How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 15)
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
i4got said:
Helicopter123 said:
Everyone knew what they were voting for, and that includes joining the long "RoW" queue to enter the EU. It's a small price to pay to take back control of our fish. Am I doing this right?
Depends on what your intention is? If its to look like a predictable knob, then yes, you're doing it perfectly.That is the closest h123 has come to doing anything right on these threads.
An appropriate FTA deal, including on fish, would be worth having to walk the RoW queue.
That he even needs to question that speaks volumes
JNW1 said:
roger.mellie said:
remain is a known known
Which is a lie that could (should?) have been put on the side of a big red bus! The Remain side pedalled the idea a vote for them was a vote for the status quo - so in effect everyone knew exactly what they'd be getting - but that simply wasn't true; the EU will evolve further over time and the desire to move towards a more federal Europe has been voiced by many within the organisation over the years. So the only thing known about Remain was we'd be going further down a one-way street which many of us had never expressed a desire to enter in the first place - the 2016 referendum was our once in a lifetime opportunity to turn around!
te!Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
roger.mellie said:
JNW1 said:
roger.mellie said:
remain is a known known
Which is a lie that could (should?) have been put on the side of a big red bus! The Remain side pedalled the idea a vote for them was a vote for the status quo - so in effect everyone knew exactly what they'd be getting - but that simply wasn't true; the EU will evolve further over time and the desire to move towards a more federal Europe has been voiced by many within the organisation over the years. So the only thing known about Remain was we'd be going further down a one-way street which many of us had never expressed a desire to enter in the first place - the 2016 referendum was our once in a lifetime opportunity to turn around!te!Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
Firstly, the veto wasn't absolute.
Secondly, since the referendum it's been eroded as planned.
Thirdly, the EU has already undergone some fundamental changes since the referendum that were not on any planned road map - and continues to do so.
roger.mellie said:
What a load of absolute ste!
Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
Qualified majority voting?te!Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
Qualified majority - https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voti...
When the Council votes on a proposal by the Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a qualified majority is reached if two conditions are met:
55% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means 15 out of 27
the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population
This procedure is also known as the 'double majority' rule.
55%
of the EU countries
65%
of the EU population
Sway said:
Complete fallacy.
Firstly, the veto wasn't absolute.
Secondly, since the referendum it's been eroded as planned.
Thirdly, the EU has already undergone some fundamental changes since the referendum that were not on any planned road map - and continues to do so.
Complete? I'd love to see your working out on that.Firstly, the veto wasn't absolute.
Secondly, since the referendum it's been eroded as planned.
Thirdly, the EU has already undergone some fundamental changes since the referendum that were not on any planned road map - and continues to do so.
As usual you're attacking part of my sentence rather than the intended point. The UK is stepping into the unknown, what have they achieved by doing so? f
k all yet is the answer. That might change. But the current answer is fk all.catweasle said:
55% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means 15 out of 27
the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population
This procedure is also known as the 'double majority' rule.
55%
of the EU countries
65%
of the EU population
But it wouldn't be 65% of the EU population. It would be votes by enough states large enough that the states represent 65% of total EU population. The actual populations get no votes on any matter. the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population
This procedure is also known as the 'double majority' rule.
55%
of the EU countries
65%
of the EU population
Of course it would be unheard of for MEPs and Prime Ministers to support EU changes which the populations don't largely support...... oh hang on.... that's actually BAU.
ETA: I'd view the EU as more democratic if they allowed for an EU wide referendum vote on key changes to the EU. They would never do that, as I think they realise they don't actually have the support needed for where the EU wants to go, and they wouldn't want it made obvious.
roger.mellie said:
Sway said:
Complete fallacy.
Firstly, the veto wasn't absolute.
Secondly, since the referendum it's been eroded as planned.
Thirdly, the EU has already undergone some fundamental changes since the referendum that were not on any planned road map - and continues to do so.
Complete? I'd love to see your working out on that.Firstly, the veto wasn't absolute.
Secondly, since the referendum it's been eroded as planned.
Thirdly, the EU has already undergone some fundamental changes since the referendum that were not on any planned road map - and continues to do so.
As usual you're attacking part of my sentence rather than the intended point. The UK is stepping into the unknown, what have they achieved by doing so? f
k all yet is the answer. That might change. But the current answer is fk all.The UK leaving the EU is not the unknown, it's going back to the previous known with centuries of experience of determining its own laws and doing it's own trade deals. It was joining the ever changing EU that was a jump into the unknown and the people of the UK voted to leave as it didn't work for them..
roger.mellie said:
JNW1 said:
roger.mellie said:
remain is a known known
Which is a lie that could (should?) have been put on the side of a big red bus! The Remain side pedalled the idea a vote for them was a vote for the status quo - so in effect everyone knew exactly what they'd be getting - but that simply wasn't true; the EU will evolve further over time and the desire to move towards a more federal Europe has been voiced by many within the organisation over the years. So the only thing known about Remain was we'd be going further down a one-way street which many of us had never expressed a desire to enter in the first place - the 2016 referendum was our once in a lifetime opportunity to turn around!te!Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
jsf said:
UK has avoided the funding of the Covid recovery fund costing €750 Billion and has also avoided the risks associated with the EU now being able to issue bonds and raise taxes in its own right, which is mutualised over every member state. That is a huge gain.
IIRC the UK's share of that covid bailout would have come to ~£82bnroger.mellie said:
What a load of absolute ste!
Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
The problem your statement has, its routed in 2016. Which is a tiresome.te!Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
The first part is the fail.
Fear of things the EU "might do". Covid has made those "might do's", "must do's"; and the UK would never accept those - and it's yet to be seen whether the fugal states will accept that either. Lagarde stirred that up in Le Monde this week, and it went down like a cold cup of puke for a lot of governments. In the UK, we put riders on investment advertisements for the punters that say "historical observation is NOT a guide to future performance". A what point are we going to see that level of common sense and research applied to the remain / EU supporters in here?
Covid accelerated the existential question Europe must face. Is it "more of it" (as a Federal block), or looser ties and revert to trading block? Only one of those would get widespread support in the UK AND across many of the Northern EU member states. None of the remain team have been brave enough to publicly support EC tax and spend powers, or do you want to put your whangers on the table now???
It's really interesting that Remain or Pro-EU supporters wants to bring up Covid as a negative when it works against the UK; BUT not when it kicks the EU (or rather) EC power grab right in the sponge.
roger.mellie said:
JNW1 said:
roger.mellie said:
remain is a known known
Which is a lie that could (should?) have been put on the side of a big red bus! The Remain side pedalled the idea a vote for them was a vote for the status quo - so in effect everyone knew exactly what they'd be getting - but that simply wasn't true; the EU will evolve further over time and the desire to move towards a more federal Europe has been voiced by many within the organisation over the years. So the only thing known about Remain was we'd be going further down a one-way street which many of us had never expressed a desire to enter in the first place - the 2016 referendum was our once in a lifetime opportunity to turn around!te!Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
I doubt that even all the countries which were already in it, really knew, or had a clear idea which way it was going to go themselves.
So being sucked into the EU was a step into the unknown for the UK then. Why should it be any more frightening, now? .
roger.mellie said:
As usual you're attacking part of my sentence rather than the intended point. The UK is stepping into the unknownl.
I think most would agree leaving the EU was to some extent a step into the unknown; after all, who could know exactly how, say, a future trading relationship with the EU would look? However, what I was taking issue with was your comment that staying in the EU meant everything was known - it meant nothing of the sort. Ok, probably less uncertainty than leaving but IMO it's just nonsense to say everything would have stayed as it was in 2016 and was therefore known....
stongle said:
roger.mellie said:
What a load of absolute ste!
Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
The problem your statement has, its routed in 2016. Which is a tiresome.te!Fear of future things the EU might do when the UK had, and I do mean HAD, the authority to say no is ridiculously paranoid.
Leaving is a step into the unknown, neither you nor I know whether it'll work out for the best. I've reason to believe it won't. Either way, they'll be a rule taker rather than a rule maker when it comes to EU trading.
The first part is the fail.
Fear of things the EU "might do". Covid has made those "might do's", "must do's"; and the UK would never accept those - and it's yet to be seen whether the fugal states will accept that either. Lagarde stirred that up in Le Monde this week, and it went down like a cold cup of puke for a lot of governments. In the UK, we put riders on investment advertisements for the punters that say "historical observation is NOT a guide to future performance". A what point are we going to see that level of common sense and research applied to the remain / EU supporters in here?
Covid accelerated the existential question Europe must face. Is it "more of it" (as a Federal block), or looser ties and revert to trading block? Only one of those would get widespread support in the UK AND across many of the Northern EU member states. None of the remain team have been brave enough to publicly support EC tax and spend powers, or do you want to put your whangers on the table now???
It's really interesting that Remain or Pro-EU supporters wants to bring up Covid as a negative when it works against the UK; BUT not when it kicks the EU (or rather) EC power grab right in the sponge.
. The EU covid response is to let the nation states get on with whatever they want to do.
The ECB response looks better to me than the BOE one so far.
I don’t disagree at all that the quandary of fiscal vs monetary union is a problem the EU still has to solve but it’s nothing new.
JNW1 said:
roger.mellie said:
As usual you're attacking part of my sentence rather than the intended point. The UK is stepping into the unknownl.
I think most would agree leaving the EU was to some extent a step into the unknown; after all, who could know exactly how, say, a future trading relationship with the EU would look? However, what I was taking issue with was your comment that staying in the EU meant everything was known - it meant nothing of the sort. Ok, probably less uncertainty than leaving but IMO it's just nonsense to say everything would have stayed as it was in 2016 and was therefore known....There’s a bit too much projection going on above on my opinions. The simple summary is I’ve yet to see a quantifiable benefit leaving has achieved specifically due to leaving.
roger.mellie said:
JNW1 said:
roger.mellie said:
As usual you're attacking part of my sentence rather than the intended point. The UK is stepping into the unknownl.
I think most would agree leaving the EU was to some extent a step into the unknown; after all, who could know exactly how, say, a future trading relationship with the EU would look? However, what I was taking issue with was your comment that staying in the EU meant everything was known - it meant nothing of the sort. Ok, probably less uncertainty than leaving but IMO it's just nonsense to say everything would have stayed as it was in 2016 and was therefore known....There’s a bit too much projection going on above on my opinions. The simple summary is I’ve yet to see a quantifiable benefit leaving has achieved specifically due to leaving.
roger.mellie said:
Agreed. It wasn’t a sure thing although leaving was much less sure.
There’s a bit too much projection going on above on my opinions. The simple summary is I’ve yet to see a quantifiable benefit leaving has achieved specifically due to leaving.
Is £82B of covid fund that we're not on the hook for sufficiently quantifiable?There’s a bit too much projection going on above on my opinions. The simple summary is I’ve yet to see a quantifiable benefit leaving has achieved specifically due to leaving.
roger.mellie said:
Agreed. It wasn’t a sure thing although leaving was much less sure.
There’s a bit too much projection going on above on my opinions. The simple summary is I’ve yet to see a quantifiable benefit leaving has achieved specifically due to leaving.
Qualified majority voting?There’s a bit too much projection going on above on my opinions. The simple summary is I’ve yet to see a quantifiable benefit leaving has achieved specifically due to leaving.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff