How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 10)
Discussion
So, if I've got the dates & info correct....May is announcing her revised 'deal' on Thursday, 23rd May...the very day Parliament rises for a recess until 4th June.
The proposed date for a vote on this revised 'deal' is in early June....giving no time to debate this in Parliament.
Just another blatant attempt to delay / deceive by our PM. The sooner she is taken out of this process the better.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said this morning that he is voting for the new 'Bill' after details are presented later this week. When asked how he can vote for it if he hasn't seen it....he stumbled...said he had seen a few proposals and he will be voting to deliver democracy....
The proposed date for a vote on this revised 'deal' is in early June....giving no time to debate this in Parliament.
Just another blatant attempt to delay / deceive by our PM. The sooner she is taken out of this process the better.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said this morning that he is voting for the new 'Bill' after details are presented later this week. When asked how he can vote for it if he hasn't seen it....he stumbled...said he had seen a few proposals and he will be voting to deliver democracy....
Elysium said:
It would be simple to arrange a three way vote to avoid splitting leave supporters. There is no hidden agenda behind the words you have highlighted and if you are not willing to take that at face value then tough.
Any evidence that the Electoral Commission would approve any 3-way referendum question?Elysium said:
For what its worth, I think people like you are being disingenuous every single time that you suggest no-deal is mandated by the 2016 vote or that a second referendum would be undemocratic.
2016 vote was not conditional upon a deal. At all.Elysium said:
We simply do not know if the majority want to leave without a deal. To ignore that basic fact and forge ahead based on the 2016 vote is an affront to democracy. Anyone who does that will come to regret it in time.
We simply know that the majority want to leave. To ignore that basic fact and forge ahead re-running the referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy. Anyone who does that will come to regret it in time. MrVert said:
So, if I've got the dates & info correct....May is announcing her revised 'deal' on Thursday, 23rd May...the very day Parliament rises for a recess until 4th June.
The proposed date for a vote on this revised 'deal' is in early June....giving no time to debate this in Parliament.
Just another blatant attempt to delay / deceive by our PM. The sooner she is taken out of this process the better.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said this morning that he is voting for the new 'Bill' after details are presented later this week. When asked how he can vote for it if he hasn't seen it....he stumbled...said he had seen a few proposals and he will be voting to deliver democracy....
He is an embarrassing, monumental fThe proposed date for a vote on this revised 'deal' is in early June....giving no time to debate this in Parliament.
Just another blatant attempt to delay / deceive by our PM. The sooner she is taken out of this process the better.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said this morning that he is voting for the new 'Bill' after details are presented later this week. When asked how he can vote for it if he hasn't seen it....he stumbled...said he had seen a few proposals and he will be voting to deliver democracy....
kwit!Tuna said:
This is the most frustrating thing about Elysium's (and others) circular arguments over whether or not we were 'promised' a WTO Brexit.
Leaving now under WTO rules is just the conditions under which the actual negotiations with the EU over our future relationship will be conducted
No-one during the Referendum campaign, on either side, or pundits unrelated to the campaign groups said anything at all about what they expected the conditions to be half way through the negotiations. Because clearly that would be the most pointless, idiotic, unnecessary bit of punditry possible. Granted there were expectations around terms, but no-one campaigning was actually campaigning to run the negotiations, or dictate the precise nature of the negotiations - they were campaigning whether or not the negotiations would happen in the first place.
I have already agreed with other posters that trading on WTO terms is one of several potential future relationships that were discussed during the referendum. On that basis, it is mandated by the 2016 vote. I also believe the Withdrawal Agreement is mandated. That does not make either option a good idea. Leaving now under WTO rules is just the conditions under which the actual negotiations with the EU over our future relationship will be conducted
No-one during the Referendum campaign, on either side, or pundits unrelated to the campaign groups said anything at all about what they expected the conditions to be half way through the negotiations. Because clearly that would be the most pointless, idiotic, unnecessary bit of punditry possible. Granted there were expectations around terms, but no-one campaigning was actually campaigning to run the negotiations, or dictate the precise nature of the negotiations - they were campaigning whether or not the negotiations would happen in the first place.
The issue is the new idea that we will leave without agreeing any terms of withdrawal, which is what we are now calling no-deal. That is the exact opposite of what was promised by the leave campaign.
Proponents of no-deal argue that we have been unable to agree terms because we are still shackled to the EU. This is despite the fact that they said it would be easy to agree a deal during the referendum campaign. We are being asked to 'believe' that this will be easier from the outside, without any evidence this will be the case.
Tuna said:
Elysium's arguments aren't stupid because of the tedious pedantry (again, on both sides) - they're stupid because he is deliberately confusing a negotiating position with the final outcome. And he is doing so in order to prevent the actual negotiations from going ahead in good faith.
It is utterly pointless discussing whether 'circumstances have changed' when it is clear that he is utterly unwilling to contemplate actually negotiating a new relationship with the EU.
No you have misunderstood entirely. We have not agreed an orderly departure on WTO terms. We are talking about walking away without agreeing any arrangements to ensure a smooth transition, which is entirely contrary to the official leave campaigns written promise. It is utterly pointless discussing whether 'circumstances have changed' when it is clear that he is utterly unwilling to contemplate actually negotiating a new relationship with the EU.
Although its flattering, suggesting that I have the power to frustrate negotiations is nonsense.
Tuna said:
And it's equally irritating to see people on the Leave side of the discussion leap into the same trap with both feet. No wonder the EU are refusing to budge, we don't even know what we're negotiating about.
I entirely agree with this point. Tuna said:
Edited to make it clear that this is frustration with the continued confusion on both sides over what we're fighting over. The concerns over whether WTO is the end of the world have to be viewed in the context that they're a finite state that both parties would be more than happy to replace with a more defined relationship. No part of the Second Referendum discussion improves our negotiating position, which should be the primary concern given the hole May has dug for us. This and only this is the reason The Brexit Party is getting so much support.
A managed exit on WTO terms is an acceptable response to the referendum. It is the no-deal that May spoke about a few years ago. Walking away with no agreement on withdrawal terms is a failure and it has no mandate. I disagree that a second referendum would not improve our negotiation position. A new Govt with a fresh mandate for leaving on WTO terms would be able to cut through the EU's attempts to make leaving complicated and very quickly sort out terms of withdrawal so this could be implemented in an orderly fashion. However, that would also require us to confront the issues with the Northern Ireland border head on. Solving them instead of ignoring them.
MrVert said:
So, if I've got the dates & info correct....May is announcing her revised 'deal' on Thursday, 23rd May...the very day Parliament rises for a recess until 4th June.
The proposed date for a vote on this revised 'deal' is in early June....giving no time to debate this in Parliament.
Just another blatant attempt to delay / deceive by our PM. The sooner she is taken out of this process the better.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said this morning that he is voting for the new 'Bill' after details are presented later this week. When asked how he can vote for it if he hasn't seen it....he stumbled...said he had seen a few proposals and he will be voting to deliver democracy....
It will be the same ingredients arranged on a different plate to make it look different. The E.U. have refused to negotiate further so how can there be a revised deal which isn’t BRINO that parliament can vote to accept?The proposed date for a vote on this revised 'deal' is in early June....giving no time to debate this in Parliament.
Just another blatant attempt to delay / deceive by our PM. The sooner she is taken out of this process the better.
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said this morning that he is voting for the new 'Bill' after details are presented later this week. When asked how he can vote for it if he hasn't seen it....he stumbled...said he had seen a few proposals and he will be voting to deliver democracy....
I agree that she is wasting time, but can’t make sense of why.
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
It would be simple to arrange a three way vote to avoid splitting leave supporters. There is no hidden agenda behind the words you have highlighted and if you are not willing to take that at face value then tough.
Any evidence that the Electoral Commission would approve any 3-way referendum question?Elysium said:
For what its worth, I think people like you are being disingenuous every single time that you suggest no-deal is mandated by the 2016 vote or that a second referendum would be undemocratic.
2016 vote was not conditional upon a deal. At all.Elysium said:
We simply do not know if the majority want to leave without a deal. To ignore that basic fact and forge ahead based on the 2016 vote is an affront to democracy. Anyone who does that will come to regret it in time.
We simply know that the majority want to leave. To ignore that basic fact and forge ahead re-running the referendum with a Remain option is an affront to democracy. Anyone who does that will come to regret it in time. Why are you so scared of second referendum?
If Leaving the EU is truely the will of the people, then thats what people will vote for in a second referendum, surely?
Elysium said:
A managed exit on WTO terms is an acceptable response to the referendum. It is the no-deal that May spoke about a few years ago. Walking away with no agreement on withdrawal terms is a failure and it has no mandate.
Any negotiation that does not include the possibility of either party saying, "fk that, you're having a giraffe, we're off, is not a negotiation.
I disagree that a second referendum would not improve our negotiation position. A new Govt (you want a GE too?) with a fresh mandate for leaving on WTO terms would be able to cut through the EU's attempts to make leaving complicated and very quickly sort out terms of withdrawal so this could be implemented in an orderly fashion. However, that would also require us to confront the issues with the Northern Ireland border head on. Solving them instead of ignoring them.
Any negotiation that does not include the possibility of either party saying, "f
k that, you're having a giraffe, we're off, is not a negotiation. I disagree that a second referendum would not improve our negotiation position. A new Govt (you want a GE too?) with a fresh mandate for leaving on WTO terms would be able to cut through the EU's attempts to make leaving complicated and very quickly sort out terms of withdrawal so this could be implemented in an orderly fashion. However, that would also require us to confront the issues with the Northern Ireland border head on. Solving them instead of ignoring them.
Rivenink said:
How can testing the will of the people again be an affront to democracy?
Why are you so scared of second referendum?
If Leaving the EU is truely the will of the people, then thats what people will vote for in a second referendum, surely?
Because in a post referendum world you are not permitted to chsnge your mind.Why are you so scared of second referendum?
If Leaving the EU is truely the will of the people, then thats what people will vote for in a second referendum, surely?
Rivenink said:
How can testing the will of the people again be an affront to democracy?
Because those who advocate for a Peoples Vote™ have agitated since day 1 to override the "wrong" result of a referendum but want their "right" result to be upheld.Rivenink said:
Why are you so scared of second referendum?
Because IMO it's the most damaging path we could take. Except perhaps May's deal.Rivenink said:
If Leaving the EU is truely the will of the people, then thats what people will vote for in a second referendum, surely?
Can't have it both ways, either the will of the people matters and you implement the first result, or it doesn't (thus no need to re-run).
majordad said:
Explain how you will solve the problem of the Northern Ireland border, without ending the Good Friday Agreement and plunging us all into bloodshed.
Considering the Belfast Agreement makes absolutely no mention of goods controls, goods controls already exist on the Irish border, and there are already border inspections for duty smuggling - exactly why would having a WTO compliant border mean ending the "GFA"?Tuna said:
Elysium said:
We have not agreed an orderly departure on WTO terms.
What exactly is your definition of an orderly departure on WTO terms? What is the difference between that and the disorderly departure that you think we're currently facing? How do you agree such a departure?1. The terms of withdrawal
2. A political declaration about our future relationship.
An orderly departure on WTO terms is what Leavers were recently calling ‘Managed No Deal’. It would accept that we are happy with WTO rules if need be, but not close the door to an FTA. However it would also deal with the transitional arrangements necessary to get us there smoothly. In other words the first part of the withdrawal agreement.
I don’t think it can be negotiated at this point, bu this PM. But a stronger Govt with a mandate from a second referendum could simply tell the EU what we are doing and then spend 6 months or so sorting out the various interfaces necessary to keep things going. The barrier to that of course is we need to have an actual plan to make this work long term, based on an honest view that we may never get to an FTA.
Simply pulling the plug now, without those basic preparations is not mandated by the 2016 vote, because we were expressly told that would not happen
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff