How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 10)
Discussion
Elysium said:
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
So if I read the rest correctly, what you are saying is that we should have been stronger in negotiation from the get go? Perhaps believing (I know this is tough for you) that WTO was a potential outcome if the E.U. didn’t play ball and acting on it early?
So why not right now? We and the E.U. actually did some WTO prep over the last couple of years and cancelled it when the idiots in the HoC voted it down. No need for a 2nd referendum on options, no need for a new government. just put a leaver in place and JFDI like should have been done in 2017.
The chances are that the E.U. may let WTO go ahead if they feel prepared enough now, but early doors their reaction would probably have been far more conversational.
They just need to stop fannying around with the E.U. folks who do not want to negotiate further, a Parliament than knows what deal it doesn’t want but can’t agree what it does want and fall back on the default outcome.
ETA: I am not disagreeing with much you say except that there is reason for requiring a further mandate. Stupid May tried this with the GE, and look where we are now.
Edited by SeeFive on Monday 20th May 15:36
SeeFive said:
Elysium said:
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
So if I read the rest correctly, what you are saying is that we should have been stronger in negotiation from the get go? Perhaps believing (I know this is tough for you) that WTO was a potential outcome if the E.U. didn’t play ball and acting on it early?
So why not right now? We and the E.U. actually did some WTO prep over the last couple of years and cancelled it when the idiots in the HoC voted it down. No need for a 2nd referendum on options, no need for a new government. just put a leaver in place and JFDI like should have been done in 2017.
The chances are that the E.U. may let WTO go ahead if they feel prepared enough now, but early doors their reaction would probably have been far more conversational.
They just need to stop fannying around with the E.U. folks who do not want to negotiate further, a Parliament than knows what deal it doesn’t want but can’t agree what it does want and fall back on the default outcome.
What I am saying is that the official Leave campaign were very clear that we would not leave the EU until we had agreed terms. Those terms could include a WTO trading relationship, which some Conservatives have described as 'Managed No Deal'.
We should have considered that during negotiations and I suspect we actually did, but that our Govt decided the practicalities were too complex. This need more than no-deal prep. It requires a proper strategy for our co-existence with the EU as a third state under WTO rules that will work in the longer term. In particular, that means solving the Irish border issues. The complexity of that is still being underestimated and, lets face it, that is the reason for the backstop and the ultimate failure of the Govt deal.
Simply walking away, without managing our withdrawal is what May referred to as a 'disorderly no-deal' and that is most definitely NOT mandated by the 2016 vote. No-one thought it would be necessary - and it is still unnecessary. It would be undemocratic to take that step without a second referendum to endorse it.
amusingduck said:
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.amusingduck said:
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.amusingduck said:
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).A deal was negotiated to ease the withdrawal.
That deal does not pass Parlaiment as acceptable. No deal does not pass Parliament as acceptable. The question needs to go to the people to find their will.
I think Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum. I think it is the quickest, best way to resolve the constitutional crises we have right now.
Elysium said:
Although I keep being accused of it, I am not suggesting that we didn't know what we were voting for in 2016.
What I am saying is that the official Leave campaign were very clear that we would not leave the EU until we had agreed terms. Those terms could include a WTO trading relationship, which some Conservatives have described as 'Managed No Deal'.
What you are being pulled up on is that you are choosing to believe a small section of the information presented to you in the campaign and ignoring the mass of alternative information which was presented in total. it Is a bit like 99 witnesses identifying the same crim in an ID parade, and then going to charges with the different suspect that one single witness pointed the finger at.What I am saying is that the official Leave campaign were very clear that we would not leave the EU until we had agreed terms. Those terms could include a WTO trading relationship, which some Conservatives have described as 'Managed No Deal'.
WTO was always the default option if a deal could not be agreed with the E.U., WTO is under WTO managed rules. Therefore, in many people’s opinions, there is no unmanaged WTO, it is an oxymoron because rules exist. Ireland is a small subset of that with their own issues.
Pretty much everyone (maybe except the E.U.) have already stated that they will not implement (or entertain) a hard border on the island of Ireland. The E.U. and Eire have politicised it in the negotiation. It is up to everyone involved to join up and make it work without triggering the fundamentalist morons in the Irish population, not just up to the UK to solve the third party issues whilst ignoring our own potential to become a vassal state of the E.U.
Rivenink said:
amusingduck said:
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.amusingduck said:
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.amusingduck said:
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).A deal was negotiated to ease the withdrawal.
That deal does not pass Parlaiment as acceptable. No deal does not pass Parliament as acceptable. The question needs to go to the people to find their will.
I think Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum. I think it is the quickest, best way to resolve the constitutional crises we have right now.
So it is back to the default, no deal is better than a poor deal. Poor execution does not mandate a time consuming (it isn’t quick as you suggest) rerun of the referendum. It simply mandates better execution of the existing decision to leave.
There is one clear and immediately executable option that exists today which our leaders are too afraid to put in process, and that fear has led to the deal we have been presented with (not negotiated) today.
SeeFive said:
What you are being pulled up on is that you are choosing to believe a small section of the information presented to you in the campaign and ignoring the mass of alternative information which was presented in total. it Is a bit like 99 witnesses identifying the same crim in an ID parade, and then going to charges with the different suspect that one single witness pointed the finger at.
I don’t agree. The official leave campaign leaflet said we would not leave until we had agree terms. It wasn’t some throwaway comment. It was every bit as important as the promises in the Govt leaflet. Absolutely no one suggested walking away without any arrangements for transition during the campaign. In fact we were told a deal would be easy.
It’s not that I am ignoring other information. There was nothing to contradict this.
SeeFive said:
WTO was always the default option if a deal could not be agreed with the E.U., WTO is under WTO managed rules. Therefore, in many people’s opinions, there is no unmanaged WTO, it is an oxymoron because rules exist. Ireland is a small subset of that with their own issues.
WTO rules are predefined. So that part keeps the campaign promise. What has not been agreed are the withdrawal terms and that is what gives rise to potential disruption. No one voted for that. SeeFive said:
Pretty much everyone (maybe except the E.U.) have already stated that they will not implement (or entertain) a hard border on the island of Ireland. The E.U. and Eire have politicised it in the negotiation. It is up to everyone involved to join up and make it work without triggering the fundamentalist morons in the Irish population, not just up to the UK to solve the third party issues whilst ignoring our own potential to become a vassal state of the E.U.
Everyone needs to cooperate, but we are the ones implementing a change and we need to have a workable solution. We don’t at the moment and this clearly came up in the negotiations because it is the reason for the backstop. None of us know what the solution is, but ignoring the problem isn’t working. Rivenink said:
The result of the first referendum HAS been respected. We're now in the middle of a constitutional crises because it has been implemented. Parliament instructed the PM to trigger Article 50 notification to leave.
A deal was negotiated to ease the withdrawal.
That deal does not pass Parlaiment as acceptable. No deal does not pass Parliament as acceptable. The question needs to go to the people to find their will.
I think Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum. I think it is the quickest, best way to resolve the constitutional crises we have right now.
I could not agree moreA deal was negotiated to ease the withdrawal.
That deal does not pass Parlaiment as acceptable. No deal does not pass Parliament as acceptable. The question needs to go to the people to find their will.
I think Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum. I think it is the quickest, best way to resolve the constitutional crises we have right now.
Elysium said:
Rivenink said:
The result of the first referendum HAS been respected. We're now in the middle of a constitutional crises because it has been implemented. Parliament instructed the PM to trigger Article 50 notification to leave.
A deal was negotiated to ease the withdrawal.
That deal does not pass Parlaiment as acceptable. No deal does not pass Parliament as acceptable. The question needs to go to the people to find their will.
I think Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum. I think it is the quickest, best way to resolve the constitutional crises we have right now.
I could not agree moreA deal was negotiated to ease the withdrawal.
That deal does not pass Parlaiment as acceptable. No deal does not pass Parliament as acceptable. The question needs to go to the people to find their will.
I think Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum. I think it is the quickest, best way to resolve the constitutional crises we have right now.
And then she said:
SeeFive said:
It should be clear to anyone with reasonable thinking power that May’s deal is just another treaty which is BRINO and far worse than the treaty that we voted to leave.
Brexit means Brexit. Suck it up and stop complaining.SeeFive said:
And then she said:
SeeFive said:
It should be clear to anyone with reasonable thinking power that May’s deal is just another treaty which is BRINO and far worse than the treaty that we voted to leave.
Brexit means Brexit. Suck it up and stop complaining.Elysium said:
SeeFive said:
What you are being pulled up on is that you are choosing to believe a small section of the information presented to you in the campaign and ignoring the mass of alternative information which was presented in total. it Is a bit like 99 witnesses identifying the same crim in an ID parade, and then going to charges with the different suspect that one single witness pointed the finger at.
I don’t agree. The official leave campaign leaflet said we would not leave until we had agree terms. It wasn’t some throwaway comment. It was every bit as important as the promises in the Govt leaflet. Absolutely no one suggested walking away without any arrangements for transition during the campaign. In fact we were told a deal would be easy.
It’s not that I am ignoring other information. There was nothing to contradict this.
SeeFive said:
WTO was always the default option if a deal could not be agreed with the E.U., WTO is under WTO managed rules. Therefore, in many people’s opinions, there is no unmanaged WTO, it is an oxymoron because rules exist. Ireland is a small subset of that with their own issues.
WTO rules are predefined. So that part keeps the campaign promise. What has not been agreed are the withdrawal terms and that is what gives rise to potential disruption. No one voted for that. SeeFive said:
Pretty much everyone (maybe except the E.U.) have already stated that they will not implement (or entertain) a hard border on the island of Ireland. The E.U. and Eire have politicised it in the negotiation. It is up to everyone involved to join up and make it work without triggering the fundamentalist morons in the Irish population, not just up to the UK to solve the third party issues whilst ignoring our own potential to become a vassal state of the E.U.
Everyone needs to cooperate, but we are the ones implementing a change and we need to have a workable solution. We don’t at the moment and this clearly came up in the negotiations because it is the reason for the backstop. None of us know what the solution is, but ignoring the problem isn’t working. First bold, are you referencing the partial Fox quote folks are so keen on misrepresenting?
2nd bold, so you put more credence on a political leaflet than let’s say perhaps, a treasury report.
3rd bold. I don’t think there is a way to exit the E.U. without disruption. Some prefer to fixate on the most politicised disruption such as Ireland.
4th bold. If we are left to find the solution to an overly politicised problem alone whilst others throw rocks at us from the sides, then it will be more difficult than if all parties involved try to agree something together. I only see the E.U. and Eire trying to make political capital out of the issues and not being part of a solution. So therefore, with their attitude they can like it or lump it until they stop throwing rocks and join the team looking for a solution. Controversial - yes, moving forward - yes, will everyone else involved let it fall to bits to their massive disadvantage, and simply blame the UK -I don’t think so.
2%... gotta go. Thanks for the chat.
Sway said:
Elysium - do you really think a statement from a cross party referendum campaign holds the same weight as absolute statements by the Government/Treasury/BoE Governor?
The statement was from the official leave campaign. So yes I really think it does.But it’s not just the leaflet - it’s the fact that absolutely no one even suggested that it might be difficult to agree terms of withdrawal. The current impasse was not on anyone’s radar.
Elysium said:
Sway said:
Elysium - do you really think a statement from a cross party referendum campaign holds the same weight as absolute statements by the Government/Treasury/BoE Governor?
The statement was from the official leave campaign. So yes I really think it does.But it’s not just the leaflet - it’s the fact that absolutely no one even suggested that it might be difficult to agree terms of withdrawal. The current impasse was not on anyone’s radar.
I'm amazed you genuinely think the Government and the most powerful Government institutions official statements are equal to a campaign statement. One is someone trying to win a vote. The other is the Civil Service in it's unbiased role to inform the citizenry of the nation.
SeeFive said:
Sorry, battery running out so please excuse quick formatting and brevity of response, not meaning to insult, I agree with a lot of what you say and respect your views.
First bold, are you referencing the partial Fox quote folks are so keen on misrepresenting?
Lots of people said the process would be straightforward. I’m not referencing Fox in particular as I believe he was talking about an FTA rather than the terms of withdrawal.First bold, are you referencing the partial Fox quote folks are so keen on misrepresenting?
SeeFive said:
2nd bold, so you put more credence on a political leaflet than let’s say perhaps, a treasury report.
It was a clear commitment from leave campaigners and it will have influenced voters. I recall that reports modelled a WTO exit, but I don’t think anyone even remotely considered that we would not be able to agree anything?SeeFive said:
3rd bold. I don’t think there is a way to exit the E.U. without disruption. Some prefer to fixate on the most politicised disruption such as Ireland.
I think Ireland is politicised precisely because it is a very real problem. It is inconvenient that our only land border with the EU is also a symbol of the most significant civil unrest and disobedience our country has dealt with in modern times. If you look at statements made to Parliament by May and Gove it’s clear that it is a big issue. I cannot believe that May would have brought her Party to its knees over the backstop if the whole thing was an unnecessary smokescreen.
SeeFive said:
4th bold. If we are left to find the solution to an overly politicised problem alone whilst others throw rocks at us from the sides, then it will be more difficult than if all parties involved try to agree something together. I only see the E.U. and Eire trying to make political capital out of the issues and not being part of a solution. So therefore, with their attitude they can like it or lump it until they stop throwing rocks and join the team looking for a solution. Controversial - yes, moving forward - yes, will everyone else involved let it fall to bits to their massive disadvantage, and simply blame the UK -I don’t think so.
This is the difficulty in moving forward from this point. I believe it is our obligation to find a solution, but I agree that others are approaching the issue tactically. Unfortunately pulling the no-deal lever does nothing to solve this. SeeFive said:
2%... gotta go. Thanks for the chat.
Thank you - I appreciate the chance for a grown up conversation - we need to spend more time understanding other people’s views. Sway said:
Elysium said:
Sway said:
Elysium - do you really think a statement from a cross party referendum campaign holds the same weight as absolute statements by the Government/Treasury/BoE Governor?
The statement was from the official leave campaign. So yes I really think it does.But it’s not just the leaflet - it’s the fact that absolutely no one even suggested that it might be difficult to agree terms of withdrawal. The current impasse was not on anyone’s radar.
I'm amazed you genuinely think the Government and the most powerful Government institutions official statements are equal to a campaign statement. One is someone trying to win a vote. The other is the Civil Service in it's unbiased role to inform the citizenry of the nation.
If we accept your suggestion that the leave campaign statement is less important than the Govts - that still doesn’t give leavers a license to do the exact opposite.
Elysium said:
Sway said:
Elysium said:
Sway said:
Elysium - do you really think a statement from a cross party referendum campaign holds the same weight as absolute statements by the Government/Treasury/BoE Governor?
The statement was from the official leave campaign. So yes I really think it does.But it’s not just the leaflet - it’s the fact that absolutely no one even suggested that it might be difficult to agree terms of withdrawal. The current impasse was not on anyone’s radar.
I'm amazed you genuinely think the Government and the most powerful Government institutions official statements are equal to a campaign statement. One is someone trying to win a vote. The other is the Civil Service in it's unbiased role to inform the citizenry of the nation.
If we accept your suggestion that the leave campaign statement is less important than the Govts - that still doesn’t give leavers a license to do the exact opposite.
The government were very clear it was exceptionally unlikely we'd leave the Single Market, and that agreeing a deal would be very difficult and time consuming.
It was the core of the first couple of pages of the leaflet they sent out.
For the Treasury to then release a report showing their predicted effects of not having SM membership, it's easy to see the link.
Leave campaigners aren't trying to do the exact opposite of what they said. Every one was clear leaving meant leaving the single market and Customs Union (please, please don't link the Open Britain vid, you're far better than that) as the primary definition of leaving the EU, which was their primary aim. Deals are and were always secondary to that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff