoided by BOTH sides. Our negotiating incompetency in not recognising that and the E.U.’s arms folded, we’re setting the agenda and process stance has also contributed to our complete capitulation since they refused to talk before A50 was triggered.
The path was clear from that first error by the UK team to accept that position that a bad deal was likely, and WTO would probably be better and than the eventual outcome. It should probably have been proposed by the UK much earlier to focus minds on a mutually agreeable WA, not just agreeable to the E.U. and then back to arms folded, no further negotiation. But they never really believed in WTO as an option, and the E.U. knew it. Silly buggers.
We should propose to go WTO right now. If it draws the E.U. back to negotiations, then great. If not, it should be the outcome as the current treaty with backstop is BRINO with no A50 style exit or seat at the table - worse than what we are trying to leave, the worst possible outcome IMO.
I agree with much of this. But it also illustrates that we are in uncharted territory. The situation has changed.The path was clear from that first error by the UK team to accept that position that a bad deal was likely, and WTO would probably be better and than the eventual outcome. It should probably have been proposed by the UK much earlier to focus minds on a mutually agreeable WA, not just agreeable to the E.U. and then back to arms folded, no further negotiation. But they never really believed in WTO as an option, and the E.U. knew it. Silly buggers.
We should propose to go WTO right now. If it draws the E.U. back to negotiations, then great. If not, it should be the outcome as the current treaty with backstop is BRINO with no A50 style exit or seat at the table - worse than what we are trying to leave, the worst possible outcome IMO.
Imagine this for a moment:
1. We sort out the domestic issues that make a no-deal departure difficult (ie we actually deal with the Northern Ireland problem)
2. We hold a second referendum - Withdrawal Agreement, WTO Terms or Remain
3. If WTO Terms win and we can put all of the arguments behind us because we know it is what the majority want.
4. We give the EU 6 months notice of our intended departure date.
5. The EU will have no political leverage because there will be nothing to negotiate. So we leave the civil service to agree sufficient withdrawal terms to avoid immediate disruption on our exit.
A Govt with a clear mandate from a second referendum would be in a powerful position in discussions with the EU.
Elysium said:
A Govt with a clear mandate from a second referendum would be in a powerful position in discussions with the EU.
A Govt (leader & her "team" of yes sayers) who has a mandate has failed to fulfil said mandate, the British will speak if they can be arsed to get out of bed after 3+ years of this crap avoidance con trick May and her remain friends have tried.amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
3. If WTO Terms win and we can put all of the arguments behind us because we know it is what the majority want.
pgh said:
Still dreaming of a three-way referendum I see.
Feels like you only like democracy when it gives the answer you want.
Is a three way referendum impossible?Feels like you only like democracy when it gives the answer you want.
The result could be assessed as WA+WTO v Remain.
If WA+ WTO won then whichever of those gained the highest support would be implemented.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff