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

[Otis Criblecoblis]

DeepEnd said:

"Settling on “a great UK-EU deal” being a key objective and message for the leave campaign seems like potential common ground."

I thought that might be common ground but can't work out if Garvin and Otis can bring themselves to agree with a poster from "the other side" or whether it is really just all about insults for them.

I have agreed with a poster from ' the other side' - you ! I agreed that team leave didn't campaign on their goal to be no deal, not that this was ever the argument in the first place, it got deliberately blurred in to that by first Banjo, and then yourself.
As grown ups, we know that politicians tell you only the good and happy stuff, our job being to filter out the crap and make our own judgement.

I'm not however interested in helping further blatant lies, like Banjo's claim no deal was never a possible outcome from the way the referendum was configured. There was no such guarantee when we voted and that had to be considered if you voted leave. Arguing team leave never campaigned for this so they should't go there if its the only way to leave, is a different argument from the wide open possibilities of the referendum and no caveating anything at all regarding leave.

More debatable and not an outright lie is Elysium's claim the only mandate was to leave with a decent deal. The only certain instruction gained from the referendum was ' leave the EU' . Combine the two and I saw the possibility a government may go to no deal as the only final way to fulfill the mandate to leave.

[gooner1]

Elysium said:

If the EU is truly become a federalist state, I would want to have some influence over it. That influence is always going to be greater as an insider, than as an outsider reliant on its neighbours goodwill for essential trade.

I don't think we are anywhere close to a real surrender of sovereignty on the part of the UK, or the French or the Germans.

I agree the UK aren't close to surrendering , real or otherwise.
Despite Guys mad rants, but if he's saying this kind of stuff in public, wtf are the private conversations about?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r3XZJ4znl00

[DeepEnd]

Otis Criblecoblis said:

I have agreed with a poster from ' the other side' - you ! I agreed that team leave didn't campaign on their goal to be no deal, not that this was ever the argument in the first place, it got deliberately blurred in to that by first Banjo, and then yourself.
As grown ups, we know that politicians tell you only the good and happy stuff, our job being to filter out the crap and make our own judgement.

I'm not however interested in helping further blatant lies, like Banjo's claim no deal was never a possible outcome from the way the referendum was configured. There was no such guarantee when we voted and that had to be considered if you voted leave. Arguing team leave never campaigned for this so they should't go there if its the only way to leave, is a different argument from the wide open possibilities of the referendum and no caveating anything at all regarding leave.

More debatable and not an outright lie is Elysium's claim the only mandate was to leave with a decent deal. The only certain instruction gained from the referendum was ' leave the EU' . Combine the two and I saw the possibility a government may go to no deal as the only final way to fulfill the mandate to leave.

As I understood it, the bit in bold broadly was the argument being made. You seem OK with that, so perhaps we can drop all this “idiocy” & “lies” language? It’s just a misunderstanding.

A mandate in this case however - in my opinion - is linked to what is promised - i.e. campaigned for.

Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.

[Elysium]

Tuna said:

Elysium said:

If the EU is truly become a federalist state, I would want to have some influence over it. That influence is always going to be greater as an insider, than as an outsider reliant on its neighbours goodwill for essential trade.

Isn't that just as good an argument for becoming the fifty first state of the US, or doing global trade deals?

If the EU is to become a federalist state given the UK's general antipathy to such constructs, it would be pretty clear that our 'influence' has failed at the first hurdle. Watching the behaviour of the EU during these negotiations, it seems the political construct is designed to limit the influence of individual members when it comes to overall direction.

This is the philosophical debate at the heart of Brexit and it is about each of us guessing at the future.

There are key differences between our relationship with the EU and the US. The EU is on our doorstep and the US is thousands of miles away.

The contribution from the UK economy is attractive to an EU trying to build scale, but less relevant to a US with an internal market of 320m people.

I don’t want the EU to become a federalist state. I think it is a stronger institution as a collective of free independent nations. Whilst we are members we act as an anchor against such ideas. I know that is welcomed by other nations who feel the same (e.g the Dutch).

If we leave, federalism is more likely and it will not be good for us to be reliant on a superstate EU for trade. Which will always be the case due to geography.

So, I personally dismiss this as a reason to leave.

[Elysium]

gooner1 said:

Elysium said:

If the EU is truly become a federalist state, I would want to have some influence over it. That influence is always going to be greater as an insider, than as an outsider reliant on its neighbours goodwill for essential trade.

I don't think we are anywhere close to a real surrender of sovereignty on the part of the UK, or the French or the Germans.

I agree the UK aren't close to surrendering , real or otherwise.
Despite Guys mad rants, but if he's saying this kind of stuff in public, wtf are the private conversations about?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r3XZJ4znl00

He is a bit of a dick.

[Otis Criblecoblis]

DeepEnd said:

As I understood it, the bit in bold broadly was the argument being made. You seem OK with that, so perhaps we can drop all this “idiocy” & “lies” language? It’s just a misunderstanding.

A mandate in this case however - in my opinion - is linked to what is promised - i.e. campaigned for.

Many leavers are quick to say the mandate given to leave must mean ditching the SM and CU and free movement. I suspect you’d agree with that.

No, Banjo has insisted on trying to bluff his way out of the original incorrect assertion that no deal was never a possible outcome from the way the referendum was set up. It's just plain dishonest the pretend this was blocked from happening or that you went to the polls that day knowing there was no route to leaving without a deal.
Elysium's claim the only mandate was to leave with a decent deal is a different question.

It was originally an almost anecdotal point that the referendum was rather reckless if you favour Remain , as Cameron and Co bet everything on winning with no thought to what that meant if they failed. From your point of view, they should have categorically ruled out leaving without an agreement in place. They've moved to change the goal posts after the vote, but the day we voted, no deal was a possible outcome.

[gooner1]

Otis Criblecoblis said:

No, Banjo has insisted on trying to bluff his way out of the original incorrect assertion that no deal was never a possible outcome from the way the referendum was set up. It's just plain dishonest the pretend this was blocked from happening or that you went to the polls that day knowing there was no route to leaving without a deal.
Elysium's claim the only mandate was to leave with a decent deal is a different question.

It was originally an almost anecdotal point that the referendum was rather reckless if you favour Remain , as Cameron and Co bet everything on winning with no thought to what that meant if they failed. From your point of view, they should have categorically ruled out leaving without an agreement in place. They've moved to change the goal posts after the vote, but the day we voted, no deal was a possible outcome.

Agreed, and to deny that is absurd in extremis.

[Murph7355]

Elysium said:

...
The contribution from the UK economy is attractive to an EU trying to build scale, but less relevant to a US with an internal market of 320m people.
...

The EU is an internal market of 440m people (sans UK) isn't it?

Elysium said:

...
I don’t want the EU to become a federalist state. I think it is a stronger institution as a collective of free independent nations. Whilst we are members we act as an anchor against such ideas. I know that is welcomed by other nations who feel the same (e.g the Dutch).

If we leave, federalism is more likely....

How so? Surely if the powers that be in the union actually care what the member states and their electorates feel, it shouldn't need us to act as a drag anchor? If there is so much happiness with the direction of travel, are we actually not a thorn rather than an aid?

The other countries need to stand up for themselves. I think the UK has done what it can to "change from the inside". We've made it clear what we think of key elements of the EU and this still isn't changing anything. If you stay within the relationship under those circumstances, you should prepare for more of the same...eventually it's very much piss or get off the pot.

We voted to get off.

(In theory us dealing with a "superstate" later on, or a collective of 27 countries surely makes no difference? From a trade perspective (which is the primary argument for staying) it currently makes no odds as we are all told we are dealing with one body.

[amusingduck]

DeepEnd said:

Otis Criblecoblis said:

I'm not however interested in helping further blatant lies, like Banjo's claim no deal was never a possible outcome from the way the referendum was configured. There was no such guarantee when we voted and that had to be considered if you voted leave. Arguing team leave never campaigned for this so they should't go there if its the only way to leave, is a different argument from the wide open possibilities of the referendum and no caveating anything at all regarding leave.

As I understood it, the bit in bold broadly was the argument being made. You seem OK with that, so perhaps we can drop all this “idiocy” & “lies” language? It’s just a misunderstanding.

banjowilly said:

Garvin said:

a no deal Brexit was always a possibility when the referendum was held and nothing you or anyone else says will change that fact.

This is flat out untrue Go and find me a leave campaigner from 2016 who campaigned on this. I'll take one from Farage, Hannan, Johnson, Gove, Stewart or Hoey. Your pick. There is no mandate for no deal. We may get that, but you don't get to rewrite the campaign with a lie simply because it's been such a balls up as we predicted it would be that you now have to claim it was on the cards all along.

When they repeatedly doubled down on that "misunderstanding", it's entirely appropriate to call it a lie.

[Lost ranger]

gooner1 said:

I agree the UK aren't close to surrendering , real or otherwise.
Despite Guys mad rants, but if he's saying this kind of stuff in public, wtf are the private conversations about?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r3XZJ4znl00

It's fascinating to see Donald Tusk's expression, obviously thinking 'You aren't supposed to say that in public Guy.'

[Earthdweller]

Surely all this talk of the goal of the referendum is missing the entire point of the vote

The vote was for the twin purpose of saving the Conservative party and putting to bed the idea of the UK ever leaving the E.U.

There was no great plan about how to leave or no deal being the goal

Those that called the vote never intended the result, never planned for it and never thought it possible

It was simply a remain plan to ensure the UK stayed in .. which backfired spectacularly

[bitchstewie]

Earthdweller said:

Surely all this talk of the goal of the referendum is missing the entire point of the vote

The vote was for the twin purpose of saving the Conservative party and putting to bed the idea of the UK ever leaving the E.U.

There was no great plan about how to leave or no deal being the goal

Those that called the vote never intended the result, never planned for it and never thought it possible

It was simply a remain plan to ensure the UK stayed in .. which backfired spectacularly

I think that's fair.

One of the things that amazed me throughout the campaign was that at no point during all the debates and everything else did anyone appear to call out those advocating leave with a simple "hold on, you're not actually in a position to deliver any of this, are you?".

You might as well have had Farage and Gisela Sturt offering a million quid to anyone who'd vote leave for all the authority they had to do it.

I'm surprised that didn't set off more alarm bells.

[amusingduck]

bhstewie said:

Earthdweller said:

Surely all this talk of the goal of the referendum is missing the entire point of the vote

The vote was for the twin purpose of saving the Conservative party and putting to bed the idea of the UK ever leaving the E.U.

There was no great plan about how to leave or no deal being the goal

Those that called the vote never intended the result, never planned for it and never thought it possible

It was simply a remain plan to ensure the UK stayed in .. which backfired spectacularly

I think that's fair.

One of the things that amazed me throughout the campaign was that at no point during all the debates and everything else did anyone appear to call out those advocating leave with a simple "hold on, you're not actually in a position to deliver any of this, are you?".

You might as well have had Farage and Gisela Sturt offering a million quid to anyone who'd vote leave for all the authority they had to do it.

I'm surprised that didn't set off more alarm bells.

Why would anyone expect campaign groups,on either side, to be in a position to deliver anything?

[Earthdweller]

bhstewie said:

Earthdweller said:

Surely all this talk of the goal of the referendum is missing the entire point of the vote

The vote was for the twin purpose of saving the Conservative party and putting to bed the idea of the UK ever leaving the E.U.

There was no great plan about how to leave or no deal being the goal

Those that called the vote never intended the result, never planned for it and never thought it possible

It was simply a remain plan to ensure the UK stayed in .. which backfired spectacularly

I think that's fair.

One of the things that amazed me throughout the campaign was that at no point during all the debates and everything else did anyone appear to call out those advocating leave with a simple "hold on, you're not actually in a position to deliver any of this, are you?".

You might as well have had Farage and Gisela Sturt offering a million quid to anyone who'd vote leave for all the authority they had to do it.

I'm surprised that didn't set off more alarm bells.

As much as remain never considered they’d lose I think most of the leave side never thought they’d win

However the Govt should have planned and prepped for a leave vote .. BEFORE the referendum

The good old British public put a massive spanner in the works

The vote was on emotion and ideaology not on hard facts and consequences

But, having said that it does not mitigate the clusterfk of May’s wimpership since the vote

[bitchstewie]

Earthdweller said:

As much as remain never considered they’d lose I think most of the leave side never thought they’d win

However the Govt should have planned and prepped for a leave vote .. BEFORE the referendum

The good old British public put a massive spanner in the works

The vote was on emotion and ideaology not on hard facts and consequences

But, having said that it does not mitigate the clusterfk of May’s wimpership since the vote

True.

I suspect when the history books are written, however it works out, so far as the handling of it from start to finish the chapter will be called "What Were You Thinking?"

[Le Controleur Horizontal]

Earthdweller said:

The vote was on emotion and ideaology not on hard facts and consequences

Because that is what the question was about....should we follow that ideology..

[bitchstewie]

pgh said:

...wanting to be an independent self-governing nation, how very dare you?

"so far as the handling of it"

[frisbee]

pgh said:

bhstewie said:

True.

I suspect when the history books are written, however it works out, so far as the handling of it from start to finish the chapter will be called "What Were You Thinking?"

...wanting to be an independent self-governing nation, how very dare you?

An independent self-governing nation with a leader currently crawling up the backside of his royal Trumpness and his even more delightful South American cousin.

[Earthdweller]

Le Controleur Horizontal said:

Earthdweller said:

The vote was on emotion and ideaology not on hard facts and consequences

Because that is what the question was about....should we follow that ideology..

I have no issue with that ... merely pointing out the failings of those that call themselves our leaders

[frisbee]

pgh said:

frisbee said:

An independent self-governing nation with a leader currently crawling up the backside of his royal Trumpness and his even more delightful South American cousin.

And if he wasn’t talking to them, you’d be typing here how unlikely our prospects of deals with non E.U. nations are. It’s an easy job throwing criticism around, less so actually doing something.

Apparently blind slavish devotion to an incompetent buffoon is even easier.