How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Elysium said:
NoNeed said:
Elysium said:
NoNeed said:
TTwiggy said:
NoNeed said:
leavers have a bigger majority than ever 
You talk some crap
It's impossible to make that statement without running another referendum. Nobody knows who is in the majority.You talk some crap
As TTwiggy said, none us actually knows what the ‘will of the people’ is at this point.
Excluding Parliament, forcing no deal before a general election, dismissing all suggestions of a second referendum. If leave is in the majority there is nothing to fear from these things. Yet you all seem to be afraid.
We do not need ‘more’ democracy, the issue was settled 2016.
Elysium said:
If you read section 49 of the phase 1 report, it is obvious that the principal agreed as long ago as 2017 is regulatory alignment in Northern Ireland, which the UK Govt chose to tackle at National level. That is why we ended up with the backstop.
That was not just Robbins and May - Parliament endorsed it specifically in the withdrawal act.
If we want something different, we need to define it. Johnson does not even attempt to do so, which suggests two possibilities:
1. He has no idea how to solve the problem.
2. He does not want to solve the problem, because his goal is to win a General Election as the champion of a no-deal Brexit.
In this case, I think both are true.
I also recall nothing being "agreed" until it's all agreed.That was not just Robbins and May - Parliament endorsed it specifically in the withdrawal act.
If we want something different, we need to define it. Johnson does not even attempt to do so, which suggests two possibilities:
1. He has no idea how to solve the problem.
2. He does not want to solve the problem, because his goal is to win a General Election as the champion of a no-deal Brexit.
In this case, I think both are true.
Option 3 - if the EU are not prepared to discuss opening the WA and the backstop particularly then there is zero point wasting any time on it. Enough time has been wasted on it already.
banjowilly said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
There was no democratic process when the UK was slimed into the EU by the government, without giving the people of the UK a vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU.
I see the record with a scratch is back. You had your chance in 1975, so do pipe down with this endlessly repeated canard.
crankedup said:
Elysium said:
NoNeed said:
Elysium said:
NoNeed said:
TTwiggy said:
NoNeed said:
leavers have a bigger majority than ever
You talk some crap
It's impossible to make that statement without running another referendum. Nobody knows who is in the majority.You talk some crap
As TTwiggy said, none us actually knows what the ‘will of the people’ is at this point.
Excluding Parliament, forcing no deal before a general election, dismissing all suggestions of a second referendum. If leave is in the majority there is nothing to fear from these things. Yet you all seem to be afraid.
We do not need ‘more’ democracy, the issue was settled 2016.
crankedup said:
The fear is that our democratic system will be hugely damaged if politicians were to dismiss the relevance of the referendum result 2016.
We do not need ‘more’ democracy, the issue was settled 2016.
I am not advocating a second ref before I go any further but .....We do not need ‘more’ democracy, the issue was settled 2016.
If people think more folk than ever want to leave and a sufficient to win the day majority of this want to do so with no deal why is there such angst over any prospect of a vote to decide the manner of departure ?
Murph7355 said:
To repeat a question posed previously... When the EU and Irish note they will not build any harder border on that island under any circumstances, are they also being "dishonest" and "childish"?
I note that the Irish have said they will not build a hard border but I have not heard the EU say the same. I believe the EU are being disingenuous in allowing Varadkar to say such things and being a bit quiet themselves on the issue. This is a real danger for Varadkar as he will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.Personally, I anticipate the EU instructing the ROI to construct a border of some kind as to do anything else will cast the backstop as one big piece of unnecessary s
te.Brooking10 said:
crankedup said:
The fear is that our democratic system will be hugely damaged if politicians were to dismiss the relevance of the referendum result 2016.
We do not need ‘more’ democracy, the issue was settled 2016.
I am not advocating a second ref before I go any further but .....We do not need ‘more’ democracy, the issue was settled 2016.
If people think more folk than ever want to leave and a sufficient to win the day majority of this want to do so with no deal why is there such angst over any prospect of a vote to decide the manner of departure ?
Garvin said:
I note that the Irish have said they will not build a hard border but I have not heard the EU say the same. I believe the EU are being disingenuous in allowing Varadkar to say such things and being a bit quiet themselves on the issue. This is a real danger for Varadkar as he will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
Personally, I anticipate the EU instructing the ROI to construct a border of some kind as to do anything else will cast the backstop as one big piece of unnecessary ste.
There is a clip somewhere IIRC of Juncker being challenged on this point where he notes nothing will be forced on them. Personally, I anticipate the EU instructing the ROI to construct a border of some kind as to do anything else will cast the backstop as one big piece of unnecessary s
te.I think Barnier has also been quoted as noting the Irish won't be thrown under a bus on this.
Garvin said:
I was more interested in the acceptance of leaving bit as there are a great many things intimated about how Boris will be halted in his tracks but I have yet to track down anyone who can clearly articulate how this will actually be achieved. It seems to me you may share this view.
The distinction want to offer though is the desire to see Brexit rescinded is not the same as believing it will be or even can be & I'm honest enough to say I don't know how that would come about. I would be content to see the Tory party obliterated at the ballot box, it's no more than they deserve for the egregious position they've brought the country to for me but vague, undetailed allusions to stopping Brexit through parliament is a tactic that works both ways. I spent a lot of time on here yesterday pointing out the backstop should be accepted because lots of leavers advocate tech solutions of the border but when you press them, more than a few dissolve into deflection, abuse & discursive meanderings.Brooking10 said:
I am not advocating a second ref before I go any further but .....
If people think more folk than ever want to leave and a sufficient to win the day majority of this want to do so with no deal why is there such angst over any prospect of a vote to decide the manner of departure ?
Typically, IMO, because it won't solve anything/quieten the nonsense. If people think more folk than ever want to leave and a sufficient to win the day majority of this want to do so with no deal why is there such angst over any prospect of a vote to decide the manner of departure ?
Most calls on here and everywhere else also call for Remain to be on the paper. Ditto 10 fold for that.
Murph7355 said:
There is a clip somewhere IIRC of Juncker being challenged on this point where he notes nothing will be forced on them.
I think Barnier has also been quoted as noting the Irish won't be thrown under a bus on this.
In which case the backstop is a complete invention is it not?I think Barnier has also been quoted as noting the Irish won't be thrown under a bus on this.
Garvin said:
FiF said:
Thought this was an interesting point in letters to the editor. To support a general poke at Philip Hammond he criticises the scandalously bad settlement deal for the European Investment Bank.
There are quite a number of things in the current WA, apart from the backstop, which are inequitable and seek to protect the EU and restrict UK after Brexit. There are a number of articles on t’internet that analyse the WA in detail. I am also surprised that these issues have not been ‘advertised’ more strongly but I put it down to the bias and lack of good journalism within the MSM who only look for the ‘headline’ which the backstop currently provides. I hope, probably in vain, that our MPs were fully briefed on such things and contributed to the WA being ‘kicked out’ on three occasions.Viscount Trenchard said:
“Britain owns 16.1 per cent of the EIB. The Withdrawal Agreement provides that Britain will be repaid its nominal capital of €3.5 billion, but will leave its rightful share of the retained earnings, €7.6 billion, for the remaining EU-27 members’ benefit. Worse, Britain only gets back the nominal capital over 12 years in equal instalments, the final one being in December 2030 – and no interest is to be paid during this period.
This EIB settlement is so obviously completely inequitable that it is surprising that it has not yet received much attention.
It’s not as though the EIB can’t afford to buy Britain out at fair value. It makes a profit of around €2 billion a year. It has already approved a pro-rata capitalisation of a small part of its extensive reserves to replace Britain’s paid-in capital.
Ignoring the significant value of deferred payment over 12 years, the £7 billion Britain proposes to give away to the EIB amounts to nearly a fifth of the £39 billion “divorce bill”.
I'm not a financial whizz kid, but it seems to me a fair point to criticise the terms of this deal and why it's not been made more public.This EIB settlement is so obviously completely inequitable that it is surprising that it has not yet received much attention.
It’s not as though the EIB can’t afford to buy Britain out at fair value. It makes a profit of around €2 billion a year. It has already approved a pro-rata capitalisation of a small part of its extensive reserves to replace Britain’s paid-in capital.
Ignoring the significant value of deferred payment over 12 years, the £7 billion Britain proposes to give away to the EIB amounts to nearly a fifth of the £39 billion “divorce bill”.
banjowilly said:
The distinction want to offer though is the desire to see Brexit rescinded is not the same as believing it will be or even can be & I'm honest enough to say I don't know how that would come about. I would be content to see the Tory party obliterated at the ballot box, it's no more than they deserve for the egregious position they've brought the country to for me but vague, undetailed allusions to stopping Brexit through parliament is a tactic that works both ways. I spent a lot of time on here yesterday pointing out the backstop should be accepted because lots of leavers advocate tech solutions of the border but when you press them, more than a few dissolve into deflection, abuse & discursive meanderings.
Can someone explain what these new border checks are supposed to be checking for? If it's just tariff enforcement then an FTA would solve the issue far more simply than a border in the Irish sea.crankedup said:
banjowilly said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
There was no democratic process when the UK was slimed into the EU by the government, without giving the people of the UK a vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU.
I see the record with a scratch is back. You had your chance in 1975, so do pipe down with this endlessly repeated canard.and that people can meaningly vote for something, that would not even exist for another 18 years, let alone understand what it would mean for the UK, and themselves.
Yet some were bleating that they did not have enough information in the run up to the 2016 referendum vote on the matter of whether or not they wanted the UK remain in the EU (after again having been slimed into something a second time, without the government first giving the people of the UK a vote on the matter.
Sway said:
Quick tip - you want to engage in a debate, how about you stop throwing about words like "the idiot".
All I got as a response to your essay was "fk you" - especially when you didn't even pick up on the context that the benefits of having full control is not in our current economic environment, but one where systemic contagion from the Eurozone was hitting the globe...
Perhaps I just want to place a marker so I can shout "I told you so". May as well act like an absurdist xxxxer in a thread full of them. All I got as a response to your essay was "f
k you" - especially when you didn't even pick up on the context that the benefits of having full control is not in our current economic environment, but one where systemic contagion from the Eurozone was hitting the globe... I don't need to discuss the imagined "benefits" of "full control" because it is an idiotic argument as anyone should realise within 30 seconds.
In addition, you seem to want to give "full control" to a bunch of politicians who have spectacularly failed to earn that responsibility. What makes you believe they are on your side? They really aren't. None of them. You seem to love the idea of a low tax economy. Have you ever considered the repercussions of that? Have you considered why we don't have that already even though we have the mechanisms to? So if we don't already use the mechanisms we have control over why we need to go even further? (I know you will say about the impending destruction of EU monetrary policy but as I say that doesn't make any logical sense when actually thought about).
However, indulge me on your second statement regarding a "systemic contagion from the Eurozone was (!) hitting the globe".
Do you believe that the Eurozone are responsible for the global economic downturn we are likely heading towards?
If so, why and based on what evidence?
What is driving economic stagnation/decline in Europe?
Are these issues unique to Europe?
And finally
In a global recession do you believe that the UK would be immune?
Let's see how you cope with these basics.
Pan Pan Pan said:
It appears that Banjowilly has so little grasp of history, he thinks the EEC is the same as the EU.
and that people can meaningly vote for something, that would not even exist for another 18 years, let alone understand what it would mean for the UK, and themselves.
A question for you PPP. Why should the government have given you a vote in 1972, 1975 & 2016?and that people can meaningly vote for something, that would not even exist for another 18 years, let alone understand what it would mean for the UK, and themselves.
Murph7355 said:
Garvin said:
I note that the Irish have said they will not build a hard border but I have not heard the EU say the same. I believe the EU are being disingenuous in allowing Varadkar to say such things and being a bit quiet themselves on the issue. This is a real danger for Varadkar as he will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
Personally, I anticipate the EU instructing the ROI to construct a border of some kind as to do anything else will cast the backstop as one big piece of unnecessary ste.
There is a clip somewhere IIRC of Juncker being challenged on this point where he notes nothing will be forced on them. Personally, I anticipate the EU instructing the ROI to construct a border of some kind as to do anything else will cast the backstop as one big piece of unnecessary s
te.I think Barnier has also been quoted as noting the Irish won't be thrown under a bus on this.
RoI is going to get f
ked - whether it's goods controls, or Corp Tax harmonisation, or a sudden switch from net beneficiaries to payers. banjowilly said:
The distinction want to offer though is the desire to see Brexit rescinded is not the same as believing it will be or even can be & I'm honest enough to say I don't know how that would come about. I would be content to see the Tory party obliterated at the ballot box, it's no more than they deserve for the egregious position they've brought the country to for me but vague, undetailed allusions to stopping Brexit through parliament is a tactic that works both ways. I spent a lot of time on here yesterday pointing out the backstop should be accepted because lots of leavers advocate tech solutions of the border but when you press them, more than a few dissolve into deflection, abuse & discursive meanderings.
Tory party obliterated . . . . . . that’s quite possible whatever happens in the next few months.I have my reservations about the backstop - whether it is strictly necessary or just a political invention. As for solutions to a ‘border’ I am very confident from what I know and have read that a solution can be put in place without requiring some quantum leap in technology. However, I do not trust the EU to be ‘above board’ on it as it does put the UK at risk and disadvantage during future negotiations of the final relationship.
I also have other serious concerns about the current WA that, personally, I would not ‘approve’ even if the backstop was removed.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Brooking10 said:
crankedup said:
The fear is that our democratic system will be hugely damaged if politicians were to dismiss the relevance of the referendum result 2016.
We do not need ‘more’ democracy, the issue was settled 2016.
I am not advocating a second ref before I go any further but .....We do not need ‘more’ democracy, the issue was settled 2016.
If people think more folk than ever want to leave and a sufficient to win the day majority of this want to do so with no deal why is there such angst over any prospect of a vote to decide the manner of departure ?
I’m still not clear on why people seem vehemently opposed to a hypothetical “type of leave” vote.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff