How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
jsf said:
Nope. He said the WA is dead and any future deal can not include the backstop.
The EU said the WA is closed and they will not negotiate further on it.
Boris has managed to get them to move and they are now prepared to discuss solutions.
They have said present a workable proposal for the NI border & we'll talk. The EU said the WA is closed and they will not negotiate further on it.
Boris has managed to get them to move and they are now prepared to discuss solutions.
jsf said:
I guess you are preparing for no deal then.
Well ok then. Helpful.DeepEnd said:
Otis Criblecoblis said:
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.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'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.
You don’t agree with this then?
“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's claim of the only mandate being to leave with a decent deal, is I feel misleading, but a different question and his interpretation.
The is a clear factual answer as to if no deal was some how blocked as a possibility from the way the referendum was set up.
I would agree with you with you pretty much. Key Leave campaigners directly answered that question and to fulfill much of what Leave campaigned on, it would mean leaving both. The only thing the referendum mandates is leave. That blunt answer is why leaving with no deal is a possibility that might be the last resort.
Lets not blur key points here again to try and excuse Banjo persisting with a total lie.
amusingduck said:
Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue? It's a big old world out there, plenty of opportunities
That is a shed load.
EU exports are still growing, just not as fast as non-EU, which I'm not sure you understand having posted that.
Ignoring or dismissing a growing market with huge GDP?
Under analysis this argument crumbles to nonsense.
s2art said:
Who cares what they said.
We were discussing what they said and what the objective of the campaign and govt were.There was also a big issue made about what was (not) on the ballot paper but as CU and SM were not on there either I see that argument is being dropped like the lead balloon it is.
The very clear objective was to leave with a great deal.
Failing that objective is a big problem for everyone. It's a failure of the whole project in effect.
That no deal stuff was only a negotiating tactic that has now bitten them on the arse as some people can't see that and are trying to champion it as "may as well then, why not, don't care".
DeepEnd said:
amusingduck said:
Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue? It's a big old world out there, plenty of opportunities
That is a shed load.
EU exports are still growing, just not as fast as non-EU, which I'm not sure you understand having posted that.
Ignoring or dismissing a growing market with huge GDP?
Under analysis this argument crumbles to nonsense.
DeepEnd said:
s2art said:
Who cares what they said.
We were discussing what they said and what the objective of the campaign and govt were.There was also a big issue made about what was (not) on the ballot paper but as CU and SM were not on there either I see that argument is being dropped like the lead balloon it is.
The very clear objective was to leave with a great deal.
Failing that objective is a big problem for everyone. It's a failure of the whole project in effect.
That no deal stuff was only a negotiating tactic that has now bitten them on the arse as some people can't see that and are trying to champion it as "may as well then, why not, don't care".
Elysium said:
jakesmith said:
Elysium said:
Exactly, we do not know what was in the minds of 17m leave voters.
But .. lets look at the evidence:
1. Agreeing withdrawal terms is the most likely outcome of a decision to leave.
Errr that’s not ‘evidence’, that’s your opinionBut .. lets look at the evidence:
1. Agreeing withdrawal terms is the most likely outcome of a decision to leave.
So any vote to leave, means we attempt to agree terms of withdrawal and only an utter fkwit would be unable to do that in two years.
Edited by Elysium on Sunday 25th August 23:10
glazbagun said:
I don't see our need to influence things ever reducing, our ability to influence the EU will almost certainly diminish, and others will have greater ability to influence us.
Whether this can be compensated for by greater influence in other spheres or some calamity avoided by leaving remains to be seen but I find it as unlikely now as I did in 2016.
I'm not convinced by that. First of all who is "we"? If it's the dismal shower who have led us for the last few decades, misapplying EU laws (as Remainers often say), getting nothing of note from the EU in Cameron's reform negotiations, losing the subsequent referendum and then bungling an attempt to reverse it then I'm not sure I want them having influence over anything. Whether this can be compensated for by greater influence in other spheres or some calamity avoided by leaving remains to be seen but I find it as unlikely now as I did in 2016.
Edited by glazbagun on Monday 26th August 10:55
Secondly, if we are not in the EU or subject to its laws then it's less important that "we" in any form influence it
Thirdly, it's not a given that being inside is automatically best either economically or in terms of influence, especially if it continues becoming more centralised and less responsive to its members and population. It certainly wasn't the case in the eastern bloc.
As a significant trading partner, alternative destination for FDI and financial centre Britain could well wield a higher a degree of influence, and certainly influence in a better way, by leaving and making our own way than by remaining in and hoping "our" bureaucrats do well in some international shin kicking contest behind closed doors.
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
The trouble with the idea that we'll be an inconsequential minnow outside the EU is that we would still be the same size inside it. The only difference being that outside we would have less need to influence it.
Who said we would be an inconsequential minnow? One the reasons we have stayed in the eu is the single market. It’s useful to business and the economy.
If we leave, and we want to continue to benefit from things like mutual recognition, we end up tied to EU regulations anyway. If we step away from those, we lose the benefits of membership.
Which ever way you cut it, we are likely to reduce the potential for future growth in our economy by leaving.
Leavers say that’s a price worth paying, but I don’t see what we are going to get in return?
Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue? It's a big old world out there, plenty of opportunities
Then ask yourself how many of the manufacturers contributing to the +/-55% non EU trade are going to continue manufacturing in the UK once those goods don’t have access to the UK market.
Then tell me that you can honestly defend a no deal outcome as being in the national interest.
DeepEnd said:
We were discussing what they said and what the objective of the campaign and govt were.
There was also a big issue made about what was (not) on the ballot paper but as CU and SM were not on there either I see that argument is being dropped like the lead balloon it is.
The very clear objective was to leave with a great deal.
Failing that objective is a big problem for everyone. It's a failure of the whole project in effect.
That no deal stuff was only a negotiating tactic that has now bitten them on the arse as some people can't see that and are trying to champion it as "may as well then, why not, don't care".
I think most, and that includes some remainers, see it as the natural alternative to a very, very badThere was also a big issue made about what was (not) on the ballot paper but as CU and SM were not on there either I see that argument is being dropped like the lead balloon it is.
The very clear objective was to leave with a great deal.
Failing that objective is a big problem for everyone. It's a failure of the whole project in effect.
That no deal stuff was only a negotiating tactic that has now bitten them on the arse as some people can't see that and are trying to champion it as "may as well then, why not, don't care".
deal. Not to mention it remains, no pun intended , to be seenif the no deal deal route is taken whether the UK's arse is bitten or not.
amusingduck said:
Focusing on RoW exports after we leave with worse trading terms, which are already growing faster than EU exports whilst we're members, is a nonsense argument? You'll have to explain that one.
Clapham has made the surely obvious point - who in their right mind would threaten the growing 45% with no deal? You want to make out the EU portion is dwindling to nothing and can be dismissed. It’s daft.
Otis Criblecoblis said:
The 'no' was in relation to dropping it as a misunderstanding. There are two separate questions being blurred in to one. Banjo's claim is bullst and you would do a favour to yourself to acknowledge it.
Elysium's claim of the only mandate being to leave with a decent deal, is I feel misleading, but a different question and his interpretation.
The is a clear factual answer as to if no deal was some how blocked as a possibility from the way the referendum was set up.
I would agree with you with you pretty much. Key Leave campaigners directly answered that question and to fulfill much of what Leave campaigned on, it would mean leaving both. The only thing the referendum mandates is leave. That blunt answer is why leaving with no deal is a possibility that might be the last resort.
Lets not blur key points here again to try and excuse Banjo persisting with a total lie.
And in bold there is the cherry pick.Elysium's claim of the only mandate being to leave with a decent deal, is I feel misleading, but a different question and his interpretation.
The is a clear factual answer as to if no deal was some how blocked as a possibility from the way the referendum was set up.
I would agree with you with you pretty much. Key Leave campaigners directly answered that question and to fulfill much of what Leave campaigned on, it would mean leaving both. The only thing the referendum mandates is leave. That blunt answer is why leaving with no deal is a possibility that might be the last resort.
Lets not blur key points here again to try and excuse Banjo persisting with a total lie.
You say you must have some things that were said but not on the ballot paper, but not others such as a great deal, when it suits you.
That is rather dishonest.
You seem more motivated in attacking banjo than understanding where he is coming from.
His point is that the promises should count - as you chose to set out above on leaving CU, SM etc. as key objectives. It’s clear that failing those objectives has leavers apoplectic with rage, so why not a great deal too, as promised?
You assume all leavers think “out any any cost”. I think we agreed they don’t which to bring full circle means that some leavers will agree with Banjo’s point of view.
Boris is playing a very dangerous game saying “UK will be fine under no deal”. He is doing it to pressure the EU but they see through it. Sadly his supporters and “at any costers” don’t.
DeepEnd said:
amusingduck said:
Focusing on RoW exports after we leave with worse trading terms, which are already growing faster than EU exports whilst we're members, is a nonsense argument? You'll have to explain that one.
Clapham has made the surely obvious point - who in their right mind would threaten the growing 45% with no deal? You want to make out the EU portion is dwindling to nothing and can be dismissed. It’s daft.
DeepEnd said:
His point is that the promises should count - as you chose to set out above on leaving CU, SM etc. as key objectives. It’s clear that failing those objectives has leavers apoplectic with rage, so why not a great deal too, as promised?
What was in the 2017 manifesto? Nobody could promise a great deal as its not under their control.ClaphamGT3 said:
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
The trouble with the idea that we'll be an inconsequential minnow outside the EU is that we would still be the same size inside it. The only difference being that outside we would have less need to influence it.
Who said we would be an inconsequential minnow? One the reasons we have stayed in the eu is the single market. It’s useful to business and the economy.
If we leave, and we want to continue to benefit from things like mutual recognition, we end up tied to EU regulations anyway. If we step away from those, we lose the benefits of membership.
Which ever way you cut it, we are likely to reduce the potential for future growth in our economy by leaving.
Leavers say that’s a price worth paying, but I don’t see what we are going to get in return?
Focus on the red, instead of trying to cling to the blue? It's a big old world out there, plenty of opportunities
Then ask yourself how many of the manufacturers contributing to the +/-55% non EU trade are going to continue manufacturing in the UK once those goods don’t have access to the UK market.
Then tell me that you can honestly defend a no deal outcome as being in the national interest.
BTW, you never did answer how you square the concept that people fell for a pack of fear-driven lies with Remain's ineffectiveness using the same strategy with far more advantages/resources.
DeepEnd said:
amusingduck said:
Focusing on RoW exports after we leave with worse trading terms, which are already growing faster than EU exports whilst we're members, is a nonsense argument? You'll have to explain that one.
Clapham has made the surely obvious point - who in their right mind would threaten the growing 45% with no deal? You want to make out the EU portion is dwindling to nothing and can be dismissed. It’s daft.
You're not arguing with anything I've said, you're arguing with a strawman. As usual.
Here's a bunch of keywords:
sovereignty
Farage
Johnson
Leave
Big Red Bus
NHS
immigration
economy
politics
You should be able to construct any strawman you like using those, off you go, and have fun!
gooner1 said:
DeepEnd said:
amusingduck said:
Focusing on RoW exports after we leave with worse trading terms, which are already growing faster than EU exports whilst we're members, is a nonsense argument? You'll have to explain that one.
Clapham has made the surely obvious point - who in their right mind would threaten the growing 45% with no deal? You want to make out the EU portion is dwindling to nothing and can be dismissed. It’s daft.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff