Brexit, what have you learnt
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mothersruin said:
The average punter will still be held in utter contempt
The average punter should not be held in utter contempt, but at the same time, should not be given a vote in a referendum on a vitally important issue. The average punter is no where near bright enough to grasp even the very basics of what he/she is being asked to vote on. GSalt said:
Jaguar steve said:
The only person ever to enter the Palace of Westminster with truly honest and noble intentions was Guy Fawkes. 
An English mercenary funded by an enemy foreign power to depose the monarch, destroy the system of government, and incite a religious civil war?That's a strange definition of "honest and noble".
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mothersruin said:
The average punter will still be held in utter contempt
The average punter should not be held in utter contempt, but at the same time, should not be given a vote in a referendum on a vitally important issue. The average punter is no where near bright enough to grasp even the very basics of what he/she is being asked to vote on. Jaguar steve said:
GSalt said:
Jaguar steve said:
The only person ever to enter the Palace of Westminster with truly honest and noble intentions was Guy Fawkes.
An English mercenary funded by an enemy foreign power to depose the monarch, destroy the system of government, and incite a religious civil war?That's a strange definition of "honest and noble".
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mothersruin said:
The average punter will still be held in utter contempt
The average punter should not be held in utter contempt, but at the same time, should not be given a vote in a referendum on a vitally important issue. The average punter is no where near bright enough to grasp even the very basics of what he/she is being asked to vote on. If they cannot understand the basics of what power has been ceded to the EU, with whose consent was it ceded?
loafer123 said:
That doesn't really answer my question at all.
There never has been a practical deal put to the public, and the responsibility to present one has always been that of those who want to Leave. Gove, Johnson, Farage, et al. they're all on record as saying how easy a deal would be to negotiate - they really ought to be held to account by the people that believed them. I really don't know why those of us that knew they weren't telling the truth should be the ones having to make excuses and detailed explanations.FWIW, most of what I do on a daily basis is working with manufacturers to make sure that they can evidence that their products and services comply with British, European, and International standards for safety, conformity and performance. In most cases these are the same standards around the world, the US being an exception that likes to be different. In every case I can think of, the parent standard used around the world has moved from being the BS British standard to the EN European standard.
Any trade deal between the UK and the EU after the UK decouples from the EU would have to involve some sort of proof of origin and conformity assessment on goods from the UK entering the EU. These arrangements are necessarily complex to negotiate because there are so many different categories of product to consider. It would be so much easier if May hadn't rushed to define "leaving" as walking away from absolutely everything. Retaining membership of some of the medicinal product, chemical safety, nuclear cooperation, and standards organisations would make things far easier.
So, in answer to your question. There are two potential deals to consider, the deal we should have been negotiating all along, and the best deal we can expect from the position we're in now.
The deal we should have been negotiating
- an agreement on the rights of individual citizens with specific details on how the rights of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK will be maintained. To include healthcare and welfare provisions. In reality, a continuation of Freedom of Movement but with a dispensation for the UK to apply a residence permit to EU citizens after 3 months. Some special arrangement around healthcare, comprehensive health insurance and EHIC - not sure how the details would resolve here.
- a comprehensive deal describing how we'd maintain alignment on areas of common interest and how areas of divergence would be managed as they arose. A practical compromise here would be to propose that the UK courts ruled on divergent areas for imports from the EU to the UK, and that the ECJ ruled on divergent areas for exports from the UK to the EU. The receiving nation always retaining control of what they choose to accept.
- a framework for cooperation on foreign and security matters of common interest, including intelligence sharing, law and order, military cooperation, etc.
- withdrawal from CAP. CFP replaced with a UK-CFP common fisheries stock management strategy, because fish don't respect lines on maps and if spawning grounds are on one side of a line and the fishing grounds on another an agreed strategy will be required.
- I'm sure there's more I'm missing, but you can see the direction I'm suggesting...
The best deal we can get from where we are now in the time available:
- FOM ends, but an honourable agreement is reached on the status of the 4.5m people caught up in the middle.
- Northern Ireland gets a special status and remains within the sphere of the Common Market for the time being. Everyone pretends that this doesn't involve a pseudo customs border down the middle of the North Sea as the UK and EU diverge.
- the UK remains within the common market for up to another two years
- the UK is allowed to negotiate trade agreements with other countries, but can't implement them until it comes out the common market
- the UK pays it's settlement bill, but gets a very reduced membership fee until it finally leaves with the downside that it has no active part in EU decision making and is no longer a recipient of EU funding.
GSalt said:
lots of stuff
Thank you for a very comprehensive response.I completely agree with your final paragraph conclusions on where we will end up.
Where I don’t agree is that a deal for a compromise could have been proposed at the start of this process.
The reality is that the EU has been an unwilling counterparty to the negotiations because they wish to overturn the original result. It isn’t credible that they would have consented to anything which would have encouraged a Vote to leave or, indeed, after that vote, anything which would have deterred its revocation.
loafer123 said:
GSalt said:
lots of stuff
Thank you for a very comprehensive response.I completely agree with your final paragraph conclusions on where we will end up.
Where I don’t agree is that a deal for a compromise could have been proposed at the start of this process.
The reality is that the EU has been an unwilling counterparty to the negotiations because they wish to overturn the original result. It isn’t credible that they would have consented to anything which would have encouraged a Vote to leave or, indeed, after that vote, anything which would have deterred its revocation.
But only 5 or 6 of you could afford the beer - and ending up paying for the other 21 to enjoy a beer ( to various degrees )
And they get to stay in your gaff for free ( but you can stay in their s
thole gaff to be fair )You might want to consider things.
If you want to leave - of course the other 27 of your mates want you to stay - otherwise they won't get anywhere near as much beer - and some of the freeloaders are going to have to pay more than the market price for beer to support the others.
We cannot leave soon enough.
TTwiggy said:
Jaguar steve said:
GSalt said:
Jaguar steve said:
The only person ever to enter the Palace of Westminster with truly honest and noble intentions was Guy Fawkes.
An English mercenary funded by an enemy foreign power to depose the monarch, destroy the system of government, and incite a religious civil war?That's a strange definition of "honest and noble".
Troubleatmill said:
If you and 27 of your mates went out drinking every Saturday night...
But only 5 or 6 of you could afford the beer - and ending up paying for the other 21 to enjoy a beer ( to various degrees )
And they get to stay in your gaff for free ( but you can stay in their sthole gaff to be fair )
You might want to consider things.
If you want to leave - of course the other 27 of your mates want you to stay - otherwise they won't get anywhere near as much beer - and some of the freeloaders are going to have to pay more than the market price for beer to support the others.
We cannot leave soon enough.
In reality of course we drink gallons of really good ale while they get the occasional thimble of Carlsberg.But only 5 or 6 of you could afford the beer - and ending up paying for the other 21 to enjoy a beer ( to various degrees )
And they get to stay in your gaff for free ( but you can stay in their s
thole gaff to be fair )You might want to consider things.
If you want to leave - of course the other 27 of your mates want you to stay - otherwise they won't get anywhere near as much beer - and some of the freeloaders are going to have to pay more than the market price for beer to support the others.
We cannot leave soon enough.
Troubleatmill said:
If you and 27 of your mates went out drinking every Saturday night...
But only 5 or 6 of you could afford the beer - and ending up paying for the other 21 to enjoy a beer ( to various degrees )
And they get to stay in your gaff for free ( but you can stay in their sthole gaff to be fair )
You might want to consider things.
If you want to leave - of course the other 27 of your mates want you to stay - otherwise they won't get anywhere near as much beer - and some of the freeloaders are going to have to pay more than the market price for beer to support the others.
We cannot leave soon enough.
But only 5 or 6 of you could afford the beer - and ending up paying for the other 21 to enjoy a beer ( to various degrees )
And they get to stay in your gaff for free ( but you can stay in their s
thole gaff to be fair )You might want to consider things.
If you want to leave - of course the other 27 of your mates want you to stay - otherwise they won't get anywhere near as much beer - and some of the freeloaders are going to have to pay more than the market price for beer to support the others.
We cannot leave soon enough.
To think people say leavers didn't know what they were voting for!loafer123 said:
GSalt said:
lots of stuff
Thank you for a very comprehensive response.I completely agree with your final paragraph conclusions on where we will end up.
Where I don’t agree is that a deal for a compromise could have been proposed at the start of this process.
The reality is that the EU has been an unwilling counterparty to the negotiations because they wish to overturn the original result. It isn’t credible that they would have consented to anything which would have encouraged a Vote to leave or, indeed, after that vote, anything which would have deterred its revocation.
The attitude we've seen has been overwhelmingly consistent. The EU repeatedly asked the UK, "What do you want?". The response they got back was, "What are you offering?". The UK set out to change the relationship and leave the Union, the onus has always been on the UK to take a lead by stating clearly what it wants.
There has been no clear leadership in the UK on what the UK has wanted from a post-EU membership relationship with the EU. There was some exploratory cherry-picking of unicorns suggested, but not rational observer would have considered freed trade without free movement of people as having any chance of getting off the blocks, or common market with independent trade deals on the side without the ECJ having jurisdiction over the EU side of the movement of goods and services under those conditions.
The appointment of May might have been a significant hindrance here, her personal animosity against the ECJ wasn't a realistic red line to hold. Whatever agreement was reached would end up arbitrated in at least one direction by the ECJ. She should have accepted that, and offered it on condition that the UK Supreme Court arbitrated on incoming supplies. That's the sort of compromise that's been needed from the start.
If you disagree with the underlying point, please direct me to where this leadership can be found.
Oh, and regardless of the process of how it might have come about - is there anything in my first compromise agreement suggestion that you either agree or disagree with as an outcome?
GSalt said:
loafer123 said:
GSalt said:
lots of stuff
Thank you for a very comprehensive response.I completely agree with your final paragraph conclusions on where we will end up.
Where I don’t agree is that a deal for a compromise could have been proposed at the start of this process.
The reality is that the EU has been an unwilling counterparty to the negotiations because they wish to overturn the original result. It isn’t credible that they would have consented to anything which would have encouraged a Vote to leave or, indeed, after that vote, anything which would have deterred its revocation.
The attitude we've seen has been overwhelmingly consistent. The EU repeatedly asked the UK, "What do you want?". The response they got back was, "What are you offering?". The UK set out to change the relationship and leave the Union, the onus has always been on the UK to take a lead by stating clearly what it wants.
There has been no clear leadership in the UK on what the UK has wanted from a post-EU membership relationship with the EU. There was some exploratory cherry-picking of unicorns suggested, but not rational observer would have considered freed trade without free movement of people as having any chance of getting off the blocks, or common market with independent trade deals on the side without the ECJ having jurisdiction over the EU side of the movement of goods and services under those conditions.
The appointment of May might have been a significant hindrance here, her personal animosity against the ECJ wasn't a realistic red line to hold. Whatever agreement was reached would end up arbitrated in at least one direction by the ECJ. She should have accepted that, and offered it on condition that the UK Supreme Court arbitrated on incoming supplies. That's the sort of compromise that's been needed from the start.
If you disagree with the underlying point, please direct me to where this leadership can be found.
Oh, and regardless of the process of how it might have come about - is there anything in my first compromise agreement suggestion that you either agree or disagree with as an outcome?
GSalt said:
My wife is an EU citizen, we travel there a lot, have a lot of friends and acquaintances across the EU, and we watch/read EU media even when we're at home in the UK. There's no reluctance to deal, just incredulity that the UK hasn't framed a deal to be considered.
The attitude we've seen has been overwhelmingly consistent. The EU repeatedly asked the UK, "What do you want?". The response they got back was, "What are you offering?". The UK set out to change the relationship and leave the Union, the onus has always been on the UK to take a lead by stating clearly what it wants.
There has been no clear leadership in the UK on what the UK has wanted from a post-EU membership relationship with the EU. There was some exploratory cherry-picking of unicorns suggested, but not rational observer would have considered freed trade without free movement of people as having any chance of getting off the blocks, or common market with independent trade deals on the side without the ECJ having jurisdiction over the EU side of the movement of goods and services under those conditions.
The appointment of May might have been a significant hindrance here, her personal animosity against the ECJ wasn't a realistic red line to hold. Whatever agreement was reached would end up arbitrated in at least one direction by the ECJ. She should have accepted that, and offered it on condition that the UK Supreme Court arbitrated on incoming supplies. That's the sort of compromise that's been needed from the start.
If you disagree with the underlying point, please direct me to where this leadership can be found.
Oh, and regardless of the process of how it might have come about - is there anything in my first compromise agreement suggestion that you either agree or disagree with as an outcome?
I agree with your first compromise agreement, but continue to disagree with the idea that the EU would have cooperated in its consideration.The attitude we've seen has been overwhelmingly consistent. The EU repeatedly asked the UK, "What do you want?". The response they got back was, "What are you offering?". The UK set out to change the relationship and leave the Union, the onus has always been on the UK to take a lead by stating clearly what it wants.
There has been no clear leadership in the UK on what the UK has wanted from a post-EU membership relationship with the EU. There was some exploratory cherry-picking of unicorns suggested, but not rational observer would have considered freed trade without free movement of people as having any chance of getting off the blocks, or common market with independent trade deals on the side without the ECJ having jurisdiction over the EU side of the movement of goods and services under those conditions.
The appointment of May might have been a significant hindrance here, her personal animosity against the ECJ wasn't a realistic red line to hold. Whatever agreement was reached would end up arbitrated in at least one direction by the ECJ. She should have accepted that, and offered it on condition that the UK Supreme Court arbitrated on incoming supplies. That's the sort of compromise that's been needed from the start.
If you disagree with the underlying point, please direct me to where this leadership can be found.
Oh, and regardless of the process of how it might have come about - is there anything in my first compromise agreement suggestion that you either agree or disagree with as an outcome?
The people of the UK are friends with the rest of the people of Europe and vice versa. The problem is the institution that is the EU and it’s desire to centralise control and become a superstate, ultimately driven by the decisions in Paris, Berlin and Brussels.
The lack of equality is demonstrated by the likelihood that the decision on how this stage of the Brexit saga ends will be made between two people meeting in Toulouse.
For the record, I have said many times on here that we should have gone to EEA/EFTA as an interim stage before diverging further.
loafer123 said:
I agree with your first compromise agreement, but continue to disagree with the idea that the EU would have cooperated in its consideration.
The people of the UK are friends with the rest of the people of Europe and vice versa. The problem is the institution that is the EU and it’s desire to centralise control and become a superstate, ultimately driven by the decisions in Paris, Berlin and Brussels.
I disagree. If the UK had thought through what it wanted, balanced that with a reasonable consideration of what the EU could accept, then a similar proposal could have been presented and finalised through a process of negotiation. Something similar to the first point, on citizens' rights, was mooted at one point - but shot down, again by May, with the insistence that FOM would end.The people of the UK are friends with the rest of the people of Europe and vice versa. The problem is the institution that is the EU and it’s desire to centralise control and become a superstate, ultimately driven by the decisions in Paris, Berlin and Brussels.
.
The only reason it's not seen as Paris, Berlin, Brussels and London is that we've never wanted to be central to European decision-making and we've never properly engaged with the project. In the UK we view centralised decision making as a negative, but the basis of the EU is acting to common cause in the common interest. We don't send serious delegates to the EU Parliament and, to an extent, we get treated accordingly.
But let's be honest, the level of understanding of how the EU works is almost non-existent in the UK electorate. This wasn't an outcome decided on a rational consideration of the EU decision making process.
TTwiggy said:
crankedup said:
It that is the fundamental basis of democracy!! you are saying that is wrong. What should it be replaced with?
We already had a perfectly adequate system.GoodCompany said:
Troubleatmill said:
If you and 27 of your mates went out drinking every Saturday night...
But only 5 or 6 of you could afford the beer - and ending up paying for the other 21 to enjoy a beer ( to various degrees )
And they get to stay in your gaff for free ( but you can stay in their sthole gaff to be fair )
You might want to consider things.
If you want to leave - of course the other 27 of your mates want you to stay - otherwise they won't get anywhere near as much beer - and some of the freeloaders are going to have to pay more than the market price for beer to support the others.
We cannot leave soon enough.
But only 5 or 6 of you could afford the beer - and ending up paying for the other 21 to enjoy a beer ( to various degrees )
And they get to stay in your gaff for free ( but you can stay in their s
thole gaff to be fair )You might want to consider things.
If you want to leave - of course the other 27 of your mates want you to stay - otherwise they won't get anywhere near as much beer - and some of the freeloaders are going to have to pay more than the market price for beer to support the others.
We cannot leave soon enough.
To think people say leavers didn't know what they were voting for!I was voting for a future that we would not be part of the EU.
Yes- I knew it would be a bit of a step into the unknown - but we would be trading with them on WTO, or some other trading deal to yet be defined. But we would be out.
The relationship would change over the course of many years. But we would never be back in.
But, there is no such thing as the status quo in the EU.
QMV in coming in. 22 countries cash dependant on the rest.
The EU really do not want an army. Clegg was explicit that was a fantasy. Except they do.
The EU want direct taxation. They sounded it out a couple of years ago.
etc
etc
The direction of travel of the EU is not where I believe our country should be.
Not rocket science really.
GSalt said:
I disagree. If the UK had thought through what it wanted, balanced that with a reasonable consideration of what the EU could accept, then a similar proposal could have been presented and finalised through a process of negotiation. Something similar to the first point, on citizens' rights, was mooted at one point - but shot down, again by May, with the insistence that FOM would end.
.
The only reason it's not seen as Paris, Berlin, Brussels and London is that we've never wanted to be central to European decision-making and we've never properly engaged with the project. In the UK we view centralised decision making as a negative, but the basis of the EU is acting to common cause in the common interest. We don't send serious delegates to the EU Parliament and, to an extent, we get treated accordingly.
But let's be honest, the level of understanding of how the EU works is almost non-existent in the UK electorate. This wasn't an outcome decided on a rational consideration of the EU decision making process.
We shall agree to disagree, then..
The only reason it's not seen as Paris, Berlin, Brussels and London is that we've never wanted to be central to European decision-making and we've never properly engaged with the project. In the UK we view centralised decision making as a negative, but the basis of the EU is acting to common cause in the common interest. We don't send serious delegates to the EU Parliament and, to an extent, we get treated accordingly.
But let's be honest, the level of understanding of how the EU works is almost non-existent in the UK electorate. This wasn't an outcome decided on a rational consideration of the EU decision making process.
Interestingly, my wife met a German manufacturer today (one of her suppliers) and they said they were appalled how the EU was putting their own interests as an organisation first, and that their refusal to compromise for fear of encouraging others has caused a huge slowdown in Germany.
I firmly believe that the EU is not representing Europe, it is representing itself, and that that will be its eventual downfall.
loafer123 said:
GSalt said:
I disagree. If the UK had thought through what it wanted, balanced that with a reasonable consideration of what the EU could accept, then a similar proposal could have been presented and finalised through a process of negotiation. Something similar to the first point, on citizens' rights, was mooted at one point - but shot down, again by May, with the insistence that FOM would end.
.
The only reason it's not seen as Paris, Berlin, Brussels and London is that we've never wanted to be central to European decision-making and we've never properly engaged with the project. In the UK we view centralised decision making as a negative, but the basis of the EU is acting to common cause in the common interest. We don't send serious delegates to the EU Parliament and, to an extent, we get treated accordingly.
But let's be honest, the level of understanding of how the EU works is almost non-existent in the UK electorate. This wasn't an outcome decided on a rational consideration of the EU decision making process.
We shall agree to disagree, then..
The only reason it's not seen as Paris, Berlin, Brussels and London is that we've never wanted to be central to European decision-making and we've never properly engaged with the project. In the UK we view centralised decision making as a negative, but the basis of the EU is acting to common cause in the common interest. We don't send serious delegates to the EU Parliament and, to an extent, we get treated accordingly.
But let's be honest, the level of understanding of how the EU works is almost non-existent in the UK electorate. This wasn't an outcome decided on a rational consideration of the EU decision making process.
Interestingly, my wife met a German manufacturer today (one of her suppliers) and they said they were appalled how the EU was putting their own interests as an organisation first, and that their refusal to compromise for fear of encouraging others has caused a huge slowdown in Germany.
I firmly believe that the EU is not representing Europe, it is representing itself, and that that will be its eventual downfall.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff