How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)

[s2art]

Elysium said:

We all had our own reasons for voting as we did in 2016.

However, I think it is reasonable to conclude that most voters would have expected a degree of common sense and pragmatism from politicians when implementing the result.
I think it’s also reasonable to expect campaigners to keep basic promises. The leave campaign specifically said, in writing, that they would agree terms before we left and Brexiteers spoke with confidence about our ability to agree a deal with the EU.

The idea that we would mess around for three years, make zero progress and then decide to just jack it in and leave with no withdrawal terms is completely opposed to the Brexit we were promised.

There is an argument that by voting to leave people accepted this would include ‘any means necessary’. However, I don’t think that is a rational argument and I think it’s inexcusable that the same people who promised to take us out in an orderly way now want to do the opposite.

And no mutually acceptable deal exists. What is more the EU refuse to negotiate further. All that is left is leave with no deal. And it will be orderly.

[Elysium]

FiF said:

As always it's you who miss the point. Many now refuse to engage because of having suffered exactly those reactions in one form or another along the spectrum of responses, they are not extremists, but folks who no longer have time for the big baby foot stamping.

It was my point, so I don’t think I missed it.

I’m also not criticising anyone for the way they voted or stamping my ‘big baby foot’ - whatever that means

FIF said:

For the 805th time (joke) you pick up either directly or obliquely on the intention / wish of Leave to negotiate a deal before triggering A50 notice, ignoring the primary reason why things in the end didn't happen exactly that way. That's despite other parts of Leave distinctly examining the possibility of No Deal scenarios and taking that into the decision making process. Then you try and claim there is no mandate in the vote for no deal.

I don’t think anyone on the leave campaign seriously suggested that we would leave without agreeing basic withdrawal arrangements. It just didn’t happen.

I’m not ‘ignoring’ the reasons why we ended up here. It’s just that they don’t help us get to a solution

FIF said:

Yet you are conveniently also ignoring the mandate of the vote following the absolute promise by many who see themselves as the great and good to "respect and implement the result." Things said when they expected to win, but immediately rejected when they didn't get that result and went into big baby foot stamp mode. If there is no mandate for no deal then only God knows what the mandate for the intellectually bereft arguments and destructive positions that you and your fellow travellers are putting up.

I’m suggesting that there is no clear mandate for any of the options in front of us. Which is why I think we should vote to create one.

I care more about fairness and democracy than I do about Brexit.

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

However, I think it is reasonable to conclude that most voters would have expected a degree of common sense and pragmatism from both sides when implementing the result.

FTFY

Indeed.

[braddo]

Tuna said:

I'd place a reasonable bet that if we had a deal that parliament had accepted, a significant chunk of the Second Referendum posse would currently be saying "But we weren't told this would be the deal, we can't leave like this, we must have a Second Referendum".

[FiF]

Elysium said:

FiF said:

As always it's you who miss the point. Many now refuse to engage because of having suffered exactly those reactions in one form or another along the spectrum of responses, they are not extremists, but folks who no longer have time for the big baby foot stamping.

It was my point, so I don’t think I missed it.

I’m also not criticising anyone for the way they voted or stamping my ‘big baby foot’ - whatever that means

FIF said:

For the 805th time (joke) you pick up either directly or obliquely on the intention / wish of Leave to negotiate a deal before triggering A50 notice, ignoring the primary reason why things in the end didn't happen exactly that way. That's despite other parts of Leave distinctly examining the possibility of No Deal scenarios and taking that into the decision making process. Then you try and claim there is no mandate in the vote for no deal.

I don’t think anyone on the leave campaign seriously suggested that we would leave without agreeing basic withdrawal arrangements. It just didn’t happen.

I’m not ‘ignoring’ the reasons why we ended up here. It’s just that they don’t help us get to a solution

FIF said:

Yet you are conveniently also ignoring the mandate of the vote following the absolute promise by many who see themselves as the great and good to "respect and implement the result." Things said when they expected to win, but immediately rejected when they didn't get that result and went into big baby foot stamp mode. If there is no mandate for no deal then only God knows what the mandate for the intellectually bereft arguments and destructive positions that you and your fellow travellers are putting up.

I’m suggesting that there is no clear mandate for any of the options in front of us. Which is why I think we should vote to create one.

I care more about fairness and democracy than I do about Brexit.

It was my point that you missed. Or probably just ignored. How you can think that you were accused of missing your own point is frankly ludicrous.

If you care about fairness then why ignore the clear statement that the referendum result would be implemented, there's a clear mandate for that, but not for ignore it. I've said previously that I accept your word that you don't want to engineer a Remain result but can understand why so many have doubts about base motives, especially considering the same or very similar arguments have been forwarded by those who clearly do want to Remain. Sorry, no offence intended, but there it is.

Anyway not going to agree on this.

[Vanden Saab]

braddo said:

Tuna said:

I'd place a reasonable bet that if we had a deal that parliament had accepted, a significant chunk of the Second Referendum posse would currently be saying "But we weren't told this would be the deal, we can't leave like this, we must have a Second Referendum".

You do realise that the remainers who called the referendum did not suggest two referendums as they were scared that they might lose if they did. Hence the line 'Once in a lifetime decision' by the chancellor of the time, Hey, may be I should crowdfund it and put it on a poster. Actually loads of posters as Cameron, Mandelson etc all said it...

I could then put this on the follow up poster...

David Cameron said:

Britain will not hold a second referendum on its membership of the European Union if the result of a June 23 vote is close, May 14th 2016

[Robertj21a]

Elysium said:

FiF said:

As always it's you who miss the point. Many now refuse to engage because of having suffered exactly those reactions in one form or another along the spectrum of responses, they are not extremists, but folks who no longer have time for the big baby foot stamping.

It was my point, so I don’t think I missed it.

I’m also not criticising anyone for the way they voted or stamping my ‘big baby foot’ - whatever that means

FIF said:

For the 805th time (joke) you pick up either directly or obliquely on the intention / wish of Leave to negotiate a deal before triggering A50 notice, ignoring the primary reason why things in the end didn't happen exactly that way. That's despite other parts of Leave distinctly examining the possibility of No Deal scenarios and taking that into the decision making process. Then you try and claim there is no mandate in the vote for no deal.

I don’t think anyone on the leave campaign seriously suggested that we would leave without agreeing basic withdrawal arrangements. It just didn’t happen.

I’m not ‘ignoring’ the reasons why we ended up here. It’s just that they don’t help us get to a solution

FIF said:

Yet you are conveniently also ignoring the mandate of the vote following the absolute promise by many who see themselves as the great and good to "respect and implement the result." Things said when they expected to win, but immediately rejected when they didn't get that result and went into big baby foot stamp mode. If there is no mandate for no deal then only God knows what the mandate for the intellectually bereft arguments and destructive positions that you and your fellow travellers are putting up.

I’m suggesting that there is no clear mandate for any of the options in front of us. Which is why I think we should vote to create one.

I care more about fairness and democracy than I do about Brexit.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, absolutely brilliant, So says the person who, for at least the 806th time, wants a second referendum before we've even implemented the first. Thanks for the laugh.

[braddo]

Vanden Saab said:

You do realise that the remainers who called the referendum....

...

Precisely. It wasn't close to being a national debate.

Cameron only called it because he thought he was guaranteed to win; otherwise the UK public wouldn't have had the chance to be lied to and duped into voting leave. Well, and the fact that the useless communist-wannabe wker Corbyn was the leader of the Labour party.

Honestly, it seems like none of the pro-brexit people on this thread ever look at the real reasons why people say brexit is a bad idea. Look past your noses and your prejudice and you won't find a single industry or demographic (other than the Rees-Mogg clique) that will actually benefit from Brexit.

[Elysium]

FiF said:

It was my point that you missed. Or probably just ignored. How you can think that you were accused of missing your own point is frankly ludicrous.

If you care about fairness then why ignore the clear statement that the referendum result would be implemented, there's a clear mandate for that, but not for ignore it. I've said previously that I accept your word that you don't want to engineer a Remain result but can understand why so many have doubts about base motives, especially considering the same or very similar arguments have been forwarded by those who clearly do want to Remain. Sorry, no offence intended, but there it is.

Anyway not going to agree on this.

I don't think we can pick and choose when it comes to campaign promises. I think we need to respect them all to some degree.

The referendum created a clear mandate for us to negotiate withdrawal arrangements with the EU and leave. I think most people, leave or remain are frustrated and annoyed that our Govt has totally failed to do that.

May's deal does not fit the mandate because it erodes our sovereignty, leaving without withdrawal terms doesn't fit the mandate because voters rightly expected an orderly transition and remain is not mandated because it lost.

You are clearly happy that no-deal is the 'next best' option. That's fine. I think it is a terrible idea. But it's not up to us to decide. Neither of us knows what was in the mind of the tens of millions of others who took the time to vote.

My argument, very simply, is that we should ask the electorate what they want. That way, we have certainty that whatever we decide has a robust mandate.

[Murph7355]

Elysium said:

Murph7355 said:

Elysium said:

So no coherent argument from leavers.
.

Coherent argument for what?

The only incoherence we've been seeing for months (years?) is your continued assertion that a second referendum between no deal and remain (even if those choices made sense) would resolve anything

A coherent argument would require you to put together some sort of logic and evidence based response to back up your thinking.

There is NO coherent argument for including "remain" on any 2nd referendum. There is NO evidence whatsoever that demonstrates the outcome would be any different to 3yrs ago, and most certainly not in the arbitrary materiality of any likely result.

There may, bearing in mind the shambles that is our Parliament, be an argument for a referendum on May's dogst deal and leaving on WTO type terms. But then May's deal has been dead from the moment she and Robbins first aired it as it's... Dogst. If the cretins and cronies in Parliament can see this, I doubt the general public will not.

Therefore the only thing a referendum on the form of leaving achieves is to waste more time. (All assuming the EU are true to their word and there is no more negotiation - with the way our Parliament have played this I'm 80:20 this is the case).

When one allows oneself to get beyond the pissy pants hysteria of "no deal" meaning catastrophe to us all (as even coolbanana seems capable of doing), what's left? Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Where's the ultra positive evidence of how beneficial the EU is to be part of? It has not changed one iota in 3yrs, despite all the remain proponent caterwauling and 3 MORE years to develop that case conclusively.

It is remain that need to out the logical case forwards. They need to start from a very positive platform. But they cannot. You cannot.

[Elysium]

Robertj21a said:

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, absolutely brilliant, So says the person who, for at least the 806th time, wants a second referendum before we've even implemented the first. Thanks for the laugh.

Yes - because I care about fairness. Whereas you are prepared to do something against the will of the majority in order to get something you want.

[DeepEnd]

braddo said:

Precisely. It wasn't close to being a national debate.

Cameron only called it because he thought he was guaranteed to win; otherwise the UK public wouldn't have had the chance to be lied to and duped into voting leave. Well, and the fact that the useless communist-wannabe wker Corbyn was the leader of the Labour party.

Honestly, it seems like none of the pro-brexit people on this thread ever look at the real reasons why people say brexit is a bad idea. Look past your noses and your prejudice and you won't find a single industry or demographic (other than the Rees-Mogg clique) that will actually benefit from Brexit.

It is interesting how some still seem to think their hero's Mogg & Farage are there to champion positive changes in wealth inequality on their behalf.

Those pictures of Farage cackling - he’s laughing at his supporters as much as anything. Didn’t he call them “low quality” at one point?

[Elysium]

s2art said:

Elysium said:

We all had our own reasons for voting as we did in 2016.

However, I think it is reasonable to conclude that most voters would have expected a degree of common sense and pragmatism from politicians when implementing the result.
I think it’s also reasonable to expect campaigners to keep basic promises. The leave campaign specifically said, in writing, that they would agree terms before we left and Brexiteers spoke with confidence about our ability to agree a deal with the EU.

The idea that we would mess around for three years, make zero progress and then decide to just jack it in and leave with no withdrawal terms is completely opposed to the Brexit we were promised.

There is an argument that by voting to leave people accepted this would include ‘any means necessary’. However, I don’t think that is a rational argument and I think it’s inexcusable that the same people who promised to take us out in an orderly way now want to do the opposite.

And no mutually acceptable deal exists.

True

s2art said:

What is more the EU refuse to negotiate further.

Also true

s2art said:

All that is left is leave with no deal.

False. There are other options. That is just the one you prefer.

s2art said:

And it will be orderly.

None of us know that will be the case.

[Murph7355]

Elysium said:

...
I think it’s also reasonable to expect campaigners to keep basic promises. The leave campaign specifically said, in writing, that they would agree terms before we left and Brexiteers spoke with confidence about our ability to agree a deal with the EU.
...

(1) Leave were not in government. Everyone knew that.

Furthermore "leave" were not in suitable positions in government (barely in government at all) following May's promotion. The most influential person? Ollie Robbins. Leave proponent extraordinaire.

(2) Brexiteers spoke of what SHOULD be possible. And as you speak of common sense and pragmatism, they were right.

The approach May has taken of trying to get a deal whilst "in" has bombed. It was always destined to, though admittedly she and Robbins could not have made it fail more than they did. Just as "reforming from within" would always have bombed.


Simply, you just do not like the result from 3yrs ago. That is fair enough, you have opinions on leaving. But they are insufficient to overturn the result.

As is having incompetents in power. It doesn't make the result "wrong".

[Vanden Saab]

braddo said:

Vanden Saab said:

You do realise that the remainers who called the referendum....

...

Precisely. It wasn't close to being a national debate.

Cameron only called it because he thought he was guaranteed to win; otherwise the UK public wouldn't have had the chance to be lied to and duped into voting leave. Well, and the fact that the useless communist-wannabe wker Corbyn was the leader of the Labour party.

Honestly, it seems like none of the pro-brexit people on this thread ever look at the real reasons why people say brexit is a bad idea. Look past your noses and your prejudice and you won't find a single industry or demographic (other than the Rees-Mogg clique) that will actually benefit from Brexit.

Utter bks many people have wanted to leave the EU for years. Nothing the leave side said made any difference to them. I would bet that a good number of people were convinced to vote leave by the ridiculous claims of impending doom and catastrophe though.
Oh look you are doing it too...

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

Robertj21a said:

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, absolutely brilliant, So says the person who, for at least the 806th time, wants a second referendum before we've even implemented the first. Thanks for the laugh.

Yes - because I care about fairness. Whereas you are prepared to do something against the will of the majority in order to get something you want.

Do you understand what a hypocrite is?

You just seem to make it up as you go along, clearly absolutely nothing gets through.

Just more spam and attention seeking.

[alfie2244]

Vanden Saab said:

Utter bks many people have wanted to leave the EU for years. Nothing the leave side said made any difference to them. I would bet that a good number of people were convinced to vote leave by the ridiculous claims of impending doom and catastrophe though.
Oh look you are doing it too...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSXdE8M-9Y4

[Otis Criblecoblis]

braddo said:

Chalk up another person who had no idea on what basis they went to the polls on.

[braddo]

Vanden Saab said:

Utter bks many people have wanted to leave the EU for years. Nothing the leave side said made any difference to them. I would bet that a good number of people were convinced to vote leave by the ridiculous claims of impending doom and catastrophe though.
Oh look you are doing it too...

Oh really? UKIP had 3 million voters and 1 MP. How was Brexit a national issue when the electorate was 45 million? It would be like France having a referendum on becoming a Nazi state just because the Front Nationale was getting nearly 10% of the national vote.

[braddo]

Otis Criblecoblis said:

braddo said:

Chalk up another person who had no idea on what basis they went to the polls on.

The services industry.

It has a £100bn+ surplus with the EU. Can you enunciate how Brexit will protect that trade surplus?