Org Mobile Site
Thread: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
I would have some grudging respect if right at the start the MPs had said "this was a non-binding vote. Thanks for your say, but we're overruling it as is our prerogative." But they didn't. Back then it was all about the "will of the people". Well, sort of.
Why don't you directly cite Corbyn on the morning of the result?I would have some grudging respect if right at the start the MPs had said "this was a non-binding vote. Thanks for your say, but we're overruling it as is our prerogative." But they didn't. Back then it was all about the "will of the people". Well, sort of.
Youtube Video
I despise the man as much as any of the ERGers.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
I despise the man as much as any of the ERGers.
Careful now how you speak about comrade Jeremy - the breeze's a bit chilly in Irkutsk this time of the year..I despise the man as much as any of the ERGers.
The Independent Group(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want to remain.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like no-deal Brexit. They should have gone for Norway-Plus.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like no-deal Brexit. They should have gone for Norway-Plus.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
The Independent Group(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want to remain.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like no-deal Brexit. They should have gone for Norway-Plus.
The ERG(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want a harder brexit.The Independent Group(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want to remain.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like no-deal Brexit. They should have gone for Norway-Plus.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like a softer Brexit. They should have gone for Theresa's deal.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
The Leave vote was sold on the premise that Leaving would not incur substantial economic disruption. The majority of those who voted Leave did so on the principle that they wanted to leave the EU. Nobody was asked about leaving the EEA, although some clearly also voted to leave the trading Bloc.
at the Election the Tories DID put forward a vision of Brexit and Labour but not, but:
A) Both parties committed to Brexit
B) The current Labour Leader is a man many suspect of being a closet Communist/Terrorist Supporter/Anti-Semite/wanting to overthrow the Monarchy/Break up the UK/All/Some of the above.
So, really, the fact that May got the best Result since Thatcher is not that surprising, and it's not really a mandate for Brexit.
lots of people insisted it would mean leaving the EEA, and lots of others said they'd be happy with eea.The Leave vote was sold on the premise that Leaving would not incur substantial economic disruption. The majority of those who voted Leave did so on the principle that they wanted to leave the EU. Nobody was asked about leaving the EEA, although some clearly also voted to leave the trading Bloc.
at the Election the Tories DID put forward a vision of Brexit and Labour but not, but:
A) Both parties committed to Brexit
B) The current Labour Leader is a man many suspect of being a closet Communist/Terrorist Supporter/Anti-Semite/wanting to overthrow the Monarchy/Break up the UK/All/Some of the above.
So, really, the fact that May got the best Result since Thatcher is not that surprising, and it's not really a mandate for Brexit.
but i'm not sure how that follows on from what i said, re: questions about financial services regulation and how eea+cu is actionable?
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
The ERG(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want a harder brexit.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like a softer Brexit. They should have gone for Theresa's deal.
Looks like we agree on both counts.The ERG(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want a harder brexit.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like a softer Brexit. They should have gone for Theresa's deal.
Though arguably, no deal Brexit seems to be the default if nothing passes still.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Looks like we agree on both counts.
Though arguably, no deal Brexit seems to be the default if nothing passes still.
Video explaining the consequences of no deal. Probably explains the news article it's tied to.Looks like we agree on both counts.
Though arguably, no deal Brexit seems to be the default if nothing passes still.
Government orders hospitals not to reveal Brexit impact assessments to protect 'commercial interests'
Fox's department does have a workable solution for the customs problem listed in the video: no customs checks on imports. No tailbacks on incomings if there are no checks. The price is it will severely damage or even collapse the agricultural and probably other industries that rely on tariffs to render them viable. But Patrick Minford, Furunculus' favourite economist who's come up with the economic model that F even now favours as Britain's future, reckons that's a worthwhile price to pay. Move UK to a services (read finances) model without an agricultural or manufacturing industry weighing it down. So the video isn't entirely accurate. It is possible to solve some of the problems of no deal. You just have to sacrifice some sectors of the UK economy. And I suspect, some of the constituent nations of the UK itself.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
...But Patrick Minford, Furunculus' favourite economist who's come up with the economic model that F even now favours as Britain's future, reckons that's a worthwhile price to pay...
I love how you personalise this at every opportunity. ...But Patrick Minford, Furunculus' favourite economist who's come up with the economic model that F even now favours as Britain's future, reckons that's a worthwhile price to pay...
It is such an inspiring method of debating ideas; never mind the idea itself, just vilify the proponent.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053785833
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.
And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.
Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.
Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.
Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!
Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)
That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.
I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.
Returning to this time after time like a dog to its own vomit, is forcing me to question your grasp on reality."My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.
And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.
Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.
Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.
Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!
Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)
That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.
I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.
For those who voted Leave. If there were a choice between no deal and revoke, which would you choose?
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
For those who voted Leave. If there were a choice between no deal and revoke, which would you choose?
No idea - didn't know last time until I was in the booth.For those who voted Leave. If there were a choice between no deal and revoke, which would you choose?
Once Brexit is done and we freed from the shackles of Europe. Think of the possibilities.
[Reference to proponents of a new-integrated commonwealth union.]
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
[Reference to proponents of a new-integrated commonwealth union.]
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
For those who voted Leave. If there were a choice between no deal and revoke, which would you choose?
are you asking again because you expect a difference result?For those who voted Leave. If there were a choice between no deal and revoke, which would you choose?
no deal.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Once Brexit is done and we freed from the shackles of Europe. Think of the possibilities.
[Reference to proponents of a new-integrated commonwealth union.]
The future possibilities Once Brexit is done and we freed from the shackles of Europe. Think of the possibilities.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
[Reference to proponents of a new-integrated commonwealth union.]
Shucks. If the Commonweath dunt want yer, y'all would be mighty welcome to be our fifty-foist state. We dig them fancy British ax-cents. 'Sides, you could get as much chlorine soaked chicken a la Trump as ya want.
So do we declare the tories dead man walking now or wait for the last of them to cave to May's blackmail?
the perpetual bridesmaid of brexit questions: why is it appropriate to leave the EU our regulator in Services?
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...it-trade-goods
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...it-trade-goods
The economic editor of the most left leaning newspaper in the uk, that believes that "the people are ready for radical change" [notice carefully the wording/terminology folks: "the people" - "radical", "change"] writes articles that support cutting ties with the eu..
..unbelievable..
Socialist utopias or anything that converged to them have always sounded good on paper.. and once realised, reality hits.. try negotiating steel trade deals with say, China as the uk or as part of the eu.. and see what you get in the deal..
There is simply no way in practice for the eu nations to maintain their high [highest on the planet in fact in terms of salaries/social services/working hours] standard of living as single entities.
The future for what is the western/european way of life right now lies with the eu staying alive and thriving - anything else is either right wing trip down to nationalistic glory memory lane, or leftist disguised hate of capitalism in an effort to overthrow it through populism
..unbelievable..
Socialist utopias or anything that converged to them have always sounded good on paper.. and once realised, reality hits.. try negotiating steel trade deals with say, China as the uk or as part of the eu.. and see what you get in the deal..
There is simply no way in practice for the eu nations to maintain their high [highest on the planet in fact in terms of salaries/social services/working hours] standard of living as single entities.
The future for what is the western/european way of life right now lies with the eu staying alive and thriving - anything else is either right wing trip down to nationalistic glory memory lane, or leftist disguised hate of capitalism in an effort to overthrow it through populism
Originally Posted by Jacob Rees Mogg:
If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible. We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes.
Stuff that Brexiteers had claimed the UK does not have the power to do, but would have to leave the EU in order to be free of these schemes. Now the head of ERG says that the UK does have the power within the EU to do these things, that the EU cannot go ahead with these unless the UK agrees.If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible. We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes.
Brexit is founded on hypocrisy and lies.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Brexit is founded on hypocrisy and lies.
The campaign behind the brexit is mainly psychological in nature - on the level of the collective subconscious. Brexit is founded on hypocrisy and lies.
It expresses the need for things not to change, to remain familiar, defining and excluding from a right wing perspective, which is deep and understandable to a certain extent - and it expresses the need to deconstruct, liberate so as to be able to reconstruct differently from a left wing perspective, which is equally deep and understandable.
All these needs/tendencies are battling it out in the social pot against the current of the times as well as the needs and challenges it brings forth.
From many perspectives the whole thing - while violent and chaotic - is very fascinating
Originally Posted by gallum:
The campaign behind the brexit is mainly psychological in nature - on the level of the collective subconscious.
It expresses the need for things not to change, to remain familiar, defining and excluding from a right wing perspective, which is deep and understandable to a certain extent - and it expresses the need to deconstruct, liberate so as to be able to reconstruct differently from a left wing perspective, which is equally deep and understandable.
All these needs/tendencies are battling it out in the social pot against the current of the times as well as the needs and challenges it brings forth.
From many perspectives the whole thing - while violent and chaotic - is very fascinating
The leaders of Brexit are, to a man, hypocrites and liars though. Reassuring people that Brexit won't adversely affect the country whilst deploying their investments on the basis that the economy will go down. Eg. John Redwood, one of the unyielding no dealers in the ERG, has been arguing that there is opportunity for the economy in Brexit, whilst advising his clients that the economy post-Brexit is likely to be unstable and that they'd be advised to hold off on investments. Brexit will benefit the very rich who can move their capital overseas, like Rees Mogg. It will cost most of the rest of us.The campaign behind the brexit is mainly psychological in nature - on the level of the collective subconscious.
It expresses the need for things not to change, to remain familiar, defining and excluding from a right wing perspective, which is deep and understandable to a certain extent - and it expresses the need to deconstruct, liberate so as to be able to reconstruct differently from a left wing perspective, which is equally deep and understandable.
All these needs/tendencies are battling it out in the social pot against the current of the times as well as the needs and challenges it brings forth.
From many perspectives the whole thing - while violent and chaotic - is very fascinating
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
The leaders of Brexit are, to a man, hypocrites and liars though.
I dont know them all, but mostly yes. Exactly the same happened in the greek referendum of 2015. Same underlying dynamics. Same people_types jumped into rabble rousing the crowds into a dead end that was rejected 24 hours after the result by the very government that was actually campaigning for it. The leaders of Brexit are, to a man, hypocrites and liars though.
Same story in britain, but more keeping up appearances basically- to be a bit self-sarcastic in greece we don't lose time with such trivialities as appearances
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Brexit will benefit the very rich who can move their capital overseas, like Rees Mogg. It will cost most of the rest of us.
Its like a giant betting table for them sadly, and people don't always see this..Brexit will benefit the very rich who can move their capital overseas, like Rees Mogg. It will cost most of the rest of us.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Brexit is founded on hypocrisy and lies.
So is the EU - the supposed Guardian of Democracy that is fundamentally undemocratic; the harbinger of economic stability which has stagnated Southern Europe for a decade.Brexit is founded on hypocrisy and lies.
Hat the ERG et al., by all means, but see the other side for what it is, not what you would wish it to be.
The French, Spanish and Belgians have lost their patience with May, who has been constantly pushing the same thing over and over every few weeks. The EU are prepared for no deal Brexit, and that is what will happen unless May provides a good argument otherwise. The ERG have said that they won't be bound by anything May promises, so anything that isn't legally set will be overturned by the next PM. No deal is the end point for Brexit. Hope the Leavers will accept responsibility for this. We Remainers didn't want any of this.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
the supposed Guardian of Democracy that is fundamentally undemocratic;
In what way exactly? Undemocratic means that democracy as a state system for its member states is not supported by the eu institutions and guidelines, and absolutism, in some form is. Examples please?the supposed Guardian of Democracy that is fundamentally undemocratic;
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
the harbinger of economic stability which has stagnated Southern Europe for a decade.
Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy have been given huge cash injections from approximately 1980 onwards for decades, most of them went in the bottomless pit of corruption these countries have - and that eu law is against in every way.. in Greece - and this is only one example - farmers would plant trees to get eu subsidies and subsequently paying off forestry officers to maintain the status of the subsidy/loan and receiving all subsequent installments without actually doing any raising/maintaining of the trees at all..the harbinger of economic stability which has stagnated Southern Europe for a decade.
The phenomena was so widespread that it was satirised regularly in films newspapers and every day talk since 1981 - being a farmer with eu subsidies in greece made you a dolce vita super star - russian escort girls, clubbing 24/7, the latest range rovers, villas in their estates.. in Italy, Spain and Portugal similar things happened..
Especially the last decade, that Greece, Ireland and Portugal flirted bankruptcy with Spain and Italy faring close behind, they were able to maintain their level of living by the huge eu loans they received by the "stagnating" eu, at record interest rates that their economies wouldn't have achieved by themselves even to the second coming.
Both countries, chose to leave the public sector untouched due to nepotism and widespread corruption, and taxed businesses instead, hence why Portugal was slow to exit their memorandum, and Greece actually hasn't succeeded yet - nothing to do with the eu
Very different story in Ireland where they lowered taxes for businesses and did cuts in the public sector during the loans period - their economy soon took off and after that they were able to give back the cuts to the public sector and even give raises..
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
but see the other side for what it is, not what you would wish it to be.
And so should you - are you actually seeing the eu for what it is?but see the other side for what it is, not what you would wish it to be.
Originally Posted by gallum:
Especially the last decade, that Greece, Ireland and Portugal flirted bankruptcy with Spain and Italy faring close behind, they were able to maintain their level of living by the huge eu loans they received by the "stagnating" eu, at record interest rates that their economies wouldn't have achieved by themselves even to the second coming.
80-90 percent of those 'huge' eu loans never touched the country, merely being recycled into the french and german banks that had dangerously over-leveraged themselves with tens of billions of euros in non-performing-loans.Especially the last decade, that Greece, Ireland and Portugal flirted bankruptcy with Spain and Italy faring close behind, they were able to maintain their level of living by the huge eu loans they received by the "stagnating" eu, at record interest rates that their economies wouldn't have achieved by themselves even to the second coming.
Originally Posted by gallum:
Both countries, chose to leave the public sector untouched due to nepotism and widespread corruption, and taxed businesses instead, hence why Portugal was slow to exit their memorandum, and Greece actually hasn't succeeded yet - nothing to do with the eu
sure, but this doesn't present an argument that the eurozone is a good economic fit for their economy.Both countries, chose to leave the public sector untouched due to nepotism and widespread corruption, and taxed businesses instead, hence why Portugal was slow to exit their memorandum, and Greece actually hasn't succeeded yet - nothing to do with the eu
Originally Posted by gallum:
The campaign behind the brexit is mainly psychological in nature - on the level of the collective subconscious.
It expresses the need for things not to change, to remain familiar,
To the extent that there is truth in the above statement, you just described politics generally - and not anything of any particular distinction to brexit.The campaign behind the brexit is mainly psychological in nature - on the level of the collective subconscious.
It expresses the need for things not to change, to remain familiar,
I think some would say that they are rather shocked and disappointed at the degree to which brexit will change things, reducing the familiar.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
The French, Spanish and Belgians have lost their patience with May, who has been constantly pushing the same thing over and over every few weeks. The EU are prepared for no deal Brexit, and that is what will happen unless May provides a good argument otherwise. The ERG have said that they won't be bound by anything May promises, so anything that isn't legally set will be overturned by the next PM. No deal is the end point for Brexit. Hope the Leavers will accept responsibility for this. We Remainers didn't want any of this.
Those who voted to join over 30 years ago and those who had no new votes when the agreement changed are responsible. The French, Spanish and Belgians have lost their patience with May, who has been constantly pushing the same thing over and over every few weeks. The EU are prepared for no deal Brexit, and that is what will happen unless May provides a good argument otherwise. The ERG have said that they won't be bound by anything May promises, so anything that isn't legally set will be overturned by the next PM. No deal is the end point for Brexit. Hope the Leavers will accept responsibility for this. We Remainers didn't want any of this.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Those who voted to join over 30 years ago and those who had no new votes when the agreement changed are responsible.
Given a choice between no deal Brexit or Revoke, which would you choose?Those who voted to join over 30 years ago and those who had no new votes when the agreement changed are responsible.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
So is the EU - the supposed Guardian of Democracy that is fundamentally undemocratic
National armies in democracies are there to preserve democracy,still they are zero democratic organisations themselves. EU is similar.It is a tool, not some kind of independent entity, like most right wing populists try to claim.The minister council of the independent countries forming EU can pretty much override anything the democratically elected EU Parliament might want to achieve. If you want EU to become democratic, in that case you are pushing for an European federal state. Now that is an oxymoron if anything.So is the EU - the supposed Guardian of Democracy that is fundamentally undemocratic
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO