/ Brexit strategy isn't working.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Spartacus on 02 Oct 2017

As the title says the current negotiation strategy of appeasement with EU officials is not working and we are going to get shafted.

Can I suggest 2 alternatives?

1. Far more robust defence of our position including breaking off negotiations and becoming more militant if needed.
2. Forget Brexit and remain in EU.

Because what are doing will lead to disaster.
Post edited at 07:40
7
ian caton on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

Not sure I would call it appeasement. That implies cogency where there is none.
1
summo on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

I'd ignore what we see and hear, it's a show. A show for Brexiteers, remainers, but chiefly the rest of the eu so they don't copy. It was never going to be made to look smooth and simple, regardless of who does the negotiating or how much they prepared.
4
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> I'd ignore what we see and hear, it's a show. A show for Brexiteers, remainers, but chiefly the rest of the eu so they don't copy. It was never going to be made to look smooth and simple, regardless of who does the negotiating or how much they prepared.

I can buy this argument, that it is a 'show' to fool 'the people'. But how do you know that you and I are not being fooled?
2
jimtitt - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:


> 2. Forget Brexit and remain in EU.

You mean beg the EU27 to negotiate a deal so they allow you to remain in the EU. Best of luck and don´ t forget to keep smiling.
3
baron - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to jimtitt:

Can they, the 27, make the UK leave?
Or is the triggering of Article 50 it, the end, goodbye?
jkarran - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

> Can I suggest 2 alternatives?
> 1. Far more robust defence of our position including breaking off negotiations and becoming more militant if needed.

Achieving what, how?

> 2. Forget Brexit and remain in EU.

Not currently possible. It needs to get worse yet before the public can lead the 'leaders'. Chances are thought this will be spun by those poised to increase their power and profit from the chaos as plucky little Britain against the evil EU and we end up with option 1 by default.

> Because what are doing will lead to disaster.

Yep.
jk
1
jkarran - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> Can they, the 27, make the UK leave?

They didn't. You did.

> Or is the triggering of Article 50 it, the end, goodbye?

Au revoir hopefully. In time the generation you've shafted might be able to undo some of this.
jk
6
baron - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

And a good morning to you too!
Are you here to join the debate or just hurl a few insults?
23
summo on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

> I can buy this argument, that it is a 'show' to fool 'the people'. But how do you know that you and I are not being fooled?

I think we are all fools if we believe the only negotiations that occur are between the two chief negotiators and what they each say in their own respective news conferences is the only thing that is happening from day to day.
jkarran - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

Good morning.

I have earache so yeah, I suspect today I'll mostly be grumpy.
jk
1
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> I think we are all fools if we believe the only negotiations that occur are between the two chief negotiators and what they each say in their own respective news conferences is the only thing that is happening from day to day.

Yep. Confidence is hugely important. We are pissing so much economic and business confidence away with the behaviour of Davis, Fox and Johnson that I fear our reputation will be damaged for a generation. Self inflicted damage like this is unforgiveable.
1
pasbury on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

> As the title says the current negotiation strategy of appeasement with EU officials is not working and we are going to get shafted.

> Can I suggest 2 alternatives?

> 1. Far more robust defence of our position including breaking off negotiations and becoming more militant if needed.

Unfortunately we need them more than they need us, to suggest otherwise is fantasy (one that many people have)
What is militancy - putting forward some demands? The 27 will say no sorry can't do, against our constitution, against what and how we agreed to negotiate. And with a shrug they'll leave us to our sorry (downward) trajectory.
1
Lusk - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> I have earache so yeah, I suspect today I'll mostly be grumpy.

Probably best not to read and get involved in any political discussions on UKC then!

jkarran - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Self inflicted damage like this is unforgiveable.

Except of course it will be forgiven or more to the point forgotten in a heartbeat after Labour get their term at the helm presiding over the worsening fallout of this mess. We're simple creatures easily lead.
jk
summo on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

Agree, the politicians should be left to their games. The civil servsnts and no doubt several consultants doing the real work, should issue monthly bulletins of what they've been reviewing or discussing. Not the details of course, but enough so people have faith things are moving and we aren't totally reliant on the Brexit bulldog.
davidbeynon on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Of course in a democracy the people on the winning side of a vote have to take their share of the blame for negative consequences. This is especially true if they were clearly spelled out in advance.

They won't of course. It's all the evil EUs fault.
1
Postmanpat on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:
> As the title says the current negotiation strategy of appeasement with EU officials is not working and we are going to get shafted.

>
Why do you describe it as "appeasement" when most of their critics in the UK would say they have been (mistakenly) fighting for a "hard brexit". It looks more like they are simply being rolled over. It's like playing poker in which the EU says "we can't start the game until you show us your cards" and the UK is gradually handing over its cards.

But you're right. They might as well cut all the crap and go straight to one of your options.
Post edited at 12:04
jimtitt - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:
> Or is the triggering of Article 50 it, the end, goodbye?

That is unknown territory legally both in the UK and the EU.
Politically nothing is irrevocable but " "... a revocation needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom's membership" gives an indication of what it is going to cost the UK. Note it says conditions, not negotiations.
Post edited at 12:12
john arran - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to jimtitt:

That suggests to me that conditions would be possible only to prevent better terms for the UK, not to insist on worse terms than present. But then I'm not a lawyer.
jkarran - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

> That suggests to me that conditions would be possible only to prevent better terms for the UK, not to insist on worse terms than present. But then I'm not a lawyer.

Whatever is legally possible, politically it's going to cost our rebate at the very least. Probably still a price worth paying if the opportunity presents itself but it does ultimately just add fuel to a fire nobody seems willing and able to fight.
jk
Malarkey on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

I don't understand how we are being shafted?

We wanted to leave. We lose the rights of membership.

Did you really believe all this have cake and eat it nonsense?
1
Spartacus on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Malarkey:
I didn't want to leave. The goalposts have moved so far from the original Brexit sales patter it's not true.
Nobody is talking about advantages and a golden future, it's now all about damage limitation and getting the best deal we can.
We have entered a process where the best result we can achieve is very likely to be worse than our current situation.
Why on earth would you enter negotiations under these conditions or start them in the first place, it no win.
1
captain paranoia - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

There's a strategy...?
ian caton on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

I would love to buy into this, and even a sliver of evidence would be great. Have you seen any?

I really am no lefty, but stand back and look at Johnson, Fox and Davis. In a different environment would you way them up as anything better than daft?

I don't believe they have covert conpetance.
summo on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to ian caton:

> I really am no lefty, but stand back and look at Johnson, Fox and Davis. In a different environment would you way them up as anything better than daft?

But the thought of abbot, thornberry, Watson, McDonnell is far worse.

6
BnB - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
> But the thought of abbot, thornberry, Watson, McDonnell is far worse.

Abbott is well out of her depth and McDonnel is plain dangerous but Thornberry and Starmer strike me as a stronger pair than any two you could perm out of that Tory trio
Post edited at 20:12
3
ian caton on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

Watson was very good at tearing into the Murdochs, better than anyone. Abbot and McDonnell, I agree are in the same class as Johnson and co.
Thornbury I know nothing of.

But they don't matter they are not running the show.
open_gym - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to jimtitt:

> Or is the triggering of Article 50 it, the end, goodbye?

>Politically nothing is irrevocable but " "... a revocation needs to be subject to conditions set by all EU-27 so they >cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom's >membership" gives an indication of what it is going to cost the UK. Note it says conditions, not negotiations.

This is a quote from the EU negotiators, so whilst it does describe a political position, it is not the law

1) Lord Kerr (who wrote article 50!) says it is unilaterally revocable
2) Jolyon Maugham QC was planning a legal test to prove it was but timetabling etc meant it was unlikely to resolve anything in time
3) There is also the question of whether notice was properly given under article 50. Art 50 says something about a decision should be made under the constitutional arrangements of the country who wants to leave. The Miller et al. case held that this means, for the UK, that this means a vote in parliament. The '...notification of withdrawal bill' had really vague wording on this, suggesting that it gave the PM the power to *notify the EU of a decision that had already been made*. Yet parliament has never voted on that decision, so perhaps it has not been made. Confusing, but enough to mount a legal challenge and kick the whole thing into the long grass if you wanted to.

So the answer to how you revoke article 50, is you apply all of that, start some legal cases, muddy the waters, get an extension, bore the whole EU to death and then agree it would be better if you carried on how you were.

Not expressing an opinion on whether we should, but we certainly could. And if we couldn't revoke, we could certainly spoil article 50.
Pete Pozman - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

The incompetence of Davis Fox and Johnson is the main obstacle to a satisfactory outcome for Brexit. What, for instance, does Fox actually know about international trade? What does Johnson know about diplomacy? A doctor and a journalist. Their block colour approach is just padding without any actual framework. Lord help us. I was given a ruler with the names of all the prime ministers on it, a souvenir from the houses of parliament. All Johnson cares about is getting his name on that ruler.
oldie - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

> The goalposts have moved so far from the original Brexit sales patter it's not true. <

> Nobody is talking about advantages and a golden future, it's now all about damage limitation and getting the best deal we can. <

We are obviously in a situation where many support Brexit, even if it is "hard", but many feel they are being carried helplessly towards an impoverished future. As the results of Brexit, good or bad, become more apparent a second referendum should be held....if the result was the same then perhaps more people would accept it. However both main parties are committed to the last result as it was the "voice of the people" and are too frightened to suggest another vote: rather illogical as democracies do have general elections every few years to reflect any changes in public opinion.

1
MargieB - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to oldie:
If it gets so bad with the current conservative approach I presume soon we could have" no confidence" in the present situation. Does that trigger a general election? Will this be the way a democracy deals with such a crisis? or rather isn't that the advantage of a democracy in the way it can respond to a crisis of this magnitude? So another referendum in effect occurs by virtue of a no confidence position- another democratic mechanism but effectively another referendum reflecting a response to events? I s this how it could work?
Post edited at 09:03
Kevster - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

If we grew some, and offered business a confident and favourable environment, the rest would follow. Might pissed the eu off, but we were never truly their mates anyway.
8
Tyler - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Kevster:

> If we grew some, and offered business a confident and favourable environment, the rest would follow.

What does that mean, low regulation and low corp tax?

john arran - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

It means cake, and eating it.
1
Rob Exile Ward on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

'Brexit Strategy' is the next great oxymoron, like 'Military Intelligence.'
4
Kevster - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

I am not an economist, politician, financial sector whizz. So details are a little vague....

But why not offer favourable conditions? We already have a sizable financial sector with a large £s turnover. Keep it and profit from it.
And yes, low corporation tax would be great. Especially as I have a Ltd company. ....
Whatever the solution, we do need to plant our flag with confidence and stick to our commitment. Doing this with politicians involved may be a tough one.
10
Tyler - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Kevster:

> I am not an economist, politician, financial sector whizz. So details are a little vague....

> But why not offer favourable conditions? We already have a sizable financial sector with a large £s turnover. Keep it and profit from it.

> And yes, low corporation tax would be great. Especially as I have a Ltd company. ....

> Whatever the solution, we do need to plant our flag with confidence and stick to our commitment. Doing this with politicians involved may be a tough one.

So what your saying is you've now idea how we can get out of this mess but you're pretty sure everything will be ok if we do something?
4
Kevster - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

I believe that doing something (sensible) with purpose is better than just bumbling along with blind hope. Which path to follow will always have some uncertainty, and many paths will eventually lead to the same destination.
Whatever is happening at the moment, what is being reported and what the situation feels like on the ground may all be mutually exclusive, but I have the impression that whatever is going on needs more committed positive progress or we'll be even worse off.
But you would be right in saying that I have no qualification to make policy with, unqualified as I am, I am one of the voting public and ultimately it'll all be partially my fault one way or another.

1
elsewhere on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Kevster:
Bumbling along in blind hope seems to be a reasonable summary of how others view us.

https://www.ft.com/content/b57f6e56-a9cd-11e7-93c5-648314d2c72c

German companies operating in the UK should make provisions for a “very hard Brexit” because the British government lacks a clear strategy on leaving the EU, Germany’s largest business lobby has said.



5
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to elsewhere:
Doesn't matter what the strategy is, if we have one, as we're not going to get past the 'sufficient progress' stage.
alastairmac - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

There is no Brexit strategy. Just an incompetent Tory party unable to confront the jingoists and British nationalists on the right wing of their party..... and too paralysed by fear to do the right thing and reverse the catastrophic momentum building behind what will be an enormously damaging exit from the EU.
4
elsewhere on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> Doesn't matter what the strategy is, if we have one, as we're not going to get past the 'sufficient progress' stage.

"if we have one" - rather harsh but realistic
1
wercat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to alastairmac:

we definitely need "A New Hope" against the Brexit tyranny being foisted on the population dishonestly in their own interests by self seeking politicians of some flavours
4
summo on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:
> Doesn't matter what the strategy is, if we have one, as we're not going to get past the 'sufficient progress' stage.

Of course. The UK could have planned for a decade and sent a shipping container load of documents to Brussels. The eu would still turn round and bad mouth negotiations. Everything is perfect in eu land, just like in Spain, what catalan vote, all is well, keep the eu ship sailing towards closer ever union no matter what the passengers say.

EDIT 3 dislikes proves my point. oh 4. Nothing to see here, keep moving on. All is well in eu land.
Post edited at 16:18
15
Trevers - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

But you don't know that at all. As it stands, our negotiations efforts are farcically bad and the EU is completely right to point this out. There's no evidence for your assertion that we could be making a good job of it and the EU would still turn their backs because we're not.

I'm not sure how dislikes on your post prove anything, unless you're suggesting Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker are regular posters on UKC ;)
3
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
I voted leave.
It's the EU refusal to recognise 'significant progress' that is the problem for us and their trump card.
The EU doesn't need to do anything but delay until time runs out.
While this was to be expected of the EU it was the lack of strategy and the capitulation by the UK team that allowed this situation to happen.
You are right that no matter what the UK tried to do the EU was never going to enter into reasonable negotiations, hence them plucking 3 things out of fresh air to begin the negotiations.
Post edited at 16:39
1
BnB - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Trevers:

Our negotiating position isn't necessarily "bad" as you put it. It's simply not what the EU would prefer to hear. They want a big cheque before they give anything away. And who can blame them? But that doesn't make the UK's objectives, which have been laid out, wrong or ill-conceived.

As Baron points out, the only weakness we've shown was in accepting to negotiate in series rather than in parallel. The lack of progress is almost entirely down to the EU's intransigence, which I agree could be foreseen.

The natural progression is that we will walk away soon and call the EU's bluff. It's the logical approach while there is plenty of time to get talks on track. The German chamber of commerce is getting very jittery and putting the squeeze on Merkel already.
3
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> You are right that no matter what the UK tried to do the EU was never going to enter into reasonable negotiations, hence them plucking 3 things out of fresh air to begin the negotiations.
>
Has the EU given any clear idea of what they would like the ultimate to deal to look like?

2
summo on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Trevers:
> But you don't know that at all. As it stands, our negotiations efforts are farcically bad and the EU is completely right to point this out. There's no evidence for your assertion that we could be making a good job of it and the EU would still turn their backs because we're not.

Why would the eu want to make a well prepared exit from a net contributor go well?

They aren't even capable of chastising Poland or hungary.
Post edited at 18:23
1
Tyler - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:
> I voted leave.

> It's the EU refusal to recognise 'significant progress' that is the problem for us and their trump card.

> The EU doesn't need to do anything but delay until time runs out.

Do you think? They want a trade deal as well don't they?
Post edited at 18:32
summo on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> I voted leave.

Sorry, should have made it clearer that I was agreeing with your post; not going against it.

summo on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> Do you think? They want a trade deal as well don't they?

What the eu needs most is money. They have a funding gap in 18months time to bridge. They can either cut their budget (which isn't in their blood), or increase what they demand from remaining nations, at the risk of increasing anti EU sentiment.
2
Tyler - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

At the expense of a trade deal?
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
Likewise.
The joys of internet debate!
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
I've come to the conclusion that the EU or whoever is pulling the strings is happy for there to be no deal.
Hence picking three points that were going to take up huge amounts of negotiating time and probably delay any further talks to the point of no deal being done.
Or the UK public demanding a return to the EU.
Or a transition stage to keep the UK in the EU.
There is no ultimate deal as far as the EU is concerned.
I think.
summo on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> At the expense of a trade deal?

I think so. To ask other nations for more money or show some fiscal prudence isn't likely. They'd prefer to buy some time getting as many billions off the UK as possible.

The eu can't afford to have another nation exiting, it would be the beginning of the end.
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

I used to think that economics would ensure a trade deal but now I think the EU is willing to see no deal.
summo on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> I used to think that economics would ensure a trade deal but now I think the EU is willing to see no deal.

Their chief negotiator, has a nice salary, nice expenses, nice pension... what does he care if private businesses in the eu suffer afterwards... he's going to show those brits how tough he can be.
5
bouldery bits - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

I didn't realise we had a brexit strategy.

Every day's a school day!
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> I've come to the conclusion that the EU or whoever is pulling the strings is happy for there to be no deal.

>
It's rather the conclusion I have reached.
2
BnB - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

No way. They're just stringing us out and testing our nerve. They badly want a deal. But one they can sell as "bad" for Britain. The more agitated we get in the face of an impending deadline, the easier it becomes to sell the deal within the EU as a victory.
2
summo on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to BnB:

I have no doubt people like Merkel know that there has to be a show, to please crowds on both sides. Let's just hope the eu commissioners are not taking it a little too personally. Victory at all costs etc..
2
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to BnB:

> No way. They're just stringing us out and testing our nerve. They badly want a deal. But one they can sell as "bad" for Britain. The more agitated we get in the face of an impending deadline, the easier it becomes to sell the deal within the EU as a victory.

Well, I hope you are right. But what sort of deal do you think they want?
MG - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

So all those patronising pre-referendum claims about how desperate the EU would be to trade with us and how this gave us huge power were, err, yet more bull shit, as repeatedly pointed out by remainers. Thanks for the further reminder of what clueless delusional selfish xenophobic morons brexiteers are.
4
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> So all those patronising pre-referendum claims about how desperate the EU would be to trade with us and how this gave us huge power were, err, yet more bull shit, as repeatedly pointed out by remainers. Thanks for the further reminder of what clueless delusional selfish xenophobic morons brexiteers are.

I don't think I ever made any such grandiose claims but obviously the foolishness of the EU has surprised even me.
Your britophobia is distorting your brain.
12
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Why foolish?
2
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

All 17 million of us?
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Why foolish?

Cutting off their nose to spite their face. There's a sensible deal to be done which works economically for both sides and doesn't undermine the EU but it appears they don't want to do that.
3
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> All 17 million of us?

Yes, because the only reason all 17 million people voted to leave is because they hate "shifty foreigners".
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Bastard!
You've seen right through me!
And the other 16 million +
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:
> Bastard!

> You've seen right through me!

> And the other 16 million +

I can't claim to be so insightful. The credit goes to MG......

Edit: it's apparently not just because they are "shifty foreigners" but "nasty, shifty, foreigners"
Post edited at 20:37
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

is there?

perhaps. but the EU will have its red lines, and ensuring that the 27 do not lose out financially during the divorce settlement appears to be one of them. as does ensuring rights of citizens post brexit.

we appear to have assumed that they were bluffing when they said this, and continue to bleed time away when its obvious that the 27 would prefer to see no deal than compromise to the extent we want.

is it foolish for them to take that line? these seem to me matters of priorities and values. they've decided what theirs' are, and what they are willing to see go by the way to achieve them. we might consider that foolish, but that will be cold comfort on 1st april 2019.
1
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> is there?

> perhaps. but the EU will have its red lines, and ensuring that the 27 do not lose out financially during the divorce settlement appears to be one of them. as does ensuring rights of citizens post brexit.

> we appear to have assumed that they were bluffing when they said this, and continue to bleed time away when its obvious that the 27 would prefer to see no deal than compromise to the extent we want.

> is it foolish for them to take that line?
>
They could easily hold those red lines but discuss or at least indicate what it is they envisage on other issues or the final deal. That's how negotiations work.

MG - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:
You all tick at least one box, yes.
5
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

I suppose if you put enough insults in a sentence you'll find most people tick at least one box.
MG - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Your britophobia is distorting your brain.

Am I an enemy of the people? You just get more and more pathetic.
4
MG - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

I'll retract morons, the rest are just descriptions, not insults.
4
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> I'll retract morons, the rest are just descriptions, not insults.

Of course, your logic is perfect, as long as you refuse to listen to any other explanations. Perhaps your pedestal is so high you can hear what people are telling you?
2
andyfallsoff - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> They could easily hold those red lines but discuss or at least indicate what it is they envisage on other issues or the final deal. That's how negotiations work.

Sorry, why is it for the EU to decide what we want the final deal to look like? We're the ones leaving - isn't it for us to say what we want instead?
2
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

It's pretty hard to tell them when they won't let us past the first stage.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
they've decided that for them, these issues as of sufficient importance that there is no point discussing other matters until they have been dealt with. many negotiations have preconditions that have to be satisfied.

since we have been so unwilling to put specific proposals on the table in the areas identified- and i think its for us to come up with the proposals, we're leaving them- i can't imagine why they would want to engage in discussions about what they consider are 'downstream' issues. i think the british performance so far will leave them feeling vindicated in the stance they took.

it does indicate where the power balance in the negotiation lies though.
Post edited at 20:58
3
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Sorry, why is it for the EU to decide what we want the final deal to look like? We're the ones leaving - isn't it for us to say what we want instead?

No, both parties are in a new relationship. Both parties should indicate how they want it to work. I note, incidentally that you conflated the terms "decide" and "say". Both should "say" and then both should "decide" on a compromise.
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> they've decided that for them, these issues as of sufficient importance that there is no point discussing other matters until they have been dealt with. many negotiations have preconditions that have to be satisfied.

> since we have been so unwilling to put specific proposals on the table in the areas identified- and i think its for us to come up with the proposals, we're leaving them- i can't imagine why they would want to engage in discussions about what they consider are 'downstream' issues.
>
We have obviously put suggestions to them and they have simply batted them back. That is not a negotiation, unless, as BnB suggests, they have a plan B.

You know as well as I do that if the UK agrees to their financial demands then it's game over.
Post edited at 21:05
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

its seemed to me that we have made as few suggestions as possible, as vaguely as possible.

and why would it be game over? not to agree to all the demands, but to get a bit closer to them than they are just now?
2
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> its seemed to me that we have made as few suggestions as possible, as vaguely as possible.

> and why would it be game over? not to agree to all the demands, but to get a bit closer to them than they are just now?

We've sent them boatloads of suggestions for discussion and compromise. If we sent them hard demands we would no doubt be accused of "demanding" the unreasonable.

Because it's our strongest card.

It might have made more sense to have sketched out a deal and then have negotiated the price for it as opposed to demanding the money without us even knowing what the product is.
1
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:
> Am I an enemy of the people? You just get more and more pathetic.

I'm simply adopting your weird logic. If you don't believe the logic then don't use it.

You told gridnorth that regarding the EU leadership as "unaccountable and unelected" and that their proposals included an element of "punishment" was by definition "xenophobia"

It's therefore obviously logical therefore to describe equivalent claims about the UK leadership as another form of xenophobia.

Equally obviously your premise is bollocks.
Post edited at 21:33
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> We've sent them boatloads of suggestions for discussion and compromise. If we sent them hard demands we would no doubt be accused of "demanding" the unreasonable.

that's a matter of opinion.

> Because it's our strongest card.

well, maybe. but it doesn't seem to be working for us. we can stick to this card and hope for the best, but it strikes me that the 27 mean it when they say that satisfactory progress must be made. and as its clear that they get to decide when that is made, then i think we might as well have a look at some of the other cards in our hand and hope they are better.

> It might have made more sense to have sketched out a deal and then have negotiated the price for it as opposed to demanding the money without us even knowing what the product is.

but its not money for a product; its settling accounts. they've decided that's important to them. we're not going to win this bit; but its a one off and what matters more to us in the ongoing position after march 19. if we do want a deal, i think we need to move to the bit where we talk about it sooner than later
2
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> but its not money for a product; its settling accounts. they've decided that's important to them. we're not going to win this bit; but its a one off and what matters more to us in the ongoing position after march 19. if we do want a deal, i think we need to move to the bit where we talk about it sooner than later
>
That is their claim. We presented them with a detailed analysis which destroyed the basis for much of their claim. So although, as we have openly acknowledged, there are legally required accounts to be settled, the extent of these is a matter for debate, as is the artificially inflated sum lumped on top.
Post edited at 21:33
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

but our 'artificially inflated' is their 'fair contribution based on commitments given'. and if we've made a viable proposal for the NI border, i've missed it.

and we might think that we've destroyed the basis for much of their claim, but we would do, wouldn't we...?

to me its just reinforcing where the power balance lies. we can rage against that, or stubbornly stick to our position, and wait for them to cave in; but it just looks like we're wasting time at present. i guess we will find out if no deal really is better than a bad deal.
2
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Well you appear to be coming around to baron and my way of thinking: that either we accept the EU's terms without even knowing what they are, or play for time whilst preparing for WTO rules.
3
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

no, i dont think that's a fair summary.

they've said 60-100bn; we've offered 20bn. get closer to their position and there may be some room for discussion. i can't seem them holding out for the last billion, so we can make it harder for them to refuse to deal than we are at present. there will be pressure to deal, but we're making it too easy to resist at present.

i think its the NI border issue thats the real problem tbh. that's gordian knot stuff.
2
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> no, i dont think that's a fair summary.

> they've said 60-100bn; we've offered 20bn. get closer to their position and there may be some room for discussion. i can't seem them holding out for the last billion, so we can make it harder for them to refuse to deal than we are at present. there will be pressure to deal, but we're making it too easy to resist at present.

>
We've explained in detail why their 60-100bn has no legal basis. We have said £20bn (not officially, I acknowledge). The ball is in their court. If you are buying a house that you believe is worth £200k but the vendor wants £1mn would you just say, "OK, let's say £500k"?No, you'd explain why valuation didn't make sense and wait for them to come up with a more realistic price as the basis for a negotiation.
I assume both sides genuinely want a resolution to the Irish question but that is partly concomitant on the trade and movement of people issues. It might make more sense therefore to sort them out in parallel.
Post edited at 22:11
4
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
The EU picked the three most contentious issues to begin the first round of negotiations.
They know that the government can't pay them all of the money that they seem to want.
They know that the government can't agree to the ECJ having jurisdiction over EU migrants in the UK.
And for what other reason than wanting to drag out negotiations did they choose the Irish border to discuss?
None of these are going to lead to 'sufficient progress ' except maybe the Irish border.
So no progress equals no trade talks.
A cunning plan and one the UK should have seen coming.
Time to plan for the hard Brexit which was probably the only real choice in the first place.
8
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
well, yes; and they've rejected our analysis and said that our proposed amount is insufficient. just telling them that they are wrong (in our opinion) isn't proving a particularly effective strategy. and the ball is in our court; we're leaving them. its up to us to make a better offer.

or not. its fair enough for us to decide the price is too high and walk away. but if we do, blaming it on malevolent intransigence from the 27 will just be sour grapes. we'll have gone into a negotiation as the weaker party and expected the other side to move much further, and against its own interests, than we are prepared to move. if we really want a positive outcome, then we're going to have to give ground whether we think that's justified or not.

NI- so we haven't made any serious proposals then. once more, we can say that the world should be different from what it actually is, but its not, and the longer we pretend to ourselves that if we hold out a bit longer they'll cave in, the less time we'll have to sort out a deal when we finally do.
Post edited at 22:34
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> The EU picked the three most contentious issues to begin the first round of negotiations.

> They know that the government can't pay them all of the money that they seem to want.

of course it can. it doesnt want to for political reasons- that's not the same thing

> They know that the government can't agree to the ECJ having jurisdiction over EU migrants in the UK.

of course it can. it doesnt want to for political reasons- thats not the same thing

> And for what other reason than wanting to drag out negotiations did they choose the Irish border to discuss?

> None of these are going to lead to 'sufficient progress ' except maybe the Irish border.

i think the contrary; i can't see any way this is made to work.

> So no progress equals no trade talks.

> A cunning plan and one the UK should have seen coming.

> Time to plan for the hard Brexit which was probably the only real choice in the first place.

or to accept our position as the weaker partner and in no position to dictate terms. a deal for the next generation is worth more than a one off payment of another ? 30 bn. if we were to offer 50bn, and they refused to progress for the want of another 10bn, i think the unity of the 27 would start to come under real pressure. of course, that means the current tory leadership losing face and getting roasted by the press; but that's what leadership is meant to be about.

would that we had this.

3
Shani - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> The EU picked the three most contentious issues to begin the first round of negotiations.

> They know that the government can't pay them all of the money that they seem to want.

Yet Leave was premised on the EU bill. £350m a week.

> They know that the government can't agree to the ECJ having jurisdiction over EU migrants in the UK.

> And for what other reason than wanting to drag out negotiations did they choose the Irish border to discuss?

Your ignorance on this matter is astonishing. It's one of the most sensitive borders in the World. Policing it is fraught. It's not the EU's job to solve a problem WE have created.

> None of these are going to lead to 'sufficient progress ' except maybe the Irish border.

> So no progress equals no trade talks.

> A cunning plan and one the UK should have seen coming.

It's as if we had no plan from the outset....

> Time to plan for the hard Brexit which was probably the only real choice in the first place.

Great work. Its all the EU's fault. Brilliant. Not sure which rational politicians were ever in to hard Brexit.
4
Postmanpat on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> well, yes; and they've rejected our analysis and said that our proposed amount is insufficient. just telling them that they are wrong (in our opinion) isn't proving a particularly effective strategy. and the ball is in our court; we're leaving them. its up to us to make a better offer.

>
We have indicated why we disagree with their analysis and roughly where we are. We haven't walked away. We await their counter-offer and justification for it.

> NI- so we haven't made any serious proposals then. once more, we can say that the world should be different from what it actually is, but its not, and the longer we pretend to ourselves that if we hold out a bit longer they'll cave in, the less time we'll have to sort out a deal when we finally do.
>
Which is why we have to prepare for Plan B.

Incidentally, I'm not pretending our negotiators are doing everything right. Far from it. But I don't see the EU trying to get a sensible deal. I see them thinking that any sign of compromise is a sign of weakness and will undermine the EU itself. ie.cutting off their nose to spite their face.

baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Politically no government can agree to what the EU wants.
That's the point of the EU position, no agreement and no trade deal.
We can concede every point but there'll just be another set of hurdles to overcome.
We're wasting valuable time in pointless negotiations while the EU knows we're leaving and is getting on with their business.
3
Timmd on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> Can they, the 27, make the UK leave?

> Or is the triggering of Article 50 it, the end, goodbye?

Technically, article 50 doesn't have to be followed through with once triggered. There's a clause in it allowing this to be the case.
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> We have indicated why we disagree with their analysis and roughly where we are. We haven't walked away. We await their counter-offer and justification for it.

we'll be waiting a while then. we're leaving them- its pretty clear they expect us to be making the offers and coming up with the proposals. fair enough, to my mind

> Which is why we have to prepare for Plan B.

> Incidentally, I'm not pretending our negotiators are doing everything right. Far from it. But I don't see the EU trying to get a sensible deal. I see them thinking that any sign of compromise is a sign of weakness and will undermine the EU itself. ie.cutting off their nose to spite their face.

well, you see that, but that doesn't make it what's happening- other perspectives are available. it looks to me that they have decided what a bad deal would be, in their terms, and that they have decided that no deal is preferable to a bad deal. now where have i heard that before?

2
Sir Chasm - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

It was always going to be someone else's fault if brexit didn't go according to (a non-existant) plan https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2016/08/top-10-reasons-brexit-isnt-working-according-br...
But it's great really, think of all the plus points.
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:
Why would we leave the EU just to pay them shed loads of money?
I'll back my practical experience of how sensitive the Irish border is against yours any day.
I didn't blame the EU for the present situation, their negotiating position suits their agenda perfectly.
We've tied ourselves in knots trying to figure out what they want when we should have been concerned with our needs. That's the UK's fault.
5
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:
> Politically no government can agree to what the EU wants.

of course it can. just saying something on here doesn't make it a truth about the world.... yes, it would be damaging, but this is largely because there has been absolutely no expectation management to this point. the public has been told repeatedly that we'll get everything we ask for and have to concede nothing- 'we'll have our cake and eat it'. turning round now and saying that thats not the case would be damaging; but since T May is toast anyway, she can do it, and then her successor can blame her and claim a fait accompli.

> That's the point of the EU position, no agreement and no trade deal.

> We can concede every point but there'll just be another set of hurdles to overcome.

you are making things up to justify your position. the EU27 position has been entirely consistent, no moving of goalposts. its just we've gone to a poker match with a hand with two 4s and are behaving like we've got a royal flush. if we connect with the reality of the relative power balance, and make a serious offer- not everything, but a lot more than now- then that puts the pressure on the 27. they are not a monolithic bloc, there are competing desires and pressures, lets make it hard for them to keep a line together. the sort of time-waster offer we've made so far is just gifting the initiative to them

> We're wasting valuable time in pointless negotiations while the EU knows we're leaving and is getting on with their business.

well, we certainly are wasting time at present, and will continue to do so until we start making credible offers. if we actually did that, then things would get very interesting.
Post edited at 23:28
3
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
You seem to have forgotten that 17 million voted to leave.
Any political party that ignores that will find itself out of power for a long time.
That's not me making things up.
The 27 , especially those who benefit most from the UK, will weaken when they realise how our leaving without a dealwill affect them not when we agree to whatever they want.

4
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:
> You seem to have forgotten that 17 million voted to leave.

> Any political party that ignores that will find itself out of power for a long time.

> That's not me making things up.

of course i haven't.

but there was nothing on the ballot paper about leaving and then refusing to honour our obligations.

of course, we are free to dispute these, or even walk away from commitments that our partners think we made, that's our choice. but its then their choice not to deal further with us. thats not them being unreasonably obstructive-

> The 27 , especially those who benefit most from the UK, will weaken when they realise how our leaving without a dealwill affect them not when we agree to whatever they want.

once again you are misjudging

a/ the relative power balance between the two sides- a hard brexit hurt the EU, but not as much as it will hurt us

b/ the political will on the EU side to make sure that those leaving the club don't get the same benefits as members of the club.

of course, you can complain that that's not fair, and that their 'cutting off their noses to spite their faces', as pat did. but that's seen from our perspective, the weights and importances they have set on different parts of the equation are different and unsurprisingly they will come up with different priorities. they are allowed to do that; and we can't say they didn't tell us, theyve been holding that position from day 1.

edit- and what is it with the straw men- "when we agree with everything they want"- i've explicitly said that that should not be our position, so its an irrelevant line of argument to run. we should not give them everything they want- but we should make a serious offer, close enough to it to drive a wedge into any fault lines that may exist there. at present, the only wedges we are driving are into our own foot.
Post edited at 23:26
3
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I think the EU is far more concerned with holding the union together than with the effects of Brexit on either the UK or itself.
This is an understandable position for them to take.
Each of the 27 countries will have to calculate the effects in their countries and decide whether to tie the party line or break ranks.
Meanwhile the UK needs to pay what it owes - I'm sure we can work that out ours - and move on.
As in concentrate on a no deal plan.
By all means go through the motions of pretending to negotiate with the EU but prepare for WTO.
We've moved on from the blame game and need to look towards making Brexit work.
Usually you'd want your major trading partners to share this vision but they've got one of their own to pursue.
1
baron - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
'Everything they want' accurately describes the EU position.
They, understandably, have stated that their four freedoms are non negotiable and so they can't back down, nor should they.
Unfortunately some of these freedoms are not compatible with the idea of leaving the EU.
So we should in theory have a stand off where negotiations lead to a compromise and both sides get some of what they want.
This isn't what happens when one side doesn't want a compromise.
Again it's not a blame game, just where events have led us.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

You’re still blaming other people for not seeing the world the same way that you do. Yes, they have calculated that a hard brexit is not the worst case scenario; that would be giving us our cake and letting us eat it. They will be prepared to take a financial hit to avoid the worse option, but would still prefer a deal that allows both sides to salvage something.

Given that they’ve been saying pretty much that from the start, and that we are the ones sitting on the ticking clock, it is inexplicable that our negotiation strategy appears to be ignoring it.

But then our negotiation strategy seems to have taken the same philosophy as yours- ‘tell them what they’re getting and that’s that.’ That’s not really how negotiating works....

Yes, we do need to prepare for WTO; but it needn’t have been so, had our negotiators not been more concerned with looking bad on the front page of the newspapers than on making the sort of offer that would have really tested EU unity.

And as for the blame game- it hasn’t even started; and if WTO is half as bad as most predictions suggest, it’s going to get very nasty indeed.
4
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I can't see where you think I'm blaming the EU for the present position.
They've taken an understandable stance and are sticking to it.
The UK, as I've said previously, has allowed itself to be caught in a difficult position which it should have been able to avoid. That's me blaming the UK.
But the fact remains that the EU wants what no UK government can realistically deliver.
That's not me blaming the EU.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

That’s not what I said though- you’re broadening it out, we were just talking about the preconditions. Two should be perfectly straightforward, though not politically for a Tory party that has told people that they won’t budge an inch: make a serious offer, below the 60bn but close enough to peel off the waverers; and set up a new court, with input from uk and eu judges to deal with citizens rights.

As to the other stuff- there are off the shelf models (Norway etc) we could use, or negotiate a bespoke deal- the only thing the eu will insist is that it needs to be a bit worse than what we’ve got at present. A clever strategy would be to aim for something that is just worse enough to satisfy the need to say, look they’re worse off, but close enough to the current position to disrupt trade as little as possible

All this would be possible if only the tories dropped their delusional cake and eat it nonsense.
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> I can't see where you think I'm blaming the EU for the present position.

> They've taken an understandable stance and are sticking to it.

> The UK, as I've said previously, has allowed itself to be caught in a difficult position which it should have been able to avoid. That's me blaming the UK.

> But the fact remains that the EU wants what no UK government can realistically deliver.

> That's not me blaming the EU.

Ok, I see what you’re saying

But it’s only undeliverable because of the approach uk politicians have taken in talking about it to us. There is a tolerable deal can be done, see my post above

And I don’t think it *is* undeliverable- may is in the perfect position to do it now, unless she actually believes that nonsense about going on to the next election. She is not going to be brought down by her party, because the risk of a Corbyn win in the subsequent election is too high. If she’s going after brexit anyway, then she can take the flack for delivering a good one. It’s her only chance of history redeeming her otherwise catastrophic premiership.
1
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Jeez you type quickly!
What you describe isn't really leaving the EU.
It's the worst nightmare for leavers.
The negotiations are going nowhere and that suits the EU. Not to be confused with individual countries who have their own agendas.
While the conservative government is overseeing this fiasco there's little hope a Labour government would be able to do anything different.
I still maintain that the EU has played a blinder and completely outfoxed the UK by setting the agenda for negotiations and getting the UK to agree to said agenda.
How that plays out for the individual countries concerned we shall see.
2
jkarran - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Incidentally, I'm not pretending our negotiators are doing everything right. Far from it. But I don't see the EU trying to get a sensible deal. I see them thinking that any sign of compromise is a sign of weakness and will undermine the EU itself. ie.cutting off their nose to spite their face.

It's not cutting off the nose to spite the face from a European perspective. It's protecting the more precious of the things they stand to lose, unity (or Britain's economic connection). Makes sense really without that connection they stand to gain much of our economic activity anyway in time.

If only people had warned of this before the vote.

When does bexit stop making me poorer?
jk
2
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> It's not cutting off the nose to spite the face from a European perspective. It's protecting the more precious of the things they stand to lose, unity (or Britain's economic connection). Makes sense really without that connection they stand to gain much of our economic activity anyway in time.

>
Do you believe that being prepared to negotiate a compromise is going to put EU unity at risk? There is a reasonable case to make that, on the contrary, it would be a sign of their underlying strength. They can, if they so wish, have their cake and eat much of it as well but they appear to have chosen not to.

1
jkarran - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:
> They know that the government can't pay them all of the money that they seem to want

Do they? I bet we do eventually. Expectations have been not only poorly managed but crimianlly inflamed by the leave campaigns lies but when faced with the choice of pissing off the fraction of the 51% who still believe the lies and having their names forever associated with the ruin of a once great nation you're going to be the one who gets let down.

> They know that the government can't agree to the ECJ having jurisdiction over EU migrants in the UK.

Do they? I bet we do eventually.

> And for what other reason than wanting to drag out negotiations did they choose the Irish border to discuss?

Because Ireland as a member of the EU stands to suffer terribly for our choice. Would you seriously prefer and expect the EU favoured the leaving party over the one remaining? Also because our decision if poorly handled could reignite a civil war on the EU's border.

> None of these are going to lead to 'sufficient progress ' except maybe the Irish border.

And how's that going to be resolved, the technology solution is bollocks and basically constitutes a transfer of responsibility (with associated bureaucratic burden and potential for abuse) from customs and excise and the border force to individuals and businesses. Chances are as things stand that NI ends up with a fence around it again if we leave the EU then the people of the island of Ireland have a stark choice to make too early in their ongoing process.

> So no progress equals no trade talks.

Surprise surprise.

> A cunning plan and one the UK should have seen coming.

49% of them did like a huge day-glo wrecking ball.

> Time to plan for the hard Brexit which was probably the only real choice in the first place.

How do you plan for another 20 years of self inflicted stagnation and the erosion of vital services? Leaving with our skills and education for somewhere less backward seems the obvious choice for the young and mobile.
jk
Post edited at 09:12
2
neilh - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Good question JK. I keep asking Brexiteers the same point.
1
jkarran - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Do you believe that being prepared to negotiate a compromise is going to put EU unity at risk? There is a reasonable case to make that, on the contrary, it would be a sign of their underlying strength. They can, if they so wish, have their cake and eat much of it as well but they appear to have chosen not to.

I don't think your vision of compromise looks much like compromise in Brussels. We'll see how this plays out of course but I don't think you'll be getting any cake.

The infuriating thing is you're blaming them for making a perfectly logical and foreseeable choice, not yourself for voting to allow them to at our expense.
jk
3
Shani - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> I'll back my practical experience of how sensitive the Irish border is against yours any day.

Which makes me wonder why you'd think that the EU would do anything other than make it both a priority and Britain's responsibility to sort out.
2
jkarran - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> So we should in theory have a stand off where negotiations lead to a compromise and both sides get some of what they want.
> This isn't what happens when one side doesn't want a compromise.

When one side doesn't have to compromise.

> Again it's not a blame game, just where events have led us.

Oh yes it is and it isn't the EU I blame for the hardship we have coming.
jk
2
Postmanpat on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> I don't think your vision of compromise looks much like compromise in Brussels. We'll see how this plays out of course but I don't think you'll be getting any cake.

> The infuriating thing is you're blaming them for making a perfectly logical and foreseeable choice, not yourself for voting to allow them to at our expense.
>
It's not a logical choice. The logical choice is for them to search co-operatively for a deal that protects their unity (as a priority) but also does as little harm as possible to their economy.
If they real feel that their unity and raison d'etre is so fragile that any sign of compromise is a sign of weakness and puts it at risk then clearly they have a problem.

1
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

There's no deal good enough to suit the EU except that the UK goes begging to be let back in and is given a worse deal than we had before.
The EU remains intact and a message is sent to any other country thinking of leaving the union.
Brexit isn't on the agenda for many of the 27 remaining countries.
They know that we're leaving and they're moving on.
That's what we need to do and not spend any more time faffing about with a set of negotiations designed to go nowhere.
The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making, you'll have noted that it (the border) existed and functioned before 1973.
Good luck finding a job in many parts of the EU, especially if your young.
5
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

There was a border between Ireland and the UK before 1973.
While always a matter of some dispute it functioned perfectly fine.
Any future issue will be at the door of the EU who seem to be insisting on a hard border to protect the EU from whatever.
2
jkarran - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It's not a logical choice. The logical choice is for them to search co-operatively for a deal that protects their unity (as a priority) but also does as little harm as possible to their economy.

Which is what they're doing but failing to recognise or acknowledge the power and need imbalance across the negotiating table then getting petulant about being in the weaker position achieves little except transparently attempting to shift the blame off those of you who put us in this position onto those who didn't.

> If they real feel that their unity and raison d'etre is so fragile that any sign of compromise is a sign of weakness and puts it at risk then clearly they have a problem.

The problem that if by leaving we get or are seen to get a better deal the union will inevitably crumble with dire consequences? No way, really!
jk
2
Ridge - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> As to the other stuff- there are off the shelf models (Norway etc) we could use, or negotiate a bespoke deal- the only thing the eu will insist is that it needs to be a bit worse than what we’ve got at present. A clever strategy would be to aim for something that is just worse enough to satisfy the need to say, look they’re worse off, but close enough to the current position to disrupt trade as little as possible.

I'd like to hope that is the case, but I'm not seeing a hint of that from the EU side. It seems very much a case of "Here are our terms, there will be no negotiations, you either accept them or crash out."

I'd like to believe both sides are working towards the deal you describe, but as you say:

> All this would be possible if only the tories dropped their delusional cake and eat it nonsense.

The EU might also have to show a degree of flexibility too.
jkarran - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> There's no deal good enough to suit the EU except that the UK goes begging to be let back in and is given a worse deal than we had before.

So given you acknowledge that I'll ask the question, why did you vote to put us in that lose lose position?

> The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making, you'll have noted that it (the border) existed and functioned before 1973.

But the situation is now significantly more complex and time being what it is we can't go back to 1973. You were told this before you voted.

> Good luck finding a job in many parts of the EU, especially if your young.

Thanks. I don't much fancy my chances here in 18 months time either.
jk
3
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Because it's only a lose position if we seek to rejoin the EU.
The EU made it's position on the teatment of the UK very clear when it declared that if the UK wanted to remain in the EU it would lose its rebate and any other opt outs that we had.
In doing so many people who might have been having second thoughts about leaving probably thought ' sod you, we're off!'
The Irish border is not a major problem, no more than in times past, but one which the politicians are making a big deal out of for their own reasons.
It's not included in the initial negotiations because it's important but because it will delay the talks, exactly what the EU wants.
5
Shani - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making, you'll have noted that it (the border) existed and functioned before 1973.

The irony of Tory accusations that it is JC that wants to take us back to the1970s! It is the Brexiteers that wish this I see! ;)

> Any future issue will be at the door of the EU who seem to be insisting on a hard border to protect the EU from whatever.

Actually it is the Leave campaign which placed border control at the heart of the Brexit debate.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
Post edited at 09:55
2
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

You know full well that we leavers want the UK to return to the 1950's!

GrahamD - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:
The EU doesn't want to 'delay talks'. The remaining members of the EU simply prioritise Brexit far lower down their 'to do list' than we do. If I were French or German I'd see this as entirely sensible behaviour.
2
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

Agreed.
We should adopt the same approach.
1
Bob Hughes - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> The Irish border is a problem of the EU's making, you'll have noted that it (the border) existed and functioned before 1973.

This completely misses the point. Ireland and the UK joined the EU at the same time so there has never been a time when the rep Ireland / Northern Ireland border was also an EU border. That is what is creating the problem - the Irish common travel area and free movement of goods will straddle an EU border.

Since this raises a question on the integrity of an EU border, it is entirely normal that the EU would want to resolve it first. On the other hand, it will be very difficult, if not impossible to resolve wihtout knowing the future relationship.

1
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to GrahamD:
> The EU doesn't want to 'delay talks'. The remaining members of the EU simply prioritise Brexit far lower down their 'to do list' than we do. If I were French or German I'd see this as entirely sensible behaviour.

You know they are deliberately kicking the can down the road, when the eu holds talks, to decide when the talks will be.

All these slow half hearted eu gestures won't help it deal with problems that could cause it's demise. Finance, refugees, various problems in the piggs or eastern bloc nations aren't going to fix themselves if you ignore them.
Post edited at 10:14
1
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

And that is my point.
How can you resolve a border issue when you don't know the future trading arrangements?
You can't.
So, no 'sufficient progress' and no moving on to trade talks.
The EU plan in all its glory and we walked right into it.
(The EU is well capable of accepting a deal on the border even if it's a typical EU fudge.)
2
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:


> Since this raises a question on the integrity of an EU border, it is entirely normal that the EU would want to resolve it first. On the other hand, it will be very difficult, if not impossible to resolve wihtout knowing the future relationship.

Could the eu really suggest that the UK/ Ireland border would be weaker and more mismanaged than southern and eastern Europe already is?

2
MG - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:


> So, no 'sufficient progress' and no moving on to trade talks.

> The EU plan in all its glory and we walked right into it.

No. *You* and all the other brexit voters walked right into it, after willfully, sneeringly ignoring all the warnings raised by those trying desperately to avoid catastrophe. Now that reality is hitting, rather than acknowledging the complete f*ck-up you have cause, you try and run away and blame absolutely everyone but yourselves.
6
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

I was refering to the brexit negotiations when I said 'walked right into it' and not brexit itself.
Your allegations of 'running away and blaming everybody else' would seem to be aimed at the wrong person.
jkarran - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> Because it's only a lose position if we seek to rejoin the EU.

Which is the lesser loss. You're ignoring the other lose position, the one you appear to be advocating without acknowledging the truly terrible consequences for the UK, the so called 'no deal hard brexit'.

> The EU made it's position on the teatment of the UK very clear when it declared that if the UK wanted to remain in the EU it would lose its rebate and any other opt outs that we had.

This much was obvious to anyone who's head wasn't filled with 350M sovereignty unicorns before it was ever publicly expressed. We don't get to have a little go at this, fail and go back to how things were or as some naively imagined be welcomed back with open arms on new 'better' terms. Your vote has already done significant harm but we have a choice still as to how much more it will do.

> In doing so many people who might have been having second thoughts about leaving probably thought ' sod you, we're off!'

To what? You can't eat petulance.

> The Irish border is not a major problem, no more than in times past, but one which the politicians are making a big deal out of for their own reasons.

Sorry to be blunt but if you believe that you simply haven't understood the issues.
jk
3
Bob Hughes - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Could the eu really suggest that the UK/ Ireland border would be weaker and more mismanaged than southern and eastern Europe already is?

That's beside the point. They're hardly going to open up a gift to smugglers of people and things just because, well, it can't be as bad as Greece.

And the question isn't one of mismanagement - it is a question of creating a structure (legally and in terms of infrastructure) where it is even possible to manage it well. If there are no border checks, then no amount of good management will be able to control migration and smuggling.
2
Bob Hughes - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> And that is my point.

It looked like you were making a different point.

> How can you resolve a border issue when you don't know the future trading arrangements?

> You can't.

We had our chance to argue it but conceded the point on day 2.

> So, no 'sufficient progress' and no moving on to trade talks.
> The EU plan in all its glory and we walked right into it.

I think it is all theatre. They created a deadline of the October summit precisely so they could miss it. I think that something will start moving befoore the end of the year even if it is informal talks. This will allow Michel Barnier to go back to the EU 27 having shown that he applied sufficient pressure on the UK and that whatver deal is on the table is the best deal available.

> (The EU is well capable of accepting a deal on the border even if it's a typical EU fudge.)

Unfortunately i don't think this is an area that will fudge very well. Budget issues can always be fudged by playing with payment scheduyles, reclassifying funds etc. But whatever is agreed on the Irish border will have real-world implications that lie on a continuum from full-scale border checkpoints at one extreme and letting in smugglers and immigrants at the other.

2
Timmd on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
> Could the eu really suggest that the UK/ Ireland border would be weaker and more mismanaged than southern and eastern Europe already is?

I know you're not a fan of the EU, but there's being mismanaged by design, and mismanaged due to crapness. I'm thinking that nobody would set out to similarly mismanage something like the Irish border, given the social and political implications.

Looking at southern and eastern Europe, and then seeing any lack of progress in Brexit negotiations because of the Irish border as some kind of double standard or hypocrisy, risks being less than clear sighted perhaps.
Post edited at 12:04
2
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Timmd:

Or distraction techniques by the eu? Oh look at the 'potential' Irish border problem... Meanwhile half the eastern block nations are building massive razor wire fences, watch towers, soldiers patrolling.... or the bribe to Turkey that went well didn't it?

The only comparable border I know of is Sweden/ Norway. It's pretty much problem free for freight, totally hassle free for people travelling. But it was only implemented once their trade agreement was done, not the opposite way around.
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Smuggling? Smuggling into the eu via Ireland, from the UK? How, what, why?
Timmd on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
> Or distraction techniques by the eu? Oh look at the 'potential' Irish border problem... Meanwhile half the eastern block nations are building massive razor wire fences, watch towers, soldiers patrolling....

I get that you don't like the EU, and 'would say that' - perhaps, but surely you can see how something like that risks undermining the current openness in Ireland?

> or the bribe to Turkey that went well didn't it?

I'm not sure how closely Ireland and Turkey can be compared?

> The only comparable border I know of is Sweden/ Norway. It's pretty much problem free for freight, totally hassle free for people travelling. But it was only implemented once their trade agreement was done, not the opposite way around.

I see.

Edit: How is it comparable?
Post edited at 12:25
1
Sir Chasm - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Or distraction techniques by the eu? Oh look at the 'potential' Irish border problem... Meanwhile half the eastern block nations are building massive razor wire fences, watch towers, soldiers patrolling.... or the bribe to Turkey that went well didn't it?

And how does that rant help our negotiating position?

> The only comparable border I know of is Sweden/ Norway. It's pretty much problem free for freight, totally hassle free for people travelling. But it was only implemented once their trade agreement was done, not the opposite way around.

It's not comparable, Norway and Sweden are both in the Schengen area and the UK and Ireland are not.
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> The only comparable border I know of is Sweden/ Norway. It's pretty much problem free for freight, totally hassle free for people travelling. But it was only implemented once their trade agreement was done, not the opposite way around.

there are border controls between norway and sweden, with goods subject to scrutiny. the lorry drivers were complaining about how long it took, even on the lightly used rural route the report was filed from, and the border officials interviewed were skeptical that what they were doing was scale-able to the volumes of traffic that the NI/Eire border would handle; they certainly said that given lead-in times to implementation, the work to put it in place should have already started some time ago to have any chance of being ready in time.

2
Timmd on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It's quite depressing, how the Brexit people on here can seem to (often) post things which aren't factually true when they're being critical of the EU.
Post edited at 12:29
3
Ridge - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Smuggling? Smuggling into the eu via Ireland, from the UK? How, what, why?

Hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding into the EU via the UK/Irish border apparently.
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> It's not comparable, Norway and Sweden are both in the Schengen area and the UK and Ireland are not.

Exactly. They are both secure countries. So they already have a relatively controlled border compared to mainland Europe so why the concern?
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> there are border controls between norway and sweden, with goods subject to scrutiny. the lorry drivers were complaining about how long it took, even on the lightly used rural route the report was filed from, and the border officials interviewed were skeptical that what they were doing was scale-able to the volumes of traffic that the NI/Eire border would handle; they certainly said that given lead-in times to implementation, the work to put it in place should have already started some time ago to have any chance of being ready in time.

Delays are actually minimal, trucks spend more time waiting at Dover or for the tunnel, than they do at the agreed Norwegian freight crossings. Freight is only allowed to cross at certain places.
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Ridge:

> Hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding into the EU via the UK/Irish border apparently.

Given that neither are or were in the schengen, it's a fictious problem?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

so i can choose to believe:

the norwegian lorry driver who was being interviewed while actually in the process of crossing the norwegian/swedish border

or summo....

its not really relevant though; the point is that there is no border control now, and the parties in Eire + NI regard a solution where they return as unacceptable. Even taking your opinion on the Norway/Sweden border at face value, there is a border in place, marked by border controls, with staff enforcing them.

Someone is going to be disappointed, and the history of people being disappointed in Ulster is not great.
2
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> the norwegian lorry driver who was being interviewed while actually in the process of crossing the norwegian/swedish border

I've seen the same programme.

> its not really relevant though; the point is that there is no border control now, and the parties in Eire + NI regard a solution where they return as unacceptable. Even taking your opinion on the Norway/Sweden border at face value, there is a border in place, marked by border controls, with staff enforcing them.

I cross the Norwegian border many times a year. For people it's as noticeable as driving from England to Scotland.

jkarran - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
> Or distraction techniques by the eu? Oh look at the 'potential' Irish border problem...

Bollocks.

> The only comparable border I know of is Sweden/ Norway. It's pretty much problem free for freight, totally hassle free for people travelling. But it was only implemented once their trade agreement was done, not the opposite way around.

You mean it was only changed once the deal was done, changed from an EU border to a slightly different EU border, not from what is essentially no-border to an EU border?
jk
Post edited at 13:09
2
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
well, you'll be aware of the concerns that the people interviewed raised then- that the process was not that bad as border crossings around the world go, but that delays could form, and that was on a relatively quiet border. you'll also be aware of the official's view that we were going to have to go some to get the infrastructure in place to copy what they do, and his doubts over whether it would cope with the much higher volumes of freight that would be involved

interesting your point about non-freight; but i still find it hard to see how that can be squared with 'controlling our borders'. if you are an EU27 national who can't get in at dover because of the controls in place there, you just hop on a plane to dublin, take a bus to belfast, then jump on the ferry to cairnryan. you're then on mainland UK, and haven't had to pass through any immigration checks.

add to the likelihood of there being tariffed goods to cross the border- i presume even for personal consumption if we are outside the customs union with no deal?- and i'm not sure how that is managed if you can just drive across without any review.

perhaps there is a way; but give that we're 6 months in and no one has come up with it yet, then i'm guessing its not going to be that easy to find it.
Post edited at 13:13
1
Sir Chasm - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Exactly. They are both secure countries. So they already have a relatively controlled border compared to mainland Europe so why the concern?

Exactly what? Schengen didn't exist when Norway entered a trade agreement with the EU.
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm sure a sound plan for the border could be developed, if the trade and movement agreements were negotiated in parallel. They are so interlinked it's impossible to develop them separately.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

well, the EU27 aren't; and we accepted that...

so no point crying over spilled milk, we agreed to the rules so if we want to win the game we'll just have to get on and play by them.
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Norway during decide what kind of border it wanted, then went to the eu to find a trade deal. The border arrangement came after they know the trade agreement.

How can any country plan how it will control it's border, without first knowing the details of freight and the people crossing it?
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> well, the EU27 aren't; and we accepted that...

> so no point crying over spilled milk, we agreed to the rules so if we want to win the game we'll just have to get on and play by them.

I think the UK has got itself in a position now, where it's better to call their bluff and prepare to walk away. The eu needs the uk's money on departure; more than an Irish border deal. The Irish border will suddenly become less important to it.
3
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Exactly what? Schengen didn't exist when Norway entered a trade agreement with the EU.

Exactly. The border set up, was designed around the trade agreement.
baron - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

Give it up mate.
Every time you come up with an idea they'll find something negative to throw back at you.
There's no constructive debate to be had here.
A bit like the brexit negotiations.
8
Sir Chasm - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Exactly. The border set up, was designed around the trade agreement.

Exactly. All they had to do was agree to the free movement of goods, capital, services and people. Hang on a minute, I've got an idea!
Bob Hughes - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Smuggling? Smuggling into the eu via Ireland, from the UK? How, what, why?

Exactly. Imagine import tariffs for T-shirts from China to the EU are 15% but to the UK are 0%. There is good business to be had importing T-shirts to Northern Ireland hopping them across the border and selling them at a 10% mark-up.
neilh - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

Not sure the Irish agree!
Malarkey on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

I don't know about constructive. But Norway border is only relevant if we choose to be in the single market like Norway and have free movement of people and goods.

Otherwise we have an Irish border. Thats your cake. Eat it.
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:
> Exactly. Imagine import tariffs for T-shirts from China to the EU are 15% but to the UK are 0%. There is good business to be had importing T-shirts to Northern Ireland hopping them across the border and selling them at a 10% mark-up.

There are significant price differences between many goods across the no/se border. It still works.

A quite a bit of tech in place on the freight crossings, xraying and the like. Even the unmanned snowy back roads through the hills have cameras(able, video etc) on them back to control room. The average tourist is oblivious to them of course.

The border across the channel is hardly simple, smooth or elegant. I'm sure a fresh look at the whole approach could make an Irish/ UK border smoother by comparison.
Post edited at 13:50
Malarkey on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Exactly. Leavers keep talking about "taking back control"... but seem to think that the EU should agree to a non-border with a 3rd country. Effectively losing control of their borders.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> I think the UK has got itself in a position now, where it's better to call their bluff and prepare to walk away. The eu needs the uk's money on departure; more than an Irish border deal. The Irish border will suddenly become less important to it.

yes, you may be right, as to the first bit anyway. i think we've handled the process badly, and have had the wrong strategy from the outset. we should have accepted that we were going to have to make substantial contributions financially (note- this is not the same as saying we should give them 'everything they want'), and done so quickly and with minimal game playing. we'd have then brought a reservoir of goodwill to the second phase, and have had more time to work through it. but we didn't and we are where we are, so some sort of brinkmanship may be the only way in the end.

the only trouble with that is that whatever hurts them is going to hurt us more; and they know that; and the people in charge of the EU27 side really do seem to be prepared to put the principle of 'nothing that compromises the future intergrity of the union' ahead of financial considerations, so even the 'nuclear option' may have limited traction, and could just deepen animosity and further sour dealings in whatever relationship follows.

all of which was entirely forseeable, since its just what they've been telling us since the start.
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> Give it up mate.

> Every time you come up with an idea they'll find something negative to throw back at you.

> There's no constructive debate to be had here.

> A bit like the brexit negotiations.

so what is debate in baron land? where you say something, and everyone agrees with you?

as is often the case with people who complain about debates, perhaps your arguments are less convincing than you think they are....
1
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Malarkey:

> I don't know about constructive. But Norway border is only relevant if we choose to be in the single market like Norway and have free movement of people and goods.

Not quite.

Trade with Norway excludes all food and drink. Because it is subsidised in the EU (cap).

summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Malarkey:

> Exactly. Leavers keep talking about "taking back control"... but seem to think that the EU should agree to a non-border with a 3rd country. Effectively losing control of their borders.

Because other eu borders are amazingly secure. It's not as if a million people have travelled unhindered from war zones across europe, passing many borders and then announced their arrival in germany, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway.. .
3
Ramblin dave - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Not quite.

> Trade with Norway excludes all food and drink. Because it is subsidised in the EU (cap).

I'm good with that. I mean, given we were confidently assured by the leave campaign (who wouldn't lie to us, would they?) that our farmers would continue to be subsidised to the same degree that they were inside the EU you'd think we might as well have free trade in food and drink as well, but I'd be okay with free movement of all other goods, services and people and an open border with Ireland.

Do you want to sell that proposal to the Brexiteers or shall I?
1
summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I'm good with that. I mean, given we were confidently assured by the leave campaign (who wouldn't lie to us, would they?) that our farmers would continue to be subsidised to the same degree that they were inside the EU you'd think we might as well have free trade in food and drink as well, but I'd be okay with free movement of all other goods, services and people and an open border with Ireland.

My point was the open border with Norway, isn't strictly open. There are restrictions on some goods.

Norwegian farmers are subsidised by their own scheme, at taxpayers expense of course.

> Do you want to sell that proposal to the Brexiteers or shall I?

Why do you presume every Brexiteer would be against it?
Ramblin dave - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> My point was the open border with Norway, isn't strictly open.

Sure. And my point was that even that level of openness is based on conditions that the UK Government have loudly declared that they can't accept.

> Why do you presume every Brexiteer would be against it?

I don't. It's just that the ones who are seem to have their hands pretty firmly on the steering wheel at the moment.
2
Bob Hughes - on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> There are significant price differences between many goods across the no/se border. It still works.

> A quite a bit of tech in place on the freight crossings, xraying and the like. Even the unmanned snowy back roads through the hills have cameras(able, video etc) on them back to control room. The average tourist is oblivious to them of course.

The British government has said they don't want any checks or infrastrucutre on the border. Even with checkpoints on major roads there is plenty of smuggling across the NO-SE border.



summo on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> The British government has said they don't want any checks or infrastrucutre on the border. Even with checkpoints on major roads there is plenty of smuggling across the NO-SE border.

What the government says they don't want, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

There certainly is smuggling; butter, cheese, meat and booze, being favourites. But, they also catch a fair few too.
3
pasbury on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

news just in: BAE Systems to axe 100 jobs due to lack of orders for Eurofighter.

What, in spite of Fox & Fallon PLC; pimps to notorious regimes worldwide?
wercat on 09 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:

just wait till you see the new Brexitfighter
John Stainforth - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:
Do you mean the one that is going to outstrip competition and win new markets all around the globe; designed by amateurs rather than experts, and built with no foreign materials?
Post edited at 01:56
wercat on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to John Stainforth:
The project certainly suffers from the usual defence procurement problem of a lack of final specification, continual revision of goalposts and deliverables, lack of agreement on the final requirements and of course over ambition!


Apart from the probllem that the project team are working for their own party political ends of which no one, even the team, is entirely certain and certainly not in the national interest
Post edited at 08:37
Pete Pozman - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> I voted leave.

> It's the EU refusal to recognise 'significant progress' that is the problem for us and their trump card.

> The EU doesn't need to do anything but delay until time runs out.

> While this was to be expected of the EU it was the lack of strategy and the capitulation by the UK team that allowed this situation to happen.

> You are right that no matter what the UK tried to do the EU was never going to enter into reasonable negotiations, hence them plucking 3 things out of fresh air to begin the negotiations.

But what is the UK trying to do? I have no idea. Do you?
Pete Pozman - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:
If we want a smooth frictionless border with the Republic of Ireland we shouldn't need to invent robots to make it happen. Why don't we come to some sort of arrangement, sign a treaty or something; that would do it.
Ahh...
Post edited at 11:04
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:

> just wait till you see the new Brexitfighter


I have to admit it the new Brexitfighter does look good.

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/hawker-hurricane-fighter-plane-world-war-battle-britain-36049435.jpg
wercat on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

As you'd expect for an airframe from Hawkers!
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> There certainly is smuggling; butter, cheese, meat and booze, being favourites. But, they also catch a fair few too.

The difference in Ireland is if there's an opportunity for large scale smuggling across the Ireland/Northern Ireland border the paramilitaries and armed criminal gangs who used to be paramilitaries are going to get in on it. Also a fairly large section of the population see the border as illegitimate.

It is a bit optimistic to think you can put cameras on that border to stop smugglers and they wont just get smashed or that anything other than semi-fortified border crossings will be safe for customs staff. It isn't the same as Norway/Sweden.

BnB - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> But what is the UK trying to do? I have no idea. Do you?

Even to an inexperienced negotiator it's obvious, surely? They're trying to minimise the "divorce bill" by not immediately meeting the EU's exaggerated demands. Exaggerated because that's how a negotiation works. My daughter worked that out when she wanted a biscuit. "Please can I have 2 biscuits?"

It's taxpayers' money they're trying to save. Should they just hand it over because you disagree with their politics?

It's just a game of blink for goodness sakes.
3
jkarran - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to BnB:

> It's just a game of blink for goodness sakes.

Where only one party actually *needs* to blink before the ticking clock runs out.
jk
3
Malarkey on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to BnB:
>Even to an inexperienced negotiator it's obvious, surely? They're trying to minimise the "divorce bill" by not immediately meeting the EU's exaggerated demands. Exaggerated because that's how a negotiation works.

The only person May et al is negotiating with is the right-wing of the Tory party and editors of The Telegraph. She is just too weak to spell the truth out to them.

In actual fact she has as much as said she will pay up - now she cannot admit she is going to allow free movement and ECJ rulings during transition and there is no way we will be ready after two years for that to end.

No "creative solution" or magic technology union yet suggested will satisfy her allies the DUP and the EU over the Irish border. She cannot fess up to that either.

> It's just a game of blink for goodness sakes.

Blink is a game with even consequences on both sides. This is more like a rerun of the Greek crisis. Annoying for the EU, catastrophic for Britain.
Post edited at 14:48
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to BnB:

> It's just a game of blink for goodness sakes.

Playing blink is an absolutely reasonable strategy when you are dealing with a car dealer. Much less so when you are trying to stay on speaking terms with a soon to be ex-wife or get asked about your tax return by the Inland Revenue. David Davis et al haven't figured that out.

1
summo on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Playing blink is an absolutely reasonable strategy when you are dealing with a car dealer. Much less so when you are trying to stay on speaking terms with a soon to be ex-wife or get asked about your tax return by the Inland Revenue. David Davis et al haven't figured that out.

If DD just paid the EU' s first figure, you would also be calling him an inexperienced mug, for not trying to force their offer down as low as possible?

Even a concession of £0.1bn, is worth it in terms of what it can then be spent on in the UK.
summo on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to Malarkey:

> Blink is a game with even consequences on both sides. This is more like a rerun of the Greek crisis. Annoying for the EU, catastrophic for Britain.

Hardly, there was no blink for Greece, they had no choice. Economic collapse or more eu terms.

The UK, doesn't need to wait for the eu to blink, it can just walk away. It's the eu that is wanting the uk' s money. Obviously the UK wants something in return, that's the real blink topic.
1
summo on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The difference in Ireland is if there's an opportunity for large scale smuggling across the Ireland/Northern Ireland border the paramilitaries and armed criminal gangs who used to be paramilitaries are going to get in on it. Also a fairly large section of the population see the border as illegitimate.

That's why there will always be border, because both sides are Brexit as an opportunity to stir up trouble again. Plus the problems have never really gone away, just a temporary plaster. Schools are still generally divided, so the next generation will be too.

1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> If DD just paid the EU' s first figure, you would also be calling him an inexperienced mug, for not trying to force their offer down as low as possible?

He is an inexperienced mug - or more accurately a self serving populist moron - for getting into the situation in the first place.

As regards the negotiation, they should chuck it in completely or take us into the EEA.
2
oldie - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to MargieB:

> If it gets so bad with the current conservative approach I presume soon we could have" no confidence" in the present situation. Does that trigger a general election? Will this be the way a democracy deals with such a crisis? or rather isn't that the advantage of a democracy in the way it can respond to a crisis of this magnitude? So another referendum in effect occurs by virtue of a no confidence position- another democratic mechanism but effectively another referendum reflecting a response to events? I s this how it could work? <

Since both main parties are absolutely committed to Brexit (without another referendum) a general election would probably not alter anything except possibly the terms of exit, regardless of the opinions of either the population as a whole or majority of MPs.
Since a general election would not be about leaving the EU (or not) the only "fair" test of public opinion on this single topic would be a second referendum which would be in neither manifesto.
The likelihood of an election resulting in a majority of MPs which could be taken as a vote for a 2nd ref. (basically SNP, Lib Dems, Northern Ireland) is of course remote!

bouldery bits - on 10 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

I'm a little concerned about cornettos. Where will we get them?
summo on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I'm a little concerned about cornettos. Where will we get them?

How many do you want?
wercat on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

or Terry's Chocolate Orange or HP Sauce?
Tony Jones - on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to oldie:
Given that there now seems to be a general acceptance from both sides that a post-Brexit Britain will be an economically poorer place, it would be interesting to see if that realisation would have changed the way anyone here voted (or if they would vote differently if there was another referendum).

My suspicion is that it probably wouldn't make much difference as I don't remember many people arguing for Brexit because of all the economic benefits it would bring (aside from the £350m for the NHS of course). It was all about 'taking back control' as I recall.

The world is in a bit of a mess right now: I'm not sure how a rudderless United Kingdom crashing aimlessly into icebergs is helping that situation.
Post edited at 09:51
1
oldie - on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

> Given that there now seems to be a general acceptance from both sides that a post-Brexit Britain will be an economically poorer place, it would be interesting to see if that realisation would have changed the way anyone here voted (or if they would vote differently if there was another referendum). <
> My suspicion is that it probably wouldn't make much difference as I don't remember many people arguing for Brexit because of all the economic benefits it would bring (aside from the £350m for the NHS of course). It was all about 'taking back control' as I recall. <

FWIW just looked up recent You Gov poll: "...though the country is split down the middle over whether leaving the EU was the right or wrong decision, there is still a majority who think Brexit should happen. Overall, 70% think that the government should go ahead with Brexit,..."
My personal view is still that there should be a second referendum at some stage which would probably get more Remainers to be accepting of the result if the majority were again for Brexit. At present many are going along with "the will of the majority" but if this has changed (due to increasing clarity about the outcomes of Brexit, good or bad) then government policy should change accordingly as the future effects may well be immense. But of course another referendum is still highly improbable as both main parties are united in their opposition to it.
Tony Jones - on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to oldie:
> At present many are going along with "the will of the majority"

Including almost all politicians.

Apparently, in their eyes, it absolves them of taking any responsibility for the ensuing mess.

Has there ever been an example of a government -- and its opposition, let's not forget -- using such an excuse in the past?

When one also considers how small that 'majority' was, it's a pretty poor demonstration of government and leadership.

Edit: For punctuation.
Post edited at 11:56
Lusk - on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

> When one also considers how small that 'majority' was, ...

Just for comparison, do you remember the Welsh devolution referendum, 1997, (I don't!)?
Now, THAT was a small majority ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_devolution_referendum,_1997
I've no idea if there was mass uproar at the time.

Tony Jones - on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to Lusk:

In terms of government response, I suspect the main difference between the narrow yes majority in the Welsh devolution referendum and the current situation was that it was expected and, as a result, there was a plan in place to enact it.
oldie - on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

While I may not like the result I do think that the government has to pursue Brexit, but I don't see the logic in not having a second referendum to confirm that this is still the wish of the majority, especially as the vote was so close and the effects will be so important to future generations.
Of course democracy and logic isn't the main factor. A fear of the political consequences in both main parties appears to outweigh social and economic considerations.
jonfun21 on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to oldie:
Totally agree on a 2nd vote where it is clear on what leave would actually mean (i.e. symmetry of clarity for both options rather than the first vote where 'leave' was not defined and 'remain' was)

Bet this won't happen as the majority of the Murdoch media and the more radical leavers don't want a situation where people are able to make an informed choice.

Oh and change the electorate to include 16 and 17 year olds along with EU nationals who live in the UK (i.e. people who will be impacted by the decision) and exclude those who do not live in the UK.
Post edited at 17:19
2
bouldery bits - on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> How many do you want?

Atleast 5 summer's worth.
summo on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Atleast 5 summer's worth.

Greedy... most get by with just one cornetto....
bouldery bits - on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Greedy... most get by with just one cornetto....

You set me up perfectly. I cannot believe I missed that.

pec on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to jonfun21:

> Totally agree on a 2nd vote where it is clear on what leave would actually mean >

Why do you imagine that just because we know what the terms of our departure will be that will be be any wiser as to what that will actually mean for the UK's future? All we can do is refine the economic modelling on the basis of the deal but economic models are invariably wrong, even when we are operating in familiar circumstances. Brexit is without precedent which makes the modelling guesswork.
Furthermore, we don't really know what remaining will mean. Who thought the EEC would morph into the EU we know today when we voted to stay in 1975 and we knew exactly what the terms of membership were at the time.

> Oh and change the electorate to include 16 and 17 year olds along with EU nationals who live in the UK (i.e. people who will be impacted by the decision) and exclude those who do not live in the UK. >

You mean gerrymander the electorate to get the result you want?

6
oldie - on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:

> Why do you imagine that just because we know what the terms of our departure will be that will be be any wiser as to what that will actually mean for the UK's future? ... <
> Furthermore, we don't really know what remaining will mean... <

But we do surely know MORE now (both because the original exaggerations from both sides are more apparent and because, as you point out, some things have changed since the referendum). Is it right to be frightened that this might not still be what the majority want? Conversely more remainers would accept it as a fait accompli if there was a second reinforcing majority for Brexit.

> You mean gerrymander the electorate to get the result you want? <

Personally unsure about this, though the young are will live with the result for longer.... presumably partly why younger voters were included in the Scottish referendum.



pec on 11 Oct 2017
In reply to oldie:

> But we do surely know MORE now . . . . . . . if there was a second reinforcing majority for Brexit. >

We may know more about the deal but that doesn't mean we will be any more able to predict the future in 5, 10 or 15 years time let alone 40 or more and we certainly won't know more about the future direction of the EU so remaining is as uncertain as leaving in the medium to long term.
Holding a second referendum to "make sure we really meant it" is without precedent, in the UK at least. The EU does of course have form for this which is one of the many reasons why people are so cynical about it and voted to leave in the first place.
Of course if you want to see a resurgent UKIP and the return of Farage then keep pushing for a second referendum ;-)


> Personally unsure about this, though the young are will live with the result for longer.... presumably partly why younger voters were included in the Scottish referendum. >

16-17 year olds will indeed live with the result longest (on average) but they are also (on average) the least well informed and least experienced. Three year olds will live with the decision longer still but we aren't asking them to vote. There has to be a cut off point somewhere, in every other UK election it's 18, in most countries in the world it's also 18. The Scottish referendum was the anomaly in allowing 16-17 year olds to vote which was gerrymandering on the part of the SNP to try and get the result they wanted. It should never have been allowed.

1
summo on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> You set me up perfectly. I cannot believe I missed that.

Brain malfunctioning due to lack of ice cream?
Postmanpat on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Brain malfunctioning due to lack of ice cream?

Vanilla, or chocolate dream?
jonfun21 on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:

"You mean gerrymander the electorate to get the result you want?"

Nope, I mean asking all and only the people who actually live in the UK what they want....as opposed to a subset* of them and others who don't.

* acknowledging the exclusion of under 16's on the basis of not being able to form a considered opinion, though is a tricky area as plenty of 14/15 year olds who are probably more capable of this than some >16.

jonfun21 on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:

So if the deal struck is all EU citizens living in the UK have to leave within 90 days and there will be a 30% tax on all UK exports we should just go with it?

This 2nd vote should always have been a feature of the process, what is unpresidented is how the ability to define what leave means sits with just a handful of people with no ability for the electorate to confirm this is what they actually wanted ever.
pec on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to jonfun21:

> So if the deal struck is all EU citizens living in the UK have to leave within 90 days and there will be a 30% tax on all UK exports we should just go with it? >

I live in the real world and will consider realistic scenarios. That is clearly not going to happen, even if people actually wanted it to happen it wouldn't, it can take us years to get rid of one convicted terrorist and WTO rules preclude such a tariff arrangement.
No constitutional change in the UK has ever required a second referendum, only in the EU where a country gave the wrong answer the first time.



6
Robert Durran - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:

> No constitutional change in the UK has ever required a second referendum, only in the EU where a country gave the wrong answer the first time.

Well we're in the EU and we certainly gave the wrong answer the first time, so that sounds like an excellent precedent.

1
Pete Pozman - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> It's pretty hard to tell them when they won't let us past the first stage.

What is it we want to tell them?
I don't get why Leavers are so uninterested in this. I'm completely baffled. Its seems the conflict in the cabinet is based on two positions: some of them want the status quo, without the immigration bit, whilst the libertarian Ayn Rand types, want a bracing step into the open sea where "the market" will sort everything out eventually.
The EU just sit and wait for us to say what we want. And we , the people, do the same, completely in the dark. Keep calm and carry on won't do. I feel like a Tommy walking across no man's land in the fog just because someone blew a whistle. If I ask where we're going or why, the Leavers call me a traitor.
What the hell has happened to this country?
1
Tony Jones - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

That sums things up very nicely.

I do wonder, when all I hear about is this bloody 'will of the people', why it is so important that we don't ask them whether their will might have changed in light of recent developments.
wercat on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:
the Stobart manager was considerably older than 18 on the day he asked the coin and the coin said leave!


The average 16-18 year old would certainly be better able and more justified in having a vote than such a dolt, unless they are being taught by dolts
Post edited at 10:32
1
wercat on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:


> What the hell has happened to this country?

We're going to have Control, Halt, Delay ....
Doug on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to jonfun21:


> Nope, I mean asking all and only the people who actually live in the UK what they want....as opposed to a subset* of them and others who don't.

And what about those who are British but living elsewhere in the EU ? Brexit will have an enormous impact on our lives

john arran - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

> I do wonder, when all I hear about is this bloody 'will of the people', why it is so important that we don't ask them whether their will might have changed in light of recent developments.

For fear of an answer that would remove completely their wafer-thin claim to democratic justification, of course.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:

> No constitutional change in the UK has ever required a second referendum, only in the EU where a country gave the wrong answer the first time.

This is the second referendum about the EU.

It is also the first referendum where there was no official document defining what would happen in the event of 'yes' or any mechanism to make the 'yes' campaigners make a consistent and half-way honest proposal they could be held to account for. The Brexiters should have been forced to do things the same way as the Scottish Government with the Independence referendum i.e. first they need to make Brexit Tory party policy, then they need to fight a general election on it, then they need to define what Brexit would mean in a white paper (taking a position on the difficult things they would like to fudge) and only then they get their referendum.



1
MargieB - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
And because this process has not occurred we are in a position of muddle and the process has been left to party political infighting.Sickenly!
So we will only have confidence in the parties who first unify and come up with a strategy and we have no confidence in the parties who can't unify and produce a strategy ? So a parliamentary no confidence vote could very well be the next stage in this { I say this because the conservatives seem the most at odds with each other as regards their premises on single market access } Then a new general election would decide who leads the negotiations based on a clearer understanding of the direction a political party would ideally like to have with the Eu?Negotiations may alter that position- but at least the electorate would given a better say and would indicate our ( the electorate's} political objectives re the EU instead of leaving this up to party politics.

Interestingly the Eu have stepped up communication with Labour Party as they predict this may occur in British Parliament and in case an election occurs and in case Labour wins......
Post edited at 11:45
jkarran - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:

> Why do you imagine that just because we know what the terms of our departure will be that will be be any wiser as to what that will actually mean for the UK's future? All we can do is refine the economic modelling on the basis of the deal but economic models are invariably wrong, even when we are operating in familiar circumstances. Brexit is without precedent which makes the modelling guesswork.

Why are you so desperate not to make or more to the point allow others a better informed choice about their long term futures, perhaps even to confer some legitimacy to and bring the currently divided public together behind a successful (or failed) project?

Clocks are invariably wrong but they're still incredibly useful. This don't believe the experts bullshit is going to ruin us.

We will know a lot more come the end of this stage of negotiation that we did 18 months ago. For example we'll have a good idea that the £350M figure is very likely to be negative so *from* not for the NHS.

> Furthermore, we don't really know what remaining will mean. Who thought the EEC would morph into the EU we know today when we voted to stay in 1975 and we knew exactly what the terms of membership were at the time.

We do or more to the point we have input into and a veto on significant changes we're not ready for so it is (or was) within our power to guide and arrest change. Now it isn't.

> You mean gerrymander the electorate to get the result you want?

That's one way of looking at it.
jk

1
MargieB - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to oldie:

Not remote what people may vote for - I think people are looking for other party representation and coalition politics. Two party politics is dying
jonfun21 on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to Doug:

Fair point - more relaxed about inclusion of British Citizens living abroad (still find it baffling a relative who lives in a Australia and has no intention of coming back to the UK gets a vote on this and other stuff but there you go) than I am about EU citizens who are living here not being allowed a say.

Ultimately if brexit at all costs occurs there is going to be a severe backlash at somepoint. For example places like Wales where commentary suggests people though they were voting to “stick it to the establishment” and will now find out that the consequence is actually a massive reduction in subsidies by the “new establishment” and associated economic deprivation etc.
jonfun21 on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to pec:

...I should take as read that you won't be adverse to another referendum in a couple of years time if leaving hasn't worked out quite so well?

The question would be should the UK rejoin the EU? Yes/No

Clearly no details on what T&Cs we would rejoin on would need to be provided.
BnB - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

Some common sense in the press for a change.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41598453
Bob Hughes - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to BnB:

The FT is reporting that the EU won’t agree to moving to phase 2 but will begin internal discussions (I guess that means between the EU 27) on a future trade relationship.
Dave Garnett - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:
> The EU just sit and wait for us to say what we want. And we , the people, do the same, completely in the dark. Keep calm and carry on won't do. I feel like a Tommy walking across no man's land in the fog just because someone blew a whistle. If I ask where we're going or why, the Leavers call me a traitor.

> What the hell has happened to this country?

I agree. Maybe it's because I've been a couple of thousand miles away for a few weeks but it increasingly seems to me that as a country we've lost the will, and certainly the leadership, to be a civilised first-world player. We just don't have the confidence to be a leading European nation, and are running away to find a smaller pond in which we can be a larger (and preferably the only) fish.

It's not that the EU was too restrictive a stage for our ambitions, it was too big, the spotlight too bright, the expectations of the audience too high. We were expected to be grown ups, and the EU is still waiting for us to at least leave gracefully as adults who are responsible for own decisions.
Post edited at 19:17
4
BnB - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> The FT is reporting that the EU won’t agree to moving to phase 2 but will begin internal discussions (I guess that means between the EU 27) on a future trade relationships.

The next moves are pretty obvious now. Either the EU starts talking trade pretty soon or we walk and the game of blink goes up a notch. But in the latter case, the in-fighting we've become accustomed to will start to spread across Europe.

That's why, in the background, the parties are just arguing over who gets custody of a few remaining disputed billions, while publicly we're still saying 20 and they 80!!

In fact, don't be surprised if that's what they're both still saying after we've met somewhere in the middle!!

1
Lusk - on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I agree. Maybe it's because I've been a couple of thousand miles away for a few weeks but it increasingly seems to me that as a country we've lost the will, and certainly the leadership, to be a civilised first-world player. We just don't have the confidence to be a leading European nation, and are running away to find a smaller pond in which we can be a larger (and preferably the only) fish.

I don't think it's got anything to do with Brexit, it's seven years of austerity which is REALLY starting to crush the will to live out of 10s of millions of people. Continually decreasing wages (in real terms), ever increasing expenses, cut backs after cutbacks after cutbacks, more people in poverty in recent history, 100,000 children living in emergency accommodation, ... the list goes on and on.
Not Brexit, The Tories.
1
summo on 12 Oct 2017
In reply to BnB:

A big bun fight. The 9 or 10 net contributors of northern Europe, not wishing to pay more and the recipients not wishing to lose money or become a net contributor themselves in the very near future. Given that funding is based on GDP they can all do the maths in advance to see where the pain will lie.
MargieB - on 14 Oct 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Our system of internal governance is not that grown up either but ironically one of the consequences of this process of Brexit is a play to reform the constitution and replace it with a greater federalism. This would occur in the process of repatriating the law making powers to the different regions. Although a hard Brexit is too high a price to pay for this evolutionary political process it may well be a consequence. i would like my cake and eat it by having both federalism and a soft Brexit, given we are committed by the referendum.
Post edited at 09:11
John Stainforth - on 14 Oct 2017
In reply to Lusk:

The cause of our recent problems is not austerity OR Brexit but both. Because of the first we need the second like a hole in the head. And it is not a question of Brexit OR the Tories: the Tories label applies to both.
1
Big Ger - on 16 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:
Meanwhile, in Europe...

> A Spanish judge has remanded two key members of the Catalan independence movement in jail. Jordi Sánchez, who heads the Catalan National Assembly (ANC), and Jordi Cuixart, leader of Omnium Cultural, are being held without bail while they are under investigation for sedition. The men are seen as leading figures in organising a 1 October independence vote, which Spanish courts suspended.

> The People's Party was set to win more than 31%. It is so far unclear whether the Social Democrats or the far-right Freedom Party will finish second. Short of a majority, Mr Kurz's party could seek an alliance with the anti-immigration Freedom Party. Addressing his supporters, Mr Kurz said: "It is time for change in this country. Today is a strong order for us, to change this country, and I say thank you to you all who made this possible.

> Thousands of Italian school students are protesting nationwide over work placements which they say contribute little to their future job prospects. The students are calling it a "strike" in 70 cities. Student unions organised the protest via social media. Italy's Student Network says "no more exploitation through free labour".

> The journalist who led the Panama Papers investigation into corruption in Malta was killed on Monday in a car bomb near her home. Daphne Caruana Galizia died on Monday afternoon when her car, a Peugeot 108, was destroyed by a powerful explosive device which blew the vehicle into several pieces and threw the debris into a nearby field.
Post edited at 23:44
1
pasbury on 17 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

I now understand what shitposting means.
Big Ger - on 17 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:

Well done you, it does save you having to think about things, if you can just apply a label to a post and ignore the content, doesn't it?
1
pasbury on 17 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Go on then, what has Catalan secession struggles and the murder of a journalist in Malta got to do with our negotiating approach with the EU?
Big Ger - on 17 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:
Very little directly, however it does serve to highlight that the EU isn't the utopia that some remainers would have us believe. Also that political changes, such as those in Austria, Catalonia, and potentially the forthcoming Italian elections, may destabilise the EU, in ways which would benefit the UK's position.
Post edited at 23:45
8
Sir Chasm - on 17 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

You can't find a single remainer saying the eu is a utopia, just another of your lies.
Big Ger - on 17 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

LOL!! If "Captain Paranoia" can claim that Brexiters think;


> Who cares about European farmers? They're foreigners. The whole point of Brexit is to stop having to care about foreigners.

> Isn't it...?

> On the other hand, if we can give Johnny Foreigner Farmer a bloody nose, it's worth all of us subsisting off gruel for the next thirty years. Hoorah for Boris!

Then I can indulge in unsubstantiated hyperbole too.

Or is it one rule for remainers and another for leavers?
3
Wicamoi on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

In an attempt to return to polite debate .... your examples of unrest in the EU probably all have roots in the global financial crisis. The Scottish Independence referendum and the Brexit referendum could have featured as similar examples. But your stories of unrest are taking place against a relatively stable backdrop - throughout the EU centre-right governments are being elected, the far right is defeated and Merkel is still Mutti.

It is only in the UK that we have - by a narrow margin - volunteered to counter the effects of the global financial crisis with an additional national economic crisis of our own. Are we fighting fire with fire, or throwing petrol on the flames? I know what I think.
Big Ger - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to Wicamoi:

Reasonable points mate, though Catalan independence predates that, as does Maltese corruption..
Wicamoi on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Of course - likewise Scottish Independence and unrest about the EU in the UK - but the feeling of poverty and loss of confidence in the future always brings conflict to a head. It's like the way we only get into fights when we're drunk.
Big Ger - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to Wicamoi:

> It's like the way we only get into fights when we're drunk.

Speak for yourself! ;-)

jkarran - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Very little directly, however it does serve to highlight that the EU isn't the utopia that some remainers would have us believe. Also that political changes, such as those in Austria, Catalonia, and potentially the forthcoming Italian elections, may destabilise the EU, in ways which would benefit the UK's position.

Who the hell thinks the EU is utopia? It's an ongoing project, one that has when viewed objectively served the people of mainland Europe and Britain very well.

A destabilised Europe doesn't benefit Britain's position. EU: our closest neighbour, far and away our biggest trading partner and basically at peace for decades now through no coincidence or accident. Be very careful what you wish for!
jk
3
summo on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> one that has when viewed objectively served the people of mainland Europe and Britain very well.

Objectively? You mean the view of people living in a few select countries, and certain age and qualifications? Try telling your view to many 20-25yr olds in southern Europe whose entire life has been part of the eu.

> A destabilised Europe doesn't benefit Britain's position. EU: our closest neighbour, far and away our biggest trading partner and basically at peace for decades now through no coincidence or accident. Be very careful what you wish for!

Peace is largely attribute to NATO, not the EU. The eu's involvement in preventing war related atrocities isn't great; Balkans? With ww1 and 2 in so many people's living memories there was no desire of any nation to consider even preparing for that route again, avoid war at all costs. Those days are gone. Look at the attitude of Austria, Hungary and Poland.
The eu isn't stable, look at the North / South Europe divide. The rise of far right groups, or those wishing independence. The EUs desire to drive everyone together, I personally think is more likely to cause war than prevent it in the long run. It's too much too fast, they aren't carrying a sufficient proportion of the population with them.

6
Tanke - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

NATO have not prevent war they create war in Chechnya Iraq in Libya and in Syrai also Yugoslavia and Ukraine.
5
summo on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to Tanke:

> NATO have not prevent war they create war in Chechnya Iraq in Libya and in Syrai also Yugoslavia and Ukraine.

Don't confuse NATO with the UN, or the actions of 'individual' nations who are also members of them.
MG - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

It's not an either or. Both NATO and the EU aid stability. However NATO is primarily about defence.nThe EU provides much greater internal security.
John2 - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

'The EU provides much greater internal security'

How, precisely? So that terrorists can transport weapons across international borders without hindrance?
2
MG - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

By promoting rule of law, prosperity, stable business environment democracy etc.
2
Shani - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

Forget the EU shafting us, Private Eye are reporting that what was a £63bn net investment in to the UK before Brexit became a net £26bn outflow in the past six months.

Of course I'm a 'remoaner' and 'talking Britain down' for publishing this data, but the effect of taking back control is real. This will cast a long shadow on our economy.
2
summo on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> By promoting rule of law, prosperity, stable business environment democracy etc.

There have been laws long before the Eu.
Prosperity, unless you are living in southern Europe.
Stability... Looking good right now? ;)
Democracy.. . Keeping voting until the Eu gets the answer it wants then don't vote again, ever.
5
John2 - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

Yes, so that EU citizens in post-Brexit UK can have their rights adjudicated by the ECJ (a right they do not possess in any other non-EU country), while UK citizens in post-Brexit EU do not have a reciprocal right to have their rights adjudicated by the UK courts.
4
MG - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

Yes ridiculous. Right now it’s the same for everyone. So why are we leaving?
MG - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
> There have been laws long before the Eu.

Depends where you lived. Spain?

> Prosperity, unless you are living in southern Europe.

Still much wealthier than previously (don’t see them wanting to leave either)

> Stability... Looking good right now? ;)

Yep.

> Democracy.. . Keeping voting until the Eu gets the answer it wants then don't vote again, ever.

No, that’s a myth.
Post edited at 21:10
2
John2 - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

If you cannot reply to the specific points that I make then you are not worthy to be debated with.
7
MG - on 18 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:
Leaving aside the fact I did address your point, why are you replying? Strange way to use your time - debating someone you deem unworthy of debating with. Maybe you are mental.
Post edited at 22:05
2
summo on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:
> Still much wealthier than previously (don’t see them wanting to leave either)

Are you attributing the rise in western standards of living, wages and wealth to the eu? Are non eu nations still years behind us, the USA, Canada, nz, oz, s Korea, Japan. ?

> No, that’s a myth.

No it's not. The Irish were 'encouraged' to keep having referendums until the people voted for what the eu thought was good for them..
Post edited at 05:46
wercat on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to Tanke:

> NATO have not prevent war they create war in Chechnya Iraq in Libya and in Syrai also Yugoslavia and Ukraine.

Alternative facts are available
MG - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
> No it's not. The Irish were 'encouraged' to keep having referendums until the people voted for what the eu thought was good for them..

That's just bollocks. There were two referendums on the Lisbon treaty. The second on an amended version of treaty that removed elements the Irish didn't like in the first. This was then clearly passed. It was about what the Irish thought was good for them not the EU.
Post edited at 09:05
2
summo on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> That's just bollocks. There were two referendums on the Lisbon treaty. The second on an amended version of treaty that removed elements the Irish didn't like in the first. This was then clearly passed. It was about what the Irish thought was good for them not the EU.

You think the Eu is going to encourage any more referendums, despite many treaties vastly changing the whole nature and course of the eu? Or should Europe just follow the path towards federal Europe.

You could argue that the UK voted the same last year then, Cameron gained all the flex the Eu was willing to make etc... and a slim majority voted for what they wanted. So Irish vote good, UK vote bad, because it wasn't what you personally wanted?
summo on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> That's just bollocks. There were two referendums on the Lisbon treaty. The second on an amended version of treaty that removed elements the Irish didn't like in the first. This was then clearly passed. It was about what the Irish thought was good for them not the EU.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_European_Constitution_referendum

Have a look at the voting, other countries voted no, many cancelled any referendum.... never mind bollocks... Democracy in Europe my ar $e. It's little wonder things are unravelling in many countries.
1
wercat on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> Yes, so that EU citizens in post-Brexit UK can have their rights adjudicated by the ECJ (a right they do not possess in any other non-EU country), while UK citizens in post-Brexit EU do not have a reciprocal right to have their rights adjudicated by the UK courts.

That is not a valid comparison as there are no other countries that have removed EU citizenship from their own citizens yet so there is no non-EU country in a comparable situation as you imagine
MG - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

I don't follow your post, but if you are asking, I am not in favour of referendums generally. My earlier point was simply that your claim the EU somehow forced the Irish into accepting something they didn't want is a myth.
1
MG - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Have a look at the voting, other countries voted no, many cancelled any referendum.... never mind bollocks... Democracy in Europe my ar $e. It's little wonder things are unravelling in many countries.

From your own link it's clear that the initial version of the Treaty was not liked by voters in many countries so it was dropped by the EU and a new version, the Lisbon Treaty, that removed the objectionable parts was proposed and then ratified. What exactly is your complaint? The EU, responded to voters concerns. You fantasy world of the nasty EU beating up those who don't support is just that, a fantasy.

"The rejection of the Constitution by French and Dutch voters halted the ratification process. As support by all members was required the Constitution was dropped and in July 2007 the European Council agreed upon the foundation of a new treaty to replace the rejected Constitution. The text agreed upon at the European Council meeting on 18 and 19 October 2007 contained many of the planned changes of the Constitution but would not replace the existing treaties, as the Constitution would have done, but amended them. "
Post edited at 09:42
1
John2 - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:
It is a completely valid comparison. You are either in the EU or out of it. In the words of Boris Johnson, the EU negotiators want to have their cake and eat it.
Post edited at 09:45
2
summo on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

When has the uk population, had a say or a choice over any treaties? Or other countries.

MPs don't run etc.. on their eu stance. PMs are elected on their view either. Look at Corbyn and Labour as an example. Or the failure of Tim.

Unless the Eu listens to people and gives the population a say, a choice, not just MPs, then Europe as whole is going to become more divided.
jkarran - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> There have been laws long before the Eu.

Yeah, many disparate laws which complicated cooperation rather than fostering it.

> Prosperity, unless you are living in southern Europe.

Sourthern Europe was poor before the EU, in real terms it's still doing ok. Italy is the world's 8th largest economy, 3rd in the Eurozone.

> Stability... Looking good right now? ;)

Yeah. There are problems, sadly some largely of our making but go stand on the ridge a Ablain St-Nazaire and ask yourself again what stability in Europe looks like.
jk
2
Malarkey on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

Discussion has gone a bit off topic. But to answer the original the point - Yes Brexit strategy isn't working.


Let me quote Owen Paterson head of the Conservative Brexiteers:

Dec 2016. "Once the Bill has been triggered negotiations with the EU can beginning Britain will start off from a position of strength.Our European neighbours will want to secure access to the UK market as they sell far more to us than we sell to them"

Today Oct 2017 "It was "inevitable at the moment, it is an ineluctable certainty we are going to end up with WTO at the end of this anyway" so it was better to "state that now" and give business time to prepare. He said a trade deal with the EU is "the best destination, but what we should not be terrified of is the WTO".

... there you have it straight from the horses arse.
summo on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:
> Yeah, many disparate laws which complicated cooperation rather than fostering it.

Perhaps the laws in Europe were varied, because they are countries with different cultures, language and history. Their own elected national governments have fashioned those laws and common law through the courts to roughly match what that society wants and is suited to?

> Sourthern Europe was poor before the EU, in real terms it's still doing ok. Italy is the world's 8th largest economy, 3rd in the Eurozone.

Are you really holding Italy up as a sound economy?

> Yeah. There are problems, sadly some largely of our making but go stand on the ridge a Ablain St-Nazaire and ask yourself again what stability in Europe looks like.

In historical terms they are recent and there is nothing to suggest war won't return because of the eu. The eu's handling of the Balkans, Crimea, migrant crisis, Turkish border... etc.. proves they are without clout on critical issues. With Spain taking control of catalan today, there will be trouble brewing and Spain refuses to talk. If they kick off the Basques aren't going to be on Spain's side. Civil war in European country, again. Austria's new relatively far right leader.. the fences rebuilt on eastern Europe countries border, between other eu nations. The eu is not steering towards peace in my opinion.
Post edited at 11:37
pasbury on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to Malarkey:

> Today Oct 2017 "It was "inevitable at the moment, it is an ineluctable certainty we are going to end up with WTO at the end of this anyway" so it was better to "state that now" and give business time to prepare. He said a trade deal with the EU is "the best destination, but what we should not be terrified of is the WTO".

> ... there you have it straight from the horses arse.

Several horses arses "the Leave Means Leave campaign issued an open letter signed by, among others, four former Tory cabinet ministers (Lord Lawson, Peter Lilley, John Redwood and Owen Paterson)."

That these people are having a powerful influence on our negotiating position is very worrying.
Lawson in particular is a nasty piece of shit.
jkarran - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Perhaps the laws in Europe were varied, because they are countries with different cultures, language and history. Their own elected national governments have fashioned those laws and common law through the courts to roughly match what that society wants and is suited to?

Fine but but we live in a far more connected world where cooperation not domination increases living standards. What worked (or didn't!) in the past does not necessarily function well in the present.

> Are you really holding Italy up as a sound economy?

Like ours it has problems but it isn't the EU imposed ruin you'd have us believe.

> In historical terms they are recent and there is nothing to suggest war won't return because of the eu. The eu's handling of the Balkans, Crimea, migrant crisis, Turkish border... etc.. proves they are without clout on critical issues.

So? The EU caused none of this and no individual organisation can impose a solution on any one of those problems let alone all of them. Yo're moaning that individual nations still maintain significant autonomy within (or without) the rules of the EU gives lie to the brexiteer's cries of 'sovereignty!'.

> With Spain taking control of catalan today, there will be trouble brewing and Spain refuses to talk. If they kick off the Basques aren't going to be on Spain's side. Civil war in European country, again.

If it happens then that'll be very bad for Spain, and more broadly bad for the continent/region but I fail to see how it's the EU's fault the Catalans want their own nation or that the Spanish government is mismanaging the situation. Equally the EU didn't cause nor could it stop our civil war in Ulster but then nor did that cause the failure of the project either.

> Austria's new relatively far right leader.. the fences rebuilt on eastern Europe countries border, between other eu nations. The eu is not steering towards peace in my opinion.

Center right leader, far right coalition partner. Remind you of anywhere else?

People are feeling let down by rapacious capitalism and justifiable fearful of a future where their prosperity or at least comfort is not a necessity for the prosperity of those with power and wealth. That isn't the EU's fault. That people's fear and anger about this bleak future is being channeled by those who stand to gain to dismantle one of the few bulwarks we have against the wanton abuse of corporate power is tragic.
jk
1
summo on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Like ours it has problems but it isn't the EU imposed ruin you'd have us believe.

Entry to the euro is key factor in the woes of southern europe; many didn't actually meet the criteria and still don't.

> If it happens then that'll be very bad for Spain, and more broadly bad for the continent/region but I fail to see how it's the EU's fault the Catalans want their own nation or that the Spanish government is mismanaging the situation. Equally the EU didn't cause nor could it stop our civil war in Ulster but then nor did that cause the failure of the project either.

Which basically means the Eu hasn't prevent war or maintained peace. It's largely irrelevant?

> Center right leader, far right coalition partner. Remind you of anywhere else?

No where right now. Their far right party there is more akin to the BNP.

> People are feeling let down by rapacious capitalism and justifiable fearful of a future where their prosperity or at least comfort is not a necessity for the prosperity of those with power and wealth. That isn't the EU's fault. That people's fear and anger about this bleak future is being channeled by those who stand to gain to dismantle one of the few bulwarks we have against the wanton abuse of corporate power is tragic.

The eu is capitalism, the money big corps spending lobbying Brussels is staggering. Countries aren't electing in far left anti capitalist parties are they? The eu head commissioner turned his own country into a tax haven.

3
tom_in_edinburgh - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> How, precisely? So that terrorists can transport weapons across international borders without hindrance?

The terrorists recent weapons of choice have been cars, trucks and knives. They make their explosives from things they buy in chemist shops.

You could build thousands of miles of border fences all across the EU and search every vehicle crossing them for weapons, it would massively disrupt the economy but it wouldn't make terror attacks less likely.

If you look at the clusters of terrorists one of the common factors is mosques which got funded and influenced by Saudi Arabia. That would be a better place to start than building border fences but it is the opposite direction from the Brexit brigade who are determined to build up trade links to Saudi.


wercat on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:
it is not valid as, having been in the EU for a lengthy period, the United Kingdom, as all other members did, held itself out as conferring a set of rights and privileges exercisable by EU citizens within the EU, as you would have expected.

During the intervening years many EU citizens have exercised their rights conferred by EU citizenship and many have acted in a way that has changed their domicile of residence on that basis. Those rights were not conferred by the UK but by the EU through our membership and it is absolutely proper that such orphaned rights should be protected by an EU institution and not by some haphazard intention of a politically motivated government of a reneging state.


We are the only country to propose leaving such and so there is no analogous state in the world.

Comprendi?
Post edited at 16:05
jkarran - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:
> Entry to the euro is key factor in the woes of southern europe; many didn't actually meet the criteria and still don't.

Yet they went willingly, willing to trade some control for some benefits. We're not in the Euro and were under no pressure to be.

> Which basically means the Eu hasn't prevent war or maintained peace. It's largely irrelevant?

Well since the UK was in a state of civil war when it joined it's hard to argue the EU failed to prevent that getting started. Anyway, the EU was conceived not to prevent these petty conflicts but to prevent them escalating and embroiling the big European powers as has happened time and again for centuries and for geopolitical reasons which existed until the idea of tightly binding the fortunes of France, Germany and the wider region together was conceived in the post war years. So far the idea appears sound though as with all things the implementation will never be complete. No, it's not irrelevant.

> The eu is capitalism, the money big corps spending lobbying Brussels is staggering. Countries aren't electing in far left anti capitalist parties are they? The eu head commissioner turned his own country into a tax haven.

And now you've voted to turn mine into one. Thanks.
jk
Post edited at 16:46
John2 - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:

What on earth do you think the UK are going to do that will take a significant right away from an EU national?

No, I do not understand. The EU are making unreasonable demands, just as they are in the matter of pensions in today's newspaper story.
12
john arran - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> What on earth do you think the UK are going to do that will take a significant right away from an EU national?

Are you for real? I'm an EU national and my rights even to continue living in my home are threatened. How more fundamental can you get than that?

Maybe if you're looking at this from the perspective of a UK-based British employee of a British business with only domestic clients, who rarely travels out of the UK and doesn't mind a massive real-terms pay cut, your comment may not sound too unreasonable. For huge numbers of other people, it's a joke.
1
Tanke - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:

> Alternative facts are available

nato which is USA are responsible for all those wars that I mention that is the fact
Doug on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Are you for real? I'm an EU national and my rights even to continue living in my home are threatened.

likewise, plus I'm likely to lose my job, just so the Brexiters can get back the sovereignty they never lost.

2
John2 - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

1) We were talking about the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, not the rights of UK nationals living in the EU. You will not be an EU national after Brexit.

2) If the EU do restrict your rights to any significant extent that will be an act of malice which will not be reciprocated by malicious actions against EU nationals on the part of the UK. What the hell do you think is going to happen to you? Lots of UK nationals lived on the European mainland before we ever joined the EU.

And I'm going to spend five months living in France this winter.
11
john arran - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> 1) We were talking about the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, not the rights of UK nationals living in the EU. You will not be an EU national after Brexit.

That's exactly my point. Was it not obvious to you? Is it because it doesn't fit your narrative?
andyfallsoff - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> 2) If the EU do restrict your rights to any significant extent that will be an act of malice which will not be reciprocated by malicious actions against EU nationals on the part of the UK. What the hell do you think is going to happen to you? Lots of UK nationals lived on the European mainland before we ever joined the EU.

Are you mad? Of course they will, by definition, because we won't have the benefit of the right to free movement; that's that natural quid pro quo of us saying we don't accept free movement of EU citizens in the UK.

> And I'm going to spend five months living in France this winter.

Bully for you. I won't be in a position to live abroad for several years, by which point I don't know what the requirements will be, only that they are almost certain to be more difficult to meet than they are now, thanks to this.
andyfallsoff - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

> Entry to the euro is key factor in the woes of southern europe; many didn't actually meet the criteria and still don't.

Italy's productivity figures are better than the UK's, however - so it isn't as simple a picture as you are trying to present anyway.

> Which basically means the Eu hasn't prevent war or maintained peace. It's largely irrelevant?

Except that it has done to date - you're only speculating that it might not, on an assumption that Spain will have a civil war. Even if that did occur, the period since which the EU was formed will still have seen the least war in history.

> No where right now. Their far right party there is more akin to the BNP.

You knew who he was talking about though, so obviously the parallels aren't so difficult to draw.

> The eu is capitalism, the money big corps spending lobbying Brussels is staggering. Countries aren't electing in far left anti capitalist parties are they? The eu head commissioner turned his own country into a tax haven.

The EU broadly consists of social democratic countries, albeit with a slant against Keynesian policies that I don't agree with. However, if that's a criticism, surely the question is whether UK outside the EU is likely to move to the right or to the left. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on what seems more likely.
John2 - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

Enough. You barged in on a discussion of the rights of EU nationals living in the UK after Brexit, and you're all upset because you will be a UK, not an EU national at that time. If you're that worried about it take out French citizenship, but stop trying to divert discussions about the progress of the negotiations.
17
john arran - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

Ok, I'll leave you to bask in your selective bubble of myopia. Just be careful not to peek outside at the real world.
1
bouldery bits - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> Enough. You barged in on a discussion of the rights of EU nationals living in the UK after Brexit, and you're all upset because you will be a UK, not an EU national at that time. If you're that worried about it take out French citizenship, but stop trying to divert discussions about the progress of the negotiations.

You barged in to a discussion on the internet you pleb.

Stop trying to divert a discussion on BREXIT STRATEGY by talking about brexit negotiations because you're upset that you've got athletes foot or something.
1
MG - on 19 Oct 2017
I've just got my Irish passport so all you insular myopic brexiteers can piss off - you've failed with me. Maybe this should be on the smug thread...
Big Ger - on 19 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:
> Are you for real? I'm an EU national and my rights even to continue living in my home are threatened. How more fundamental can you get than that?

Who is threatening you? If you live in France it won't be the British Govt, so maybe your beef is with Macron and his mob.
Post edited at 23:12
11
pasbury on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Doug:

> likewise, plus I'm likely to lose my job, just so the Brexiters can get back the sovereignty they never lost.

In a much diluted form without much parliamentary scrutiny.
2
Lusk - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> I've just got my Irish passport

Excellent news!
We're going to need loads of navvies to dig HS2's path.
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:


> Who is threatening you? If you live in France it won't be the British Govt, so maybe your beef is with Macron and his mob.

You seem to have missed off the smiley face. You need to be really careful on here sometimes to make sure people don't think you're being serious and actually believe the crap that's written.
1
Big Ger - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:
You missed my question mark ?

WHO is threatening you? Is the British government threatening to throw you out of France?

You need to be really careful on here sometimes to make sure people don't think you're being serious and actually believe the crap you've written.
Post edited at 05:25
9
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

I didn't think even you were that brash in pushing your agenda. It certainly doesn't need me to waste time pointing out the elephantine fallacy. I think anyone out of short trousers should easily be able to see it for what it is.

And I know you're going to feign that you don't know what I'm talking about; that's usually what you seem to think passes for intelligent debate. I guess you'll just have to have won this one.
1
Big Ger - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:
> I didn't think even you were that brash in pushing your agenda. It certainly doesn't need me to waste time pointing out the elephantine fallacy. I think anyone out of short trousers should easily be able to see it for what it is.

> And I know you're going to feign that you don't know what I'm talking about; that's usually what you seem to think passes for intelligent debate. I guess you'll just have to have won this one.

LOL!! Lots of avoidance there mate, not a single answer though.

Let me try it another way;

Do the French government HAVE to kick you out due to Brexit?

Or could they say; "John, you're a wonderful productive contributor to the French economy, do stay dear boy!"

You know, like Theresa may has;

Theresa May has sent an email directly to 100,000 EU citizens’ living in the UK in an attempt to reassure them that they will be allowed to remain after Brexit, saying the government would not use them as “bargaining chips” in negotiations.
Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-attempts-to-reassure-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-brexit-2017-1...



Post edited at 05:52
4
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

The same ridiculous missing-of-the-point only marginally rephrased. You can do better than that.
Big Ger - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:
Right, third time of asking, now try to answer the question;

Do the French government HAVE to kick you out due to Brexit?

Go on, have a shot at it. I'm not "missing-of-the-point", how can I be? I have asked you a question thee times now, that IS the point, my whole point, the totality of the point.

Let me put “the point” bluntly to you John.

If you are forced to leave France, it will not be due to the UK government forcing you. It is entirely possible for the French government to, as the UK one has offered to EU nationals, to allow you to remain and to work and to live your life out there.

If the French government force you out, that is their choice, their action, their business, their country.

Mind you, after your performance here, I can well see why they’d want shot of you.

Edited to remove unnecessary insult.
Post edited at 06:06
9
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

I refer you to my previous answer. Anyone with a mental age higher than Trump's can answer happily by themselves.
3
Big Ger - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:
Well I think everyone reading this will see that I have asked the question three times now, and you've avoided answering.

There are a number of conclusions they can draw from this;

a) You know that answering the question honestly will mean admitting that the threat to your staying in France is due to the French government, and therefore diminish your anti-Brexit stance.

b) You do not have the courage of your convictions to defend an honest answer.

c) You do not have the intellectual ability, nor the honesty, to answer in any way other than by avoidance.

d) Your initial claim is invalid and invalidated.

e) You're one of those who cannot say anything bad about the EU and its member countries, or anything good about the UK.

Last chance, why not answer honestly and shut me up?

Do the French government HAVE to kick you out due to Brexit?

Or could they say; "John, you're a wonderful productive contributor to the French economy, do stay dear boy!"

Post edited at 06:22
5
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Keep digging.
1
Big Ger - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

You see John, when you claim; " It certainly doesn't need me to waste time pointing out the elephantine fallacy," and then you make many posts (aka "wasting time") but avoiding addressing the "elephantine fallacy", you make yourself look, at best devious, at worse plain stupid.
4
Big Ger - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:
> Keep digging.

Ooh look, another reply!!

John, please educate me, I'm obviously unaware of what the "elephantine fallacy" I have committed is, please show me the error of my ways?

Let's lay this to rest shall we?

You show me what the "elephantine fallacy" is, I shut up and go home.
Post edited at 06:32
1
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Yes, of course. How silly of me.
1
Big Ger - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

John, you're not doing yourself any favours.

Would you like me to phrase the question differently?

Your residency in France is under the aegis of the French government, true or false?
3
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Would you like me to phrase the question differently?

You already did - sort of, anyway. Didn't make it any less ridiculous.

If you'll stop pretending to be an imbecile in order, presumably, to impress real imbeciles with your insight and intellect, maybe you might say something worthy of addressing.
4
Big Ger - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:
John, ok I'm an imbecile, a complete and utter dullard, so why not explain to me what the "elephantine fallacy" I have made is.

Please explain it to me. Go on, let's put an end to it.

Or shall we just take it that I've made no fallacy, and that you are just taking the coward's way out.

PS. I'll be back online tomorrow, don't think I'm letting this drop due to my absence after this post.
Post edited at 06:52
8
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Yep, I'm just being a coward. You win; well done.

Good night.
3
MG - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> PS. I'll be back online tomorrow, don't think I'm letting this drop due to my absence after this post.

Let me guess -your Dad is harder than John's too?
2
Spartacus on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:
Back to subject.

If Cameron had been given something from Europe during his negotiations for a new relationship I believe referendum and Brexit mess would never have happened. They offered nothing and he eventually had to fall on his sword.

We are faced with a similar situation here, they will give May nothing, she will appear weak and be forced out of Office. No obvious replacement is available and mess deepens.

I don’t think they even have decided to make it as hard as possible for us by teaching us a lesson to discourage others. This would need an organised response. They are 27 groups of individuals.

Europe is not negotiating, they are just refusing to do so. Capitulation and appeasement will not work in this situation. We must go it alone if that is the wish of the electorate.
4
Andy Hardy on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Right, third time of asking, now try to answer the question;

> Do the French government HAVE to kick you out due to Brexit?

[...]

> If you are forced to leave France, it will not be due to the UK government forcing you. It is entirely possible for the French government to, as the UK one has offered to EU nationals, to allow you to remain and to work and to live your life out there.

[...]

The anwer is we don't know yet, because negotiations are not progressing. That there is even a negotiation to be had though, is definitely the fault of the UK, not France.
1
Robert Durran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

> We must go it alone if that is the wish of the electorate.

So a second referendum then.
Bogwalloper - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Right, third time of asking, now try to answer the question;

> Do the French government HAVE to kick you out due to Brexit?

>

It's the uncertainty and not f*cking knowing you f*cking prick!

W
3
wercat on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:
I stand by the fact that there is not a non-eu country analogous to a Brexited UK.

We are being given a number of false arguments comparing a post Brexit UK with other states. Only this morning we were told on the radio (I think by the voice it was Ian Duncan Smith as I missed the beginning) that WTO rules were good enough for the rest of the world so they'd be no problem for a sole UK. What he neglected in his comparison was that Very Few of the other countries in the world are not members of, and hence benefiting from and bound by the terms of, regional trade agreements. Therefore the analogy is dishonest.

Not to mention the fact that we have a close alignment with cultural and ethical European values rather than choose trading with those countries who would sell us counterfeit goods or allow our data to be sold to criminals for dishonest purposes etc etc etc
Post edited at 10:09
Bob Hughes - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Just to add my perspective as a UK citizen living in the EU (Spain). It is not a question of being kicked out. Most people recognise that that very likely isnt going to happen. But there are added uncertainties which we could do without. For example, my mum back in England is now quite old. If i had to go back to the UK for a couple of years to care for her I could - depending on the final settlement - lose the "credit" i have built up living in Spain for 15 years, making it harder for me to return. So i have a choice, if i keep my UK citizenship i can go back to the UK easily but may not be able to return to Spain as easily. If i take Spanish citizenship i may (actually almost certainly would) find it harder to return to the UK if i needed to care for my mum. Unfortunately, between Spain and the UK there is no dual nationality (which is due to the Spanish government, not the UK ).

I'd face a similar problem if I moved to another EU country for work - also a possibility I am considering but those plans are almost on hold because i don't want to lose the "credit" as a resident in Spain.

There are other doubts as well, like reciprocal healthcare or pension contributions. I have spend pretty much all my life contributing to the Spanish social security system. If i move to the UK for a few years and then return to Spain I may lose those contributions.
Spartacus on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> So a second referendum then.

As a remainder I would hope so.
It seems to make perfect sense to negotiate or walk away with no deal then ask the public if leaving is their wish - having an accurate knowledge of what it would look like.

The last referendum was based on bullshit and misinformation on both sides.
Pete Pozman - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

You know "cake and eat it", do you suppose Brexiteers are actually expecting a real cake. Maybe if we give them one we can call this nightmare off while they are scoffing it.
Bob Hughes - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

> As a remainder I would hope so.

> It seems to make perfect sense to negotiate or walk away with no deal then ask the public if leaving is their wish - having an accurate knowledge of what it would look like.

I would prefer to stay in the EU but I actually don't think a second referendum is the answer. I don't think the referendum was a good idea in the first place and don't believe that committing a second error in government is the way to fix it. Also, i think we have gone beyond the point where the UK could choose to stay in the EU. The longer we go the more off the table that option gets. So ultimately any choice would be between the deal that has been negotiated and no deal at all. I don't think the general public is in a position to decide that. It is a highly technocratic decision and as we have seen since the referendum very few people really understand the full implications of being in or out of the EU. In the end i think it is a decision that should be made by politicians after taking advice from the civil service.

jkarran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> I would prefer to stay in the EU but I actually don't think a second referendum is the answer. I don't think the referendum was a good idea in the first place and don't believe that committing a second error in government is the way to fix it. Also, i think we have gone beyond the point where the UK could choose to stay in the EU. The longer we go the more off the table that option gets. So ultimately any choice would be between the deal that has been negotiated and no deal at all. I don't think the general public is in a position to decide that. It is a highly technocratic decision and as we have seen since the referendum very few people really understand the full implications of being in or out of the EU. In the end i think it is a decision that should be made by politicians after taking advice from the civil service.

You're right and it always should have been a decision for exhaustively informed elected representatives but they simply won't do it without the fig leaf of a referendum so that remains the only way to resolve this situation.

We are doing great harm by continuing the process but it is not irreversible even once fully implemented, it just gets ever costlier to do so the further down the road we go but that must always be weighed against the very high price of actually completing our exit over the coming decade then living with our new, weakened position.

Managed with care it should politically be a reversible decision before time runs out on article 50, we'll have all started tightening our belts as mortgage rates and food prices rise, the voting demographic will have shifted significantly and the unicorns aren't anywhere to be seen on the horizon. Then again there is the chance the David and Goliath narrative takes hold if the future settlement looks particularly poor (as seems likely) and blame is effectively shifted off those who took us to the brink and onto the EU (anything is possible). If so plucky little Britain will suffer another deep self inflicted wound. Dangerous times.
jk
wercat on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

nothing to worry about, we'll face the world with our new aircraft carriers - without planes of our own. I'm sure Uncle Sam will let us borrow some of his without any strings attached ...
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:

If they had strings attached they wouldn't get very far ;-)
didntcomelast on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:
Is that why 4 million EU nationals live in the U.K. compared to 1million brits who live in the 27 EU countries? There must be something attracting EU nationals to the U.K. as 4 times as many want to be in our little crappy country compared to their 27 fantastic countries.
Troll over.
1
John2 - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:

Well thank you for not resorting to insults as the majority of the people I've been debating with have. I am quite mystified as to why people are so emotionally attached to the self-serving, inefficient, spendthrift bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU.

Anyway, you are now talking about our future trade relations with the EU - I was merely stating that it would be an unprecedented nonsense for EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit to have their rights adjudicated by a supranational body such as the ECJ. The UK negotiators are currently doing a remarkably unimpressive job, but they are right to insist that the ECJ should have no jurisdiction over people living in the UK after Brexit.
2
andyfallsoff - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

Is it really the majority who have resorted to insults, and is what they've said any worse than what you keep saying about the EU?

It's also quite insulting to be told that it is an "emotional" attachment to the EU when it may just as well be a pragmatic or reasoned one based on the weight of evidence..
1
Yanis Nayu - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

I don’t have an emotional attachment to the EU but I do have an emotional response to the real damage that the economic fallout is going to do to the lives of ordinary people in this country, for no good reason whatsoever.
2
wercat on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:
I suppose "Comprendi" was a bit insulting and perhaps it was wrong of me to be rude but it's a raw nerve as my wife moved herself over here permanently in the expectation of no mad exit by Britain from the EU and her rights matter a lot to me, particularly when I'm not around when she probably survives me as I'm 10 years her senior. People wanting to sever from the EU for emotive or aspirational reasons really do make me angry when it is my wife and kids whose future is limited and possibly endangered. (How do you know how my wife will be treated in old age when she's spent most of her time over here raising our kids at the expense of a pension and savings?)


I did not insult you with the word dishonest - I did use it of Ian Duncan Smith as he typifies the dishonest self seeking politicians who are doing this for their own motives


Post edited at 19:02
1
Bob Hughes - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> Anyway, you are now talking about our future trade relations with the EU - I was merely stating that it would be an unprecedented nonsense for EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit to have their rights adjudicated by a supranational body such as the ECJ. The UK negotiators are currently doing a remarkably unimpressive job, but they are right to insist that the ECJ should have no jurisdiction over people living in the UK after Brexit.

That’s not quite what they’ve insisted. They have accepted that the ECJ will have continued jurisdiction at least during the transition period. They have also offered to enshrine the rights of EU citizens in a Treaty which will need an arbitration body. For the sake of political digestibility, this body will mos probably not be the ECJ but it will be a supranational body, probably closely referring to the ECJ if not actually populated by ECJ judges.

There is also a more vague question of influence. There is a general principe in law that changes to law should not be applied retrospectively. I.e. if I do something today which later becomes a crime I should not be punished for that. Given that the U.K. intends to pass EU law into U.K. law, this principle raises the possibility of continued influence of ECJ rulings on U.K. legal questions. Even fur5er than that, because the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter of EU law there is eve;the possibility of the UK Supreme Court referring to the ECJ for advisory opinions on U.K. legal issues.

All of this can be sold to the electorate as the ECJ no longer having jurisdiction over the U.K. but it isn’t really as simple as that.
2
John2 - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:

I'm sorry, I still don't understand your concern -

'EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK have made a huge contribution to our country. And we want them and their families to stay. I couldn’t be clearer: EU citizens living lawfully in the UK today will be able to stay'

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/10/theresa-may-s-letter-eu-citizens-annotated
5
john arran - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

Did you read your own link? Did it not raise doubts in your mind about the quality, scope and credibility of May's statements concerning EU-but-not-UK citizens currently resident in the UK?

I find it continually baffling that someone like May can offer a wishlist ("We want to achieve x") and that this can be interpreted apparently unquestioningly as a confirmed pledge. Party manifestos have long taught us that what a party or a person claims it wants to achieve or implement bears little resemblance to what will end up being implemented.

Until a deal is signed, wish lists are simply either wishful thinking or lies. Of course, if a deal isn't agreed and signed, it will all be painted as being the intransigence of the evil EU in not bowing to the UK's perfectly reasonable demands, but we all know it will never be as simple as that, as it inevitably takes two to tango.
Bogwalloper - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> Well thank you for not resorting to insults as the majority of the people I've been debating with have. I am quite mystified as to why people are so emotionally attached to the self-serving, inefficient, spendthrift bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU.

>

Let me guess. Retired. No kids.

W
Bogwalloper - on 20 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> I'm sorry, I still don't understand your concern -

>

As above.

W
Bob Hughes - on 21 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> You're right and it always should have been a decision for exhaustively informed elected representatives but they simply won't do it without the fig leaf of a referendum so that remains the only way to resolve this situation.

Pretty much the one thing i am most confident about in this whole process is that a second referendum won't resolve anything. It would need to be between three options:

1. Leave without a deal - this wouldn't actually be without a deal. It would be without a deal under the Art 50 guidelines. There would have to be a large number of bilateral agreements over things like air traffic, customs etc

2. Leave on the terms of the deal proposed.

3. Cancel article 50 and stay in the EU on the basis of some as yet unknown terms. It is not at all clear that the UK would keep its rebate, for example, or its opt-out on ever-closer union.

A three-way referendum would be even worse than a 2-way referendum with the real possibility that the ultimate choice would be decided by less than 25% of the electorate.

The difference between leaving without a deal and leaving on the terms of a proposed deal would be so finely balanced and technocratic that very few people would really be able to make an informed decision on it.

Any reduction in the UK's current terms with the EU would be red meat to those who are today calling for the UK to leave with no deal at all.

The whole referendum debate would descend into the same partisan rhetoric as the first one.

The very idea of a second referendum is based on the fantasy that the choice is Britain's alone to decide. It isn't. Unless the EU 27 presents Britain with 3 clear choices and asked us to decide between them - which they clearly aren't going to do - then the only option open to us is that which is ultimately negotiated between the UKs negotiation team and the EU.

Bob Hughes - on 21 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> I'm sorry, I still don't understand your concern -

> 'EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK have made a huge contribution to our country. And we want them and their families to stay. I couldn’t be clearer: EU citizens living lawfully in the UK today will be able to stay'


For that to be at all comforting you would have to believe that:

1. A facebook post is worth the paper it isn't written on. Prime Ministers have performed U-turn's on far more credible documents than a facebook post.

2. That Theresa May has the political strength to be able to defend those guarantees even if she wanted to - she doesn't.

3. That the vague guarantees offered in the post would be translated into specific policy, legal and or treaty obligations which will outlive Theresa May.

4. That the Home Office is competent enough not to f*ck it up anyway and start threatening to kick people out by accident.

Even if you accept all of the above, the post mentions nothing about the specific circumstances i mentioned earlier - where families spread between the EU and the UK may need the flexibility to move from one country to another for a few years.
Wicamoi on 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

A depressing but intelligent analysis, thanks.

Here's the latest polling from YouGov which may of interest (percentages don't add up to 100 because I have omitted the "don't knows" and "about the sames")

If there was a referendum, how would you vote - leave 43%, remain 46%
If there was a *second referendum*, how would you vote - leave 44%, remain 45%
How do you think the negotiations are going? - well 21%, badly 64%
Should negotiations prioritise Ending Free Movement or Single Market Access? - EFM 37%, SMA 39%

Will Brexit..
- Be good or bad for British jobs? Good 22%, Bad 39%
- Be good or bad for NHS? Good 25%, Bad 31%
- Be good or bad for British economy? Good 23%, Bad 44%
- Be good or bad for pensions? Good 7%, Bad 28%
- Lead to more or less British influence? More 15%, Less 41%
- Lead to more or less immigration? Less 53%, More 3%

(NB, I have had to precis these questions/answers for brevity - I think I have done so fairly, but to satisfy yourself you can check here: whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/uk-poll-results/)

If I may summarise these results: we are absolutely convinced that the negotiations are going badly, that our country will be worse off in terms of economy, health, jobs, pensions, and global influence - and yet apparently if there was a second referendum it would be too close to call!

Is the UK currently the most ridiculous country in the world?

1
Postmanpat on 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Wicamoi:

> Is the UK currently the most ridiculous country in the world?
>
All of whihc suggests you've not been listening for the past two years. It's not about the economy, stupid......

4
Lusk - on 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Wicamoi:

Oh, good selective use of stats there!
I looked at two of those polls and if you combine the "No real difference" and "Good" results, they outdo "Bad" everytime.
1
Wicamoi on 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Did you not see the bit about the health service? Because for some it was definitely about the NHS, stupid.... and people are apparently getting less optimistic.

Braggadocio may lead some to claim, and even think, that it's not about the economy, but a sensible fellow like you knows that it really, really is. If the expectations for jobs, pensions, wealth and health and loss of influence in the world remain very low or get even lower, what do you think will happen to overall support for Brexit?

But in the meantime you are also right: it is about immigration as well as the economy, as the results nicely capture. What a pity YouGov didn't present any polls on sovereignty and taking back control!
Wicamoi on 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Lusk:

With respect, I not only drew attention to the point you make, and presented enough information for the scale of that effect to be obvious, AND provided you with a link to the original data.

What would have been a disingenuous/selective use of the data would be to add, as you seem to think reasonable, the "about the same" votes to either the "Good" or the "Bad".
tom_in_edinburgh - on 21 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> All of whihc suggests you've not been listening for the past two years. It's not about the economy, stupid......

It's not about the economy until it becomes about the economy. It will become about the economy as soon as the consequences of Brexit become clear to people who don't think their everyday lives will be affected and at that point there will be political cover for overt opposition.

Big Ger - on 23 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:
> Let me guess -your Dad is harder than John's too?

I forgot about it in the end, as I spent the weekend whale watching, got some great shots of them breaching.

As for my late father, he died in 1997 of cancer and tuberculosis, nasty painful way to go..
Post edited at 04:54
2
Big Ger - on 23 Oct 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:


> That there is even a negotiation to be had though, is definitely the fault of the UK, not France.

Some "fault" may lie with the UK for initiating Brexit, but any decision to remove John from France, lies ENTIRELY with France and it's government.

If the French Govt decide to throw John out, along with the toys from their pram, out of spite, retaliation, or pique, due to the UK not slinging EU residents out, then that decision is entirely theirs.

There is NO mandate, law, or reason for them to do that, nothing the UK has done or said, or started, means that France HAS to kick John out. Despite our disagreements, I'm sure he's a lovely hard working chap, with skills and knowledge valuable to the French nation.

He should apply for citizenship, if he's that worried.

6
jkarran - on 23 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> Pretty much the one thing i am most confident about in this whole process is that a second referendum won't resolve anything. It would need to be between three options:
> 1. Leave without a deal - this wouldn't actually be without a deal. It would be without a deal under the Art 50 guidelines. There would have to be a large number of bilateral agreements over things like air traffic, customs etc
> 2. Leave on the terms of the deal proposed.
> 3. Cancel article 50 and stay in the EU on the basis of some as yet unknown terms. It is not at all clear that the UK would keep its rebate, for example, or its opt-out on ever-closer union.

A second referendum could only realistically be to accept the negotiated terms and leave or 'else' where else could be revoke A50 and remain (uncharted territory, politically a unilateral declaration probably won't suffice), it could be renegotiate (impractical but there will be calls for it) and either way it's a can of worms that will cost us yet more but for now at least it it still looks preferable to leaving.

> A three-way referendum would be even worse than a 2-way referendum with the real possibility that the ultimate choice would be decided by less than 25% of the electorate.

I agree.

> Any reduction in the UK's current terms with the EU would be red meat to those who are today calling for the UK to leave with no deal at all.

Possibly but then perhaps our brush with disaster (and a couple of years of demographic change) will have instilled a sense of pragmatism in the chest thumping British lion. One can hope.

> The whole referendum debate would descend into the same partisan rhetoric as the first one.

Doubtless but lessons will have been learned about the importance of robustly countering blatant and 'obvious' lies.

> The very idea of a second referendum is based on the fantasy that the choice is Britain's alone to decide. It isn't. Unless the EU 27 presents Britain with 3 clear choices and asked us to decide between them - which they clearly aren't going to do - then the only option open to us is that which is ultimately negotiated between the UKs negotiation team and the EU.

One thing the EU would be happy to see happen is for Britain to remain and while there will doubtless be a fair bit of animosity over the years of uncertainty caused they are already doing ok out of this (comparatively) with uk businesses and investment seeking new homes on the continent. Yeah there'll be a price to pay and it'll probably be the rebate, that's politically just about deliverable, Euro membership or federalism simply isn't and they're realists, demand too much and you're right, we'll gleefully hack our own noses off.

It's a proper mess but leaving isn't the way out of it.
jk
Post edited at 09:28
1
RomTheBear on 23 Oct 2017
In reply to John2:

> I'm sorry, I still don't understand your concern -

> 'EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK have made a huge contribution to our country. And we want them and their families to stay. I couldn’t be clearer: EU citizens living lawfully in the UK today will be able to stay'


Of course they are not telling you what she means by “EU citizens living lawfully in the U.K. today”, which amounts to saying nothing.


1
RomTheBear on 23 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Some "fault" may lie with the UK for initiating Brexit, but any decision to remove John from France, lies ENTIRELY with France and it's government.


That’s the point, isn’t it, Brexit means that John’s situation becomes vulnerable to the decisions of the French government and parliament, instead of being guaranteed by the EU treaties.

That is entirely the brexiteers’ fault.
Post edited at 18:17
1
Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

Sensible article (ie. one I agree with) by a reluctant remainer about what went wrong and why brexit was the least bad option:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-23/the-harder-brexit-gets-the-more-necessary-it-seem...
1
Sir Chasm - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Facing "severe consequences" shows we're right to leave? Yay, bring on the terrible outcome.
1
Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Facing "severe consequences" shows we're right to leave? Yay, bring on the terrible outcome.

He explains clearly why he nevertheless feels it was right to leave. That is the point of the article!!
wercat on 24 Oct 2017
Sir Chasm - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> He explains clearly why he nevertheless feels it was right to leave. That is the point of the article!!

He gives 2 reasons for leaving

“But if quitting the EU now is hard, how much harder will it be in ten years, or 20?”
and
“it might be now or never”

They’re both crap reasons. But never mind, I’m sure the severe consequences will be worth it.

Oh goody ^^^ a nice dose of McCarthyism.
1
Andy Hardy on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> He explains clearly why he nevertheless feels it was right to leave. That is the point of the article!!

" It's taken for granted that the EU wants to punish the U.K. for deciding to quit, partly to teach other restless members to behave, and partly because Britain just has it coming. I see the reason in such thinking"

I wonder if he was rewarded with a lifetime subscription to the Daily Mail for this alternate factoid?
1
Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I wonder if he was rewarded with a lifetime subscription to the Daily Mail for this alternate factoid?
>
Weak. Funnily enough he used to work for the FT. A less DM like publication I can hardly imagine.

Andy Hardy on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

I wonder why he left...
1
Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I wonder why he left...

Probably even as a remainer became exasperated with the FT's relentless propaganda......
5
RomTheBear on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Probably even as a remainer became exasperated with the FT's relentless propaganda......

His argument is that the difficulty of leaving the EU shows that we have become too integrated with it, and therefore it shows the need to leave.

A completely nonsensical argument, following the same logic, he should be advocating the break up of the U.K. as well.

Essentially his whole argument works on the premise that further integration of the U.K. with the EU was both inevitable and a bad thing.
The former is obviously completely untrue for anybody who know how the EU treaties work, and the latter is, at best, undemonstrated.
Post edited at 14:19
1
jkarran - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:


I just find it unfathomable that someone who got their job by understanding how what they say and do will be perceived could be this crass or stupid. Mind boggling and apalling.
jk
1
jkarran - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Sensible article (ie. one I agree with) by a reluctant remainer...

Is this really the sort of nonsense you're left clinging to to justify your mistake?
jk
Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:
> Is this really the sort of nonsense you're left clinging to to justify your mistake?

> jk

It confirms my reasons for voting out. The EU is being more difficult than is necessary or one might have hoped but for those not suffering from a severe case of Stockholm syndrome it emphasises its failings. The argument that "they'll be horrible if we leave" is a pretty crap reason for staying.
Post edited at 15:03
6
jkarran - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It confirms my reasons for voting out. The EU is being more difficult than is necessary or one might have hoped but for those not suffering from Stockholm syndrome it emphasises its failings. The argument that "they'll be horrible if we leave" is a pretty crap reason for staying.

But that isn't the primary argument, never was.

The primary argument for remaining was and remains that we have the best deal with the EU we could get and as far and away our closest and largest trading partner it makes little sense to jeopardise what is a very large and lucrative deal in the poorly founded hope of some possible future deals with distant nations which will be negotiated from a position of profound weakness, especially so since the EU will likely beat us to most of those deals by a decade.
jk
2
Andy Hardy on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Has it occurred to you that they aren't being "horrible" to us? They are acting in their own interests, and since we are doing the leaving we shouldn't expect them to act otherwise
1
wercat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:
the curse of Nastism is still with us


Of course there is a Socialism side to May now - so where does that leave us? Brexit is an escape of Nastism that has contaminated the nation

In fact I wonder if they ought to be sued by everyone affected under the Rylands v Fletcher rule
Post edited at 15:39
Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:
> Has it occurred to you that they aren't being "horrible" to us? They are acting in their own interests, and since we are doing the leaving we shouldn't expect them to act otherwise

Yes, indeed I have discussed it at length, maybe above. It seems to be the remainers who keep saying that it's all going to be horrible.
My view is that they are cutting off their noses to spites their faces under the illusion that this is in their best interests.
Post edited at 15:30
2
Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> But that isn't the primary argument, never was.

> The primary argument for remaining was and remains that we have the best deal with the EU we could get and as far and away our closest and largest trading partner it makes little sense to jeopardise what is a very large and lucrative deal in the poorly founded hope of some possible future deals with distant nations which will be negotiated from a position of profound weakness, especially so since the EU will likely beat us to most of those deals by a decade.
>
Of course. And the subsidiary argument is now "look we told you they were never going to give us a good deal you muppets, so we should have stayed"



3
MG - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It seems to be the remainers who keep saying that it's all going to be horrible.

Pretty much every research, academic, international and industry body agrees. As do pretty much all other governments in the world (bar the oh so insightful Donald Trump). I know there are probably one or to pesky experts in these groups but perhaps consider that just maybe they are right and PMP wrong?
2
Sir Chasm - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes, indeed I have discussed it at length, maybe above. It seems to be the remainers who keep saying that it's all going to be horrible.

> My view is that they are cutting off their noses to spites their faces under the illusion that this is in their best interests.

Everyone says it's going to be terrible, you just posted a link to an article saying it's going to be terrible.
Still, I'm sure the government is not releasing the impact studies it commissioned because they don't want the eu to know what a strong hand we have.
1
andyfallsoff - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Everyone says it's going to be terrible, you just posted a link to an article saying it's going to be terrible.

Just to add a further gloss to this - an article PP expressly said he agreed with...



RomTheBear on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Yes, indeed I have discussed it at length, maybe above. It seems to be the remainers who keep saying that it's all going to be horrible.

It is already pretty horrible.

> My view is that they are cutting off their noses to spites their faces under the illusion that this is in their best interests.

Yes, of course, the government of 27 countries unanimously agreeing on a clear negotiating mandate are all acting simultaneously acting against their best interest out of spite, and the U.K. Gov is of course much wiser than all of them combined... totally plausible...
Post edited at 16:46
JoshOvki on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41736333

"Brexit: MPs quiz Facebook over Russian-linked 'fake news'"

Russia need have not get involved over "fake news", there was enough rubbish being spouted by the politicians! Perhaps there should be a review into that.
Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> Pretty much every research, academic, international and industry body agrees. As do pretty much all other governments in the world (bar the oh so insightful Donald Trump). I know there are probably one or to pesky experts in these groups but perhaps consider that just maybe they are right and PMP wrong?

It maybe be horrible if the EU wants it to be. Seems an odd reason to want to stay in the EU.
6
Bob Hughes - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It maybe be horrible if the EU wants it to be. Seems an odd reason to want to stay in the EU.

Its got nothing to do with the EU wanting it to be horrible - if Michel Barnier called up Theresa May tomorrow to start talking about a trade deal she would have no idea what to say because the government has no idea what it wants.

1
Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:
> Its got nothing to do with the EU wanting it to be horrible - if Michel Barnier called up Theresa May tomorrow to start talking about a trade deal she would have no idea what to say because the government has no idea what it wants.

So the remainer media keeps on claiming....

More pertinently, what does the EU want? Apparently they've started discussing it amongst themselves so that's good.......
Post edited at 17:49
4
BnB - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So the remainer media keeps on claiming....

> More pertinently, what does the EU want?

I'm pretty sure they want tariff-free access to UK markets, a customs union and agreement on regulations. That's why they're not shouting about it. Admitting as much would blow their negotiating hand!!
Bob Hughes - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So the remainer media keeps on claiming....

Do you disagree?

Postmanpat on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:
> Do you disagree?

I think May and Davies know what they want. Why the hell would they tell everybody when the EU won't even discuss it?

But neither actually I, you or the media know if that is so. It's really a waste of everyone's timing hanging on every word by every player and its interpretation by a biased media. The story changes between the today programme and the 1pm news.....
Post edited at 18:09
1
RomTheBear on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to BnB:
> I'm pretty sure they want tariff-free access to UK markets, a customs union and agreement on regulations. That's why they're not shouting about it. Admitting as much would blow their negotiating hand!!

What an odd statement.
Getting tarrif-free access to the U.K. for most goods will be dead easy for the EU.
However the U.K. Gov made it very clear they do not want to be in a custom union, and do not want to accept the judicial, regulatory and enforcement structures of the EU. Why would they shout about an option that the U.K. has taken off the table ?

I’m quite sure that if the U.K. wanted to still be part of the EEA and the customs union - and respect its rules, it would be welcome with open arms, as many EU leaders said so.
Post edited at 18:22
1
MG - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I think May and Davies

May seems to be having a nervous breakdown while Davies is regarded by the leader of the leave campaign as “thick as mince”...

1
Dr.S at work - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> May seems to be having a nervous breakdown while Davies is regarded by the leader of the leave campaign as “thick as mince”...

I generally rather like Davis, certainly has a well rounded CV:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Davis_(British_politician)
Mind you, did not do PPE so he probably deserves the thick as mince verdict.
andyfallsoff - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I think May and Davies know what they want. Why the hell would they tell everybody when the EU won't even discuss it?

Because what they decide will fundamentally affect the future of this country. This was a decision that was justified by those voting Brexit on the grounds of democracy - how is it democratic if we aren't even told what the government is trying to do on our behalf?

I get the representative democracy argument - we trust them (!) to act on our behalf. But that relies on us knowing what they're doing in order to exercise our democratic rights to protest, vote them out or otherwise try and influence things.

1
RomTheBear on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It maybe be horrible if the EU wants it to be. Seems an odd reason to want to stay in the EU.

You seem somehow to expect that the EU should put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to accommodate the U.K.
This is simply not going to happen. Not with the EU nor with the US, nor with anyone else.
Post edited at 21:01
Bob Hughes - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I think May and Davies know what they want. Why the hell would they tell everybody when the EU won't even discuss it?

Even if that were true, May and Davis aren’t the government. The cabinet is clearly divided, as is both the Tory and the Labour Party, partly because there has been absolutely no effort to get any kind of consensus.

HansStuttgart - on 24 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:

"The primary argument for remaining was and remains that we have the best deal with the EU we could get and as far and away our closest and largest trading partner it makes little sense to jeopardise what is a very large and lucrative deal in the poorly founded hope of some possible future deals with distant nations which will be negotiated from a position of profound weakness, especially so since the EU will likely beat us to most of those deals by a decade."

The primary argument is that working together with the neighbours instead of competing with them results in more peace, prosperity and quality of life for all.

Hans
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes, indeed I have discussed it at length, maybe above. It seems to be the remainers who keep saying that it's all going to be horrible.

What other option do they have? They cannot in any way look for anything positive about Brexit, or their whole world will crumble around them.

5
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> The primary argument is that working together with the neighbours instead of competing with them results in more peace, prosperity and quality of life for all.

By "working together" I assume you mean "being dictated too by a massive unrepresentative and inefficient bureaucracy."

11
Pete Pozman - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> What other option do they have? They cannot in any way look for anything positive about Brexit, or their whole world will crumble around them.

That's it, right there. There is nothing positive about Brexit and the world as I know it is crumbling. And, when you put it in it's worldwide populist context, might well be coming to an end.
1
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I'm so glad I don't live on your world in that case...
2
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> By "working together" I assume you mean "being dictated too by a massive unrepresentative and inefficient bureaucracy."

Have you ever had to face EU bureaucracy, or been dictated to by the EU ?
Post edited at 07:04
L Affavent - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

There is really no strategy at all so no pressure - Theresa May will get us all f****d up in the end. Mark my work ;)
1
MG - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

You are living in your own little world. Even ardent brexiteers like PMP now believe it will be horrible, they just don't care
1
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:
> You are living in your own little world. Even ardent brexiteers like PMP now believe it will be horrible, they just don't care

Then I'm happy in that world.

It's much more fun being happy, and not wasting all your time and energy whining on the internet about things you cannot change.

You should try it, as the poet says;

"Makes you feel much older
Sublime the blind parade
It wrecks me how they justify their acts of war
They assemble, they pray
Take good care of what the priests say
'After death it's so much fun'
Little sheep don't let your feet stray

Happiness is easy
Joy be written upon the earth
And the sky above
Jesus star that shines so bright
Gather us in love."
Post edited at 07:21
3
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Then I'm happy in that world.

It is true that ignorance is bliss.

1
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

In your case Rom, we take that as a given.
4
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Spartacus:
More good news.

"Britain’s jobs boom will keep on growing as employers say they plan to carry on hiring, regardless of indications the economy is slowing down. Economists had feared the UK’s remarkable surge in employment would stutter in the face of weaker GDP growth, but so far firms have defied those worries.

The proportion of companies getting more confident in their hiring and investment decisions outweighed those becoming more gloomy by a margin of 10pc in October’s survey from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation."


So, as the poet writes;

"Ain't got no cash, ain't got no style
Ain't got no gal to make you smile
But don't worry, be happy
Cause when you worry your face will frown
And that will bring everybody down
So don't worry, be happy
Don't worry, be happy now


Don't worry, be happy
Don't worry, be happy
Don't worry, be happy
Don't worry, be happy"

Post edited at 07:54
1
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
By "working together" I assume you mean "being dictated too by a massive unrepresentative and inefficient bureaucracy"

what innefficiancy are you refering to, the system that sets out to do something once across 27/28 countries without duplication, using shared expert resources thus allowing a favourable and efficient area to do business , or the massively efficient system where we set out to duplicate something we have already done at great expense whilst setting up a bureaucratic nightmare of a customs system in the next year.
Did you really swallow Boris's bullshit about bendy bananas??
Post edited at 08:06
Sir Chasm - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

For anyone who wants more than the selective quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/25/employers-ignore-slowdown-keep-hiring/

"And what a scummy man
Just give him half a chance, I bet he'll rob you if he can
You can see it in his eyes, yeah, that he's got a driving ban
amongst some other offences"
Postmanpat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:
> That's it, right there. There is nothing positive about Brexit and the world as I know it is crumbling. And, when you put it in it's worldwide populist context, might well be coming to an end.

Which is a function of the EU and the democratic deficit of "democracies" around the world.
Post edited at 08:21
1
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Pssst, you replied to the wrong guy....

2
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

pssst, cheers


Ill leave it to you to answer though
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> For anyone who wants more than the selective quote


Is there anything in that which contradicts the section I quoted? Nothing "selective" about it, is there?

This is "selective quoting", as you said;

"And what a man, give him half a chance, I bet you can see it in his eyes, yeah, that he's amongst some other"
3
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:


Good old Bojo, bang on the money as ever...

But Boris is right to say that the EU does have something to say on bananas. In fact, in the form of the boringly-named EU Commission regulation 2257/94, it has more than 1,800 words to impart on the subject. The rules state that in order for bananas to be sold anywhere in the EU – including in Britain – they have to meet certain criteria, including that they’re ‘free from bruises’, ‘free from any foreign smell’ and, crucially, ‘free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94
Post edited at 08:12
4
MG - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Is there anything in that which contradicts the section I quoted? Nothing "selective" about it, is there?

How about "“Clarity around trade, residency and immigration could prevent a rapid decline in the UK’s successful labour market. We’re looking for political leadership.”?

And the fact that confidence in both recruitment and the economy has been declining steadily since the referendum?
1
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

> How about "“Clarity around trade, residency and immigration could prevent a rapid decline in the UK’s successful labour market. We’re looking for political leadership.”?

And that contradicts what I posted, how exactly?





3
andyfallsoff - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Although if you keep reading that summary of the regulation, it also says (a) these rules only apply to wholesalers - nothing in them bans the sale of bendy bananas; and (b) the full scope of the rules only apply to "extra" class bananas.

So it isn't that the sale of abnormally bendy bananas is banned - there is just a system so that when wholesalers buy bananas, they can know what they're getting and the less saleable ones don't get mixed in with what is supposed to be a top grade purchase. Seems quite sensible really, I imagine that saves fruit buyers and sellers time and money?
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Although if you keep reading that summary of the regulation, it also says (a) these rules only apply to wholesalers - nothing in them bans the sale of bendy bananas; and (b) the full scope of the rules only apply to "extra" class bananas.

And how do the public get their bananas? Do they have a choice to bypass the wholesalers?



6
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

Later today the Office for National Statistics will publish GDP data for the third quarter of the year, I wonder what it will bring us?

Being a Brexiter/glass half full man/positive person, I'm looking forward to more good news on the UK economy, even though it's not in my interest.
4
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

That’s terrible isn’t it, not being able to import freely rotten and pest infected products into the EU market.

Try bringing rotten fruits to Australia and see how you are met at the border.
1
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:
You just need to have travelled and done cross border business within the EU, and tried outside it, to realise that the EU has massively reduced bureaucracy and massively increased freedom.

Problem is, people seem to take it for granted.
Post edited at 08:29
1
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Back to the usual Rom bollox then, making up things people haven't said, then arguing that they are wrong to think them.

> That’s terrible isn’t it, not being able to import freely rotten and pest infected products into the EU market.

Now who said anything about "being able to import freely rotten and pest infected products into the EU market"?

We were discussing, or at least the honest players were, the need for the EU to regulate the type of curvature allowed on imported bananas.

You do not have an honest bone in your body do you? Is it any wonder I choose to ignore you 90% of the time.


> Try bringing rotten fruits to Australia and see how you are met at the border.

Why?

7
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Back to the usual Rom bollox then, making up things people haven't said, then arguing that they are wrong to think them.

> Now who said anything about "being able to import freely rotten and pest infected products into the EU market"?

You, in that article you quoted. (Which btw is in accurate)

> We were discussing, or at least the honest players were, the need for the EU to regulate the type of curvature allowed on imported bananas.

Sorry, I was assuming that even you knew that was a myth, but since it appears you don’t : bent bananas are perfectly allowed within the EU. If you had read the Wikipedia article you referenced, you would have known.

> You do not have an honest bone in your body do you? Is it any wonder I choose to ignore you 90% of the time.

> Why?
Post edited at 08:35
1
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
this is a classic example of doing a job once, any buyer in the whole EU can order some grade A bannanas for display and know exactly what they are getting and the supplier knows what they have to provide, no international Phone calls (EU has just enforced flat rate roaming across Europe) arguing about what was delivered/expected, no misunderstandings, multiply this across the 10,000 wholesalers over the last 10 years and the cost saving in time and efficiency is huge and really just proves that BOJO is a bellend who knows nothing about business, this wouldn't have been something imposed on business they would have been involved and would have provided "experts" to ensure that it helps them.
Post edited at 08:37
wercat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
500 words please, with evidence, on how the experience of buying and consuming bananas has changed in the UK since the 1970s. As a glass half full/positive person you should see how easy it is to buy and consume bananas now


I'm very positive about the ease with which I can buy hard to get/obsolete parts from former eastern bloc countries now in the EU. OTOH I've been stung terribly by delays/import charges and duties when buying technical stuff from the US


btw was it EU blood or US blood that infected haemophiliacs in the 1980s
Post edited at 08:39
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You and that Wikipedia article you quoted.

Liar.

I gave teh wikipedia article as it directly relates to the point being made.

No one, definitely not me, ever claimed it was "terrible not being able to import freely rotten and pest infected products into the EU market"

> Sorry, I was assuming that even you knew that was a myth, but since it appears you don’t : bent bananas are perfectly allowed within the EU. If you had read the Wikipedia article you quoted, you would have known.

The article confirms that the EU regulated the curve of bananas for wholesale. But again, as you are a dishonest person, you avoid the actual intent of the debate, and try to pervert it into something else.

The actual bananas controversy was not about the need for bananas to be straight or curved,m but for teh need to have a 1800 word regulation laid down by the EU bureaucracy on bananas.







10
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to wercat:
> 500 words please, with evidence, on how the experience of buying and consuming bananas has changed in the UK since the 1970s. As a glass half full/positive person you should see how easy it is to buy and consume bananas now

Oh, another strawman, god I hope no one strikes a match here. Can you point out who claimed that "experience of buying and consuming bananas has changed in the UK " please?

> I'm very positive about the ease with which I can buy hard to get/obsolete parts from former eastern bloc countries now in the EU. OTOH I've been stung terribly by delays/import charges and duties when buying technical stuff from the US

Lucky old you eh?!?! Phew we dodged a bullet there....

> btw was it EU blood or US blood that infected haemophiliacs in the 1980s

Yes, and it was Don Bradman, who only scored one run in his last match, thus finished with a Test batting average of 99.94. He'd needed just four runs for an average of 100.
Post edited at 08:44
6
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Liar.

> I gave teh wikipedia article as it directly relates to the point being made.

> No one, definitely not me, ever claimed it was "terrible not being able to import freely rotten and pest infected products into the EU market"

> The article confirms that the EU regulated the curve of bananas for wholesale. But again, as you are a dishonest person, you avoid the actual intent of the debate, and try to pervert it into something else.

Ok, so you’re only point was relating to a ban that does not exist. Apologies, I was assuming you were making a more interesting point, but I was mistaken.

> The actual bananas controversy was not about the need for bananas to be straight or curved,m but for teh need to have a 1800 word regulation laid down by the EU bureaucracy on bananas.

Don’t you agree that there should be regulations on the import of fresh product from abroad ? Most countries have them, and for good reasons.

1800 words seem pretty concise to me.

But here it is, I asked you to find an example of how the EU dictated anything to you, and the only thing you could come up with is a ban on bent bananas that doesn’t even exists.

That sums it up, really.
Post edited at 08:48
1
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
wercat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

oh dear
Pete Pozman - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> I'm so glad I don't live on your world in that case...

It's beginning to look like nobody will be living on it soon. Even the insects are being wiped out.
Wilful ignorance, the triumph of liars, disaster capitalism garnished with nostalgia for a time that never was.
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

>
> The actual bananas controversy was not about the need for bananas to be straight or curved,m but for teh need to have a 1800 word regulation laid down by the EU bureaucracy on bananas.

I dont know if you work in business but it is quite possible for a company too write thousands of words describing their requirements for quality bananas for display, think of all the suppliers and wholesalers and all the different supermarket chains and little family shops replicating this in multiple languages.
Do you not really understand the benefit to suppliers, sellers and consumers, no bendy bananas were banned all they said was if you were selling a grade A banana for display it had to meet certain criteria, guess who benefits most from this, small business's, the people who don't have the clout of the big supermarkets to send an order back.
That's the small businesses that the tories claim to be a champion of.
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Don’t you agree that there should be regulations on the import of fresh product from abroad ? Most countries have them.

Of course there should.

> But here it is, I asked you to find an example of how the EU dictated anything to you, and the only thing you could come up with is a ban on bent bananas that doesn’t even exists.

I was answering jethro kiernans point on bananas, I had ignored your question, as I always feel like I need a shower after interacting with you, by god I wish I'd persisted in ignoring you.

. Check who first introduced the subject of bananas, hint I quoted him in my reply. (Why do I bother, you're only being your usual distasteful self, you know damn well where the issue of bananas came from.)

> That sums it up, really.

It sums you up perfectly, nothing but deviousness, strawmen, lies and deceit.
Post edited at 08:53
9
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> I dont know if you work in business but it is quite possible for a company too write thousands of words describing their requirements for quality bananas for display, think of all the suppliers and wholesalers and all the different supermarket chains and little family shops replicating this in multiple languages.

Good for them, each reacting to local needs and more, not dictated to by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.

> Do you not really understand the benefit to suppliers, sellers and consumers, no bendy bananas were banned all they said was if you were selling a grade A banana for display it had to meet certain criteria, guess who benefits most from this, small business's, the people who don't have the clout of the big supermarkets to send an order back.

But was any of it necessary at all? Guess what the flaming EU had to say about it?

" According to the Commission's press release, "In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them." The Agriculture Commissioner stated, "This is a concrete example of our drive to cut red tape and I will continue to push until it goes through. It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things. It is far better to leave it to market operators."

So, it seems the people who pushed this bull onto the UK actually agree with me.









6
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> It's beginning to look like nobody will be living on it soon. Even the insects are being wiped out.

> Wilful ignorance, the triumph of liars, disaster capitalism garnished with nostalgia for a time that never was.

Dear god....
5
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Of course there should.

> I was answering jethro kiernans point on bananas, I had ignored your question, as I always feel like I need a shower after interacting with you, by god I wish I'd persisted in ignoring you.

> . Check who first introduced the subject of bananas, hint I quoted him in my reply. (Why do I bother, you're only being your usual distasteful self, you know damn well where the issue of bananas came from.)

I did not see that. I thought your post was in response to mine. I apologise for that mistake.

> It sums you up perfectly, nothing but deviousness, strawmen, lies and deceit.

However your complete overreaction and your insults are completely uncalled for.
You claim to be a happy bunny, and yet, you display so much hate an anger at the slightest poke.
Post edited at 09:08
1
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
First insult? (which drew me into replying to you, against my better instincts,)

> Then I'm happy in that world.

> It is true that ignorance is bliss.

As I always say, I never insult, unless insulted first.

There is no hate an anger in my replies, only mirth and enjoyment.

Again you fall into the trap of ascribing things to others which do not exist. We're not all like you you know....

But I will admit some amazement and respect for your apology, my thanks.
Post edited at 09:22
9
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:
Moreover, there are good reasons as to why banana import is heavily regulated around the world.
They are all clones so it’s very hard to protect against pest and diseases. Outbreak of diseases have caused massive loss of production worldwide.
It makes total sense to have regulation at the highest level, instead of fragmenting, at which point, it becomes indeed useless bureaucracy.
Post edited at 09:14
jkarran - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> The primary argument is that working together with the neighbours instead of competing with them results in more peace, prosperity and quality of life for all.
> Hans

I wasn't explicit about what I meant when I said best deal but I do consider a cooperative society where people are free to move, share ideas, experiences, connections and lives, not just business a vital part of that 'best deal' we threw away. It's at least as important from a security and stability perspective in the long run as interweaving our economies.
jk
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> They are all clones so it’s very hard to protect against pest and diseases. Outbreak of diseases have caused massive loss of production worldwide.

Not all bananas are clones, just the most popular and most widely grown, the "Cavendish."


1
andyfallsoff - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Good for them, each reacting to local needs and more, not dictated to by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.

> But was any of it necessary at all? Guess what the flaming EU had to say about it?

> " According to the Commission's press release, "In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw these products away or destroy them." The Agriculture Commissioner stated, "This is a concrete example of our drive to cut red tape and I will continue to push until it goes through. It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things. It is far better to leave it to market operators."

> So, it seems the people who pushed this bull onto the UK actually agree with me.

Would you mind posting a link? I'd be interested to see what changes they propose. As I and others on this thread have pointed out, product standards and regulatory conformity are quite important to international trade, so I'd be surprised if they were ditching the idea (it's what all modern trade agreements work on).

Just to clarify though, they didn't "push this bull onto the UK", we were a member of a legislative body that agreed to enact it.
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

The tories have tried the same Bojo approach for health and safety, the health and safety act is actualy a very well worded piece of legislation, adaptable and open to intelligent interpretation.
We have been regaled with tales about conkers being banned and other HSE myths, non of which have a basis in legislation and there is a real danger we could loose some important protection in the Bonfire of red tape that the tories are pushing for.
Again something started by those who have absolutely no understanding of what's involved in HSE and industry.
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Would you mind posting a link? I'd be interested to see what changes they propose. As I and others on this thread have pointed out, product standards and regulatory conformity are quite important to international trade, so I'd be surprised if they were ditching the idea (it's what all modern trade agreements work on).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2453204/Bent-banana-and-curved-cucumber-rules-dropp...

> Just to clarify though, they didn't "push this bull onto the UK", we were a member of a legislative body that agreed to enact it.

I know, just a little hyperbole on my part. ;-)

8
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
there is no requirement to throw these products away, they get used for things like smoothies, baking etc or they can be sold in the supermarket as cheap bananas, Market forces dictate that people have been conditioned to like pretty fruit and vegetables, this comes from the market not legislation. Please show me the clause in the legislation that says bananas not meeting the requirements have to be thrown away?
This is the telegraph the paper that employed Bojo during is lying about the EU journalistic phase, I think it is called doubling down. I'm referring to the last few sentences about items failing class I not being able to be sold as class II which appears to be bullshit.
Post edited at 09:50
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

More good news.

"UK service sector and manufacturing are both growing. Britain’s service sector provided the bulk of the growth in the last quarter. It expanded by 0.4% in the July-September period.

The ONS says services was “the largest contributor to GDP growth, with a strong performance in computer programming, motor trades and retail trade.” Britain manufacturing also returned to growth, with output rising by a punchy 1.0% during the quarter.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/oct/25/uk-gdp-britain-growth-slowdown-brexit-pound-ft...
2
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:
> there is no requirement to throw these products away, they get used for things like smoothies, baking etc or they can be sold in the supermarket as cheap bananas, Market forces dictate that people have been conditioned to like pretty fruit and vegetables, this comes from the market not legislation. Please show me the clause in the legislation that says bananas not meeting the requirements have to be thrown away?

Unfortunately the mad bureaucrats at the EU ruled that those not meeting class 1 standards had to be bined;

"Mariann Fischer Boel, the European agriculture commissioner, has said that she also wants to scrap a swathe of regulations on produce such as onions, garlic, caulifower and spinach.

Speaking before the vote she said the rules were outdated and especially inappropriate at the time of a world food shortages.

She said: "In this era of high prices and growing demand, it makes no sense to throw (misshapen fruit and vegetables) away or destroy them. It shouldn't be the EU's job to regulate these things."

Produce that does not meet the minimum standards can not at present be sold as second-class, meaning many edible items are thrown away by farmers.



http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEX-08-0723_en.htm?locale=en
Post edited at 09:50
1
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
I'm sorry but an increase in minimum wage retail jobs is hardly something to cheer about, ask any one who has been downsized from a well paid skilled trade to a minimum wage job, the statistics don't reflect the true story.
Also it is now impossible to buy a house on a retail job wage but the government sees home ownership as the only real way to have a roof over your head, I see no attempt to square this circle from the present government


Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."JFK
Post edited at 09:59
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Good of you to turn good news into bad, I'm sure we're all the better for it.

Just skimmed that report again, where does it mention "minimum wage retail jobs"?
1
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

find me a well paid Retail job
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Create me a new strawman, one that looks like Catweazel ;-)
1
andyfallsoff - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

So as a rough description of the overall banana story:

- the EU parliament agreed to bring in standards on bananas for wholesale as a result of industry pressure;

- those rules included various grades depending on identifiable attributes like size, curvature, etc.

- it was identified that certain bananas wouldn't fall within any of the grades so might be wasted and the EU itself issued a statement saying they wanted to rectify this and introduce a class for ungraded fruit to prevent wastage. They did that in 2008/2009, so the issue has been fixed at the EU's own instigation.

This strikes me as an eminently reasonable demonstration of how a legislative works - they respond to pressures and do something, then go back and revise it if there are concerns.

Am I missing something?
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Not that I can see, apart from the fact that you missed out the fact that the whole thing was an unnecessary bureaucratic farce and farago.

PS. What "industry pressure"?
5
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Bollox! The pound is up a cent against the $Au already.
2
cb294 - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

AAARRRGGGHH!!! Are people still going on about this crap? I know the BJ has spread his typical lies about this when he was in Brussels, but would have thought that this had since been thoroughly debunked.

You can sell any bananas you want in the EU (except if they are contaminated with pesticides, are GM bananas should they exist, etc..). The entire bendy banana business is just a standardization exercise, so if Ye Olde Fruite Shoppe orders a delivery of class A or class B bananas from their wholesaler they know what they will be getting. These standards were introduced by the EU at the specific request of the industry bodies, as it makes life so much easier if a retailer knows that the same descriptions apply whether they buy from a wholesaler in Italy or one in Spain.

FWIW, I just bought a bunch of small, wrinkly, half brown bananas from (I think) Ecuador at my local organic food store, as they taste so much better than the bland agroindustrial fare I could get at the supermarket.

CB
Big Ger - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to cb294:

Try reading the discussion before commenting. If you remainers will keep bringing up the bent banana debacle....
8
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Do you honestly believe that industry is somehow imune to bureaucratic farce, which bit of Andys statement do you find a farce, you seem to be repeating the mantra that everything democratic goverments touch is going to turn into a bureaucratic farce even when there seams to be little evidence of that.
jethro kiernan - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

The only debacle was the lies, and decisions based on lies and the culture of lying that is still being applied to things like HSE and the EU (remember the bus) it seems that half a dozen people have tried to explain the same thing to you and you keep ignoring it preferring to trust Bojo rather the truth.
Shani - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> More good news.

> "UK service sector and manufacturing are both growing. Britain’s service sector provided the bulk of the growth in the last quarter. It expanded by 0.4% in the July-September period.

Not quite. Average revision to the first estimate of GDP since 1992 has been 0.33pp.
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:
> Not quite. Average revision to the first estimate of GDP since 1992 has been 0.33pp.

Anyway, in the international context, that puts us in relative decline with the eurozone.
One can only hope this doesn’t go on too long, or we will find ourselves 20 years later significantly poorer than our neighbours.

But we will be able to eat rotten bananas, so I guess, that’s a plus.
Post edited at 11:24
1
Shani - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes - exactly that ROM. Not only is celebration of the GDP for this Q premature - as it is statistically insignificant, but it has to be seen in the context of Eurozone growth. We are in a bad place economically.

Whatever the idea behind 'Take back control', if you are economically weak, you will have little control - perhaps less than you could imagine as you sacrifice protections and laws to secure trade agreements and to attract any inward investment.
1
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to jethro kiernan:

(remember the bus)

I'm starting to wonder if that was a very clever move by the Leave campaign (or did they just get lucky?). It became such a large focus of the debate pre-vote. It was the dead cat thrown on the table. The remain camp were livid as it was such a simplistic and effective message. They managed to expose it as a lie, but only in the sense that the number was too high. When the number was revised down (by Remain exposing the £350m myth), it was still a positive number which was really just the point that Leave was trying to make; The UK is a large net contributor to the EU budget.
But now Leave had Remain banging on about this new number (which was still an awful lot of cash) helping to ram the message home. The seed was planted in waverers minds, and Remain could only water it by being so wound up by the audacity of the lie that they couldn't shut up about it. To the point that "the bus" still gets mentioned by remainers in every thread on Brexit, multiple times...it's like catnip to them.
2
andyfallsoff - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Agree. Dominic Cummings says effectively the same thing - the bus number, despite being a lie, was significant enough they probably wouldn't have won without it.

Rather sickening isn't it?
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> First insult? (which drew me into replying to you, against my better instincts,)

> As I always say, I never insult, unless insulted first.

There was no insult there unless you recognised yourself in that statement. I’m saddened that you did.

> There is no hate an anger in my replies, only mirth and enjoyment.

Ha, so you actually enjoy being hateful and insulting. I think we had noticed.
Post edited at 12:21
1
Pete Pozman - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Big Ger:


> Dear god....

You'll be taking it seriously soon enough. Remember "On the Beach", that was set in Australia too, from what I remember.
Postmanpat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:
> Yes - exactly that ROM. Not only is celebration of the GDP for this Q premature - as it is statistically insignificant, but it has to be seen in the context of Eurozone growth. We are in a bad place economically.

> Whatever the idea behind 'Take back control', if you are economically weak, you will have little control - perhaps less than you could imagine as you sacrifice protections and laws to secure trade agreements and to attract any inward investment.

FFS, Even these numbers are pretty much on a par or better than France, Italy, Switzerland Belgium amongst others. The differences are "statistically insignificant" The UK economy has underperformed marginally for a couple of quarters having outperformed for several years. The disasterous projections of short term armageddon have simply not come through.

Probably there will be further relative underperformance until a settlement is reached. If you think that this a reason to vote remain then you are entirely missing the point.
Post edited at 12:56
5
andyfallsoff - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> FFS, Even these numbers are pretty much on a par or better than France, Italy, Switzerland Belgium amongst others. The differences are "statistically insignificant" The UK economy has underperformed marginally for a couple of quarters having outperformed for several years. The disasterous projections of short term armageddon have simply not come through.

> Probably there will be further relative underperformance until a settlement is reached. If you think that this a reason to vote remain then you are entirely missing the point.

I think the main economic concern of remainers is that relative underperformance seems the most likely outcome of our final agreed state - we won't be able to achieve as frictionless a trading position without either being in the EU or agreeing to equivalent concessions of sovereignty, regulatory convergence, etc.

So the likely outcome seems to be that the UK will perform worse than countries who are willing to accept those conditions, or countries where the scope for growth is higher because they start from a lower base economically.

Whether or not there is a short term recession as companies panic is part of the equation (as that will hurt too) but avoiding a crash doesn't mean that we avoid the long term damage.
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> FFS, Even these numbers are pretty much on a par or better than France, Italy, Switzerland Belgium amongst others. The differences are "statistically insignificant" The UK economy has underperformed marginally for a couple of quarters having outperformed for several years.

Sorry mate but you’re really haven’t looked at the numbers. U.K. GDP growth has been running significantly lower than the eurozone’s since 2016.
Same against the US.

Per capita, the picture is even worse.

If you think a point or more of annual gdp growth is statistically insignificant, let’s see what that does over 10 or 20 years.

> The disasterous projections of short term armageddon have simply not come through.

Actually you’ll find that the treasury models seem to have predicted to almost near perfection what is happening, admittedly with a one year lag ( I guess that hadn’t predicted it would take a whole year to rigger. Art 50)

> Probably there will be further relative underperformance until a settlement is reached. If you think that this a reason to vote remain then you are entirely missing the point.

Falling real wages and an economy functioning well below full potential is a pretty good reason to vote remain in itself. By no means the most important.

True, if a settlemt is reached where the U.K. stayed in the single market and custom union, the economy could be roaring back.

Unfortunately I don’t see that happening due to the political impossibility in the U.K. to strike such a deal. I’m not excluding that there may be a reckoning and suddenly British people realise that ECJ and freedom of movement are not evil, but I doubt it.

The best possible outcome in those circumstances, s a CETA type deal, which, according to most trade models (probably the most robust and tested, as far as economic models go), will lower growth potential for the long term compared to the EEA, and by much more than the current uncertainty does.
Post edited at 13:20
1
Postmanpat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Sorry mate but you’re really haven’t looked at the numbers. U.K. GDP growth has been running significantly lower than the eurozone’s since 2016.

Whoops, thought I was replying to Shani
Post edited at 13:51
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> 2016 was, in terms of reported figures, tow quarters ago. Most EU countrties have not announced Q3.

Yes, not disputed that.

> It's a f*cking strange economist who simply extrapolates a couple of quarters numbers over 10-20 years to make a forecast.

I’m not doing that. I’m questioning your assumption that a few percentage point growth do not matter and are statistically insignificant.
Especially per capita, it does matter, GDP may be crap but it encompasses so many things it’s actually pretty good a capturing living standards.

> So, we're agreed: uncertainty is creating some short term relative underperformance against some major peers although later than predicted and smaller than many predicted.

Not smaller, bang on as predicted on most indicators. Read the treasury analysis.

> And the longer term outcome depends on what one thinks will be the final deal and the long term effects of that. Neither of which are easily forecast.

Actually it’s pretty easy to forecast with near certainty that trading terms will be vastly inferior unless we stay in the EEA and customs union.
The markets are not stupid and have made the same analysis, and have priced that in the value of the pound.
Post edited at 13:56
Postmanpat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Whoops,thought I was replying to Shani. Byeee
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Whoops,thought I was replying to Shani. Byeee

Coward.
1
Postmanpat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Coward.

Nah, just treasure my sanity.....
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Nah, just treasure my sanity.....

I think may have lost that a while ago when you seem to have lost perspective. But I wish you well, sincerely.
Post edited at 14:14
1
Shani - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Probably there will be further relative underperformance until a settlement is reached. If you think that this a reason to vote remain then you are entirely missing the point.

Absolutely there will be 'further relative underperformance until a settlement is reached'. Many economists have predicted this from the outset. The reports currently being surpressed by the Treasury also conclude this. Not that you'll have read much about this from the proBrexit papers (Mail Express Sun etc...).

The question is, will our economy be in a recoverable position from this self inflicted damage? Given that lots of important EU functionality currently resident in the UK is moving to Europe, there will be a deficit. Heck, even pro Leavers are talking about how bad it is going to get - https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=672531&v=1#x8651318

Then look at the necessary loss of soverignty necessary to comply with trade deals - we are going to still have to give that up to meet the criteria of our largest trading bloc. From a weakened economic position, we are likely to be exploited - it is the nature of neocapitalism, and there are a lot of pro-Leavers who are lining up to do well out of disaster captialism on the back of Leave.

As you suggest, I clearly am 'missing the point' of voting leave. Can you tell me what it was?

It is interesting that in the 6 months since Article 50, far from being well on our way with quick trade deals as David Davis et al, assured us, and far from the disasterous and unlikely 'no deal' scenraio Fox et al painted, we are without new trade deals and 'no deal' is more likely than ever.

"So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months." - http://bit.ly/2fb74eh

In fact all the evidence points to being much harder than anyone knew or thought. Yet despite this new knowledge, Brexiteers are doubling down on this much bleaker and more difficult scenrio. Brexiteers are not to be moved by evidence because they endorse 'Brexit at any cost'. It is a special kind of stupidity to pursue a goal without a purpose.
Post edited at 14:21
Postmanpat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Absolutely there will be 'further relative underperformance until a settlement is reached'. Many economists have predicted this from the outset. The reports currently being surpressed by the Treasury also conclude this.
>
As have I. I'm pleasantly surprised that it hasn't been worse given the tortuous process of negotiation.
>
> As you suggest, I clearly am 'missing the point' of voting leave. Can you tell me what it was?
>
We've been through this a million times if we've been through it once. I'm not going through that again. My point here is that short term underperfomance should NOT be regarded as a reason to leave.

Shani - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> We've been through this a million times if we've been through it once. I'm not going through that again.

Humour me, please. If you've trialled your argument, THE argument, so many times, you should have it down to a pithy sentence or two (and one that does not feature "£350m" and "NHS". Ta da bsh). So let's hear it.

> My point here is that short term underperfomance should NOT be regarded as a reason to leave.

Agreed. But taken in the context of wider economic factors - productivity, inward investment - and run against economic models, we might want to entertain the idea that the doomsayers were actually just 'sayers'.

*EDIT: As above, my question isn't just "Why vote Leave", it is as much, "Given that we now know BREXIT is way harder than we can have envisaged, and is likely to have an impact similar to that of The Great War, why do Brexiteers still insist on going ahead with it, and along the same timescales?"
Post edited at 14:37
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> As have I. I'm pleasantly surprised that it hasn't been worse given the tortuous process of negotiation.

> We've been through this a million times if we've been through it once. I'm not going through that again. My point here is that short term underperfomance should NOT be regarded as a reason to leave.

Repeating this is useless unless you point out a good reason to leave that is not easily demolished by basic evidence and common sense.
1
Sir Chasm - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Humour me, please. If you've trialled your argument, THE argument, so many times, you should have it down to a pithy sentence or two (and one that does not feature "£350m" and "NHS". Ta da bsh). So let's hear it.

It was some bollocks about leaving the eu so we can reform the House of Lords.
Postmanpat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Humour me, please. If you've trialled your argument, THE argument, so many times, you should have it down to a pithy sentence or two (and one that does not feature "£350m" and "NHS". Ta da bsh). So let's hear it.

>
Briefly I think that democracy across the West is in crisis because the political classes and the structures through which they govern have become detached,unresponsive and unaccountable to the general populace and corrupted by vested interests. Hence Trump, Brexit and other anti-politics or extremist movements and votes across the West.

This is true of the UK but it is nowhere more true than of the EU and its arcane structure and democratic deficit. I don't believe that the EU political class or for that matter most of the national governments have the will let alone the ability to change this. Indeed, I think they will have become more centralised and dirigiste in order to confront the issues facing the EU-Euro crisis, fiscal transfers etc etc

Unless democratic legimitacy can be restored it will eventually collapse with obvious social and probably economic repercussions. and I think such legitimacy has a better chance of being restored within a national rather than super national framework.

1
Postmanpat on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> It was some bollocks about leaving the eu so we can reform the House of Lords.

In your head.
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Humour me, please. If you've trialled your argument, THE argument, so many times, you should have it down to a pithy sentence or two (and one that does not feature "£350m" and "NHS". Ta da bsh). So let's hear it.

I’ve tried to get it out of him for almost two years. You can’t, because he couldn’t give it to you anyway, he’s been in full cognitive dissonance mode.
I’ve been around these forum long enough to know he’s an intelligent guy, and he probably knows deep down that it’s bollocks, he just happens to be overwhelmed by chauvinistic feelings.


2
RomTheBear on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Briefly I think that democracy across the West is in crisis because the political classes and the structures through which they govern have become detached,unresponsive and unaccountable to the general populace and corrupted by vested interests. Hence Trump, Brexit and other anti-politics or extremist movements and votes across the West.

> This is true of the UK but it is nowhere more true than of the EU and its arcane structure and democratic deficit. I don't believe that the EU political class or for that matter most of the national governments have the will let alone the ability to change this. Indeed, I think they will have become more centralised and dirigiste in order to confront the issues facing the EU-Euro crisis, fiscal transfers etc etc

> Unless democratic legimitacy can be restored it will eventually collapse with obvious social and probably economic repercussions. and I think such legitimacy has a better chance of being restored within a national rather than super national framework.

That is possible only if you isolate the country completely.

The reality is that in or outside of the EU, most of everything we care about will have to be handled at a supra national level.
Assuming you’re not in favour of grandiose isolation, you are just swapping an imperfect but democratic system that is the EU, for a system based on threat, coercion, bargaining, and discussions between heads of states in smoke filled rooms.
1
Andy Hardy on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
Assuming that all of your points are true, how the atual fcuk does committing economic hara kiri plug the democratic deficit? In what universe does a vote to leave further the cause of democracy? Would the EU prevent the UK from having PR? or reforming the house of lords? or controlling lobbying?

Edited to add: we were in democratic deficit before joining the common markt in 1975, and we will be when we leave.
Post edited at 15:06
MG - on 25 Oct 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Briefly I think that democracy across the West is in crisis because the political classes and the structures through which they govern have become detached,unresponsive and unaccountable to the general populace and corrupted by vested interests. Hence Trump, Brexit and other anti-politics or extremist movements and votes across the West.

You've managed to convince yourself that "Trump, Brexit and other anti-politics or extremist movements" are preferable to the EU. Stunning.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.