Brexit Negotiations

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Heads of state should have got together and reformed the EU it's badly needing it. If you speak with everyday people from the Netherlands, Germany, France. Scandinavia they all sing from the same hymn sheet. 

[shull]

9 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Heads of state should have got together and reformed the EU it's badly needing it. If you speak with everyday people from the Netherlands, Germany, France. Scandinavia they all sing from the same hymn sheet. 

Picked up a few hires from Morrisons in Cardonald this morning. 

None were any of the Nationalities above. 

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, shull said:

Picked up a few hires from Morrisons in Cardonald this morning. 

None were any of the Nationalities above. 

Try the nearest church ya trumpet, their all singing from the same hymn sheet. 

PS A lot of Chinese on the forum just now, see if they need a lift.

Edited October 17, 2018 by faraway saint

[shull]

58 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Try the nearest church ya trumpet, their all singing from the same hymn sheet. 

PS A lot of Chinese on the forum just now, see if they need a lift.

Used to get a lot of Chinese hires when I worked Nightshift years ago. 

To and from all the Casinos in Glasgow City Centre. 

[St.Ricky]

5 hours ago, shull said:

Used to get a lot of Chinese hires when I worked Nightshift years ago. 

To and from all the Casinos in Glasgow City Centre. 

People from the Far East... like Arbroath? 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The Club of Rome has benefitted greatly from its U.K. Member. .

And we've benefitted from being in common market, EEC, EU.
Not that it really matters though, you can't say you are leaving and demand the same access to those who are in. Irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with brexit.

[saintnextlifetime]

15 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

And we've benefitted from being in common market, EEC, EU.
Not that it really matters though, you can't say you are leaving and demand the same access to those who are in. Irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with brexit.

I'm struggling to think of any benefit we got from them that wasn't paid for , membership also meant turning our backs on very old friends like New Zealand for instance.  .

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

1 hour ago, saintnextlifetime said:

I'm struggling to think of any benefit we got from them that wasn't paid for , membership also meant turning our backs on very old friends like New Zealand for instance.  .

Their lamb is good but the wine youch !  Thing is can we cope with a WT deal infrastructure wise ? Gone are the days of a large merchant fleet and docks to cope with merchant shipping if there was no deal. Rotterdam receives most imports these days then trucked out. We might end up with a hard border. It has been anouncmend today France intend to build car parks , new lanes to its ports for the shipping to the UK for a hard border. 

[beyond our ken]

On 10/16/2018 at 4:38 PM, Bud the Baker said:

Why?

****************

The argument for remaining is/was that the benefits in terms of freedom to trade of being a member of the EU outweigh the visible costs - if we were to go back cap-in-hand the UK rebate which has always been controversial (especially with France & Italy) would IMO be on the table and I very much doubt whether the UK would have the political clout to keep it.

****************

Edit

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/816923/Brexit-news-EU-Guy-Verhofstadt-UK-lose-rebate-opt-outs-if-rejoins

The express??? Really?

Since we are paddling in the shit, this other gem was in the same article

"The legal position on whether or not Article 50 can be withdrawn once invoked is unclear, although politically Brussels has said that the negotiations could potentially be permanently scrapped if the other 27 members agreed to it. 

However, there would likely be an intense legal debate over whether or not invoking the divorce proceedings had affected the UK's membership terms of the bloc, and whether its long-standing opt-outs could still apply. "

"In response to the speech an EU Commisson spokesman refused to be drawn on the legal implications, saying: "The UK is a member of the EU will remain so until it leaves so that’s where we are. "

[Bud the Baker]

14 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

The express??? Really?

Since we are paddling in the shit, this other gem was in the same article

"The legal position on whether or not Article 50 can be withdrawn once invoked is unclear, although politically Brussels has said that the negotiations could potentially be permanently scrapped if the other 27 members agreed to it. 

However, there would likely be an intense legal debate over whether or not invoking the divorce proceedings had affected the UK's membership terms of the bloc, and whether its long-standing opt-outs could still apply. "

"In response to the speech an EU Commisson spokesman refused to be drawn on the legal implications, saying: "The UK is a member of the EU will remain so until it leaves so that’s where we are. "

…………...and in this intense debate how many allies do you think the UK would have?

Since the Brexit process started how many of the "intense debates" have the UK won?

Your logic is the akin to the promises prior to the referendum that the UK getting a trade deal with the EU would be the 'easiest in human history'.

Thanks for proving my point!

****************

PS - It was reported in The Guardian too!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/14/perks-end-uk-eu-guy-verhofstadt

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Bud the Baker

[beyond our ken]

14 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

…………...and in this intense debate how many allies do you think the UK would have?

Since the Brexit process started how many of the "intense debates" have the UK won?

Your logic is the akin to the promises prior to the referendum that the UK getting a trade deal with the EU would be the 'easiest in human history'.

Thanks for proving my point!

****************

PS - It was reported in The Guardian too!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/14/perks-end-uk-eu-guy-verhofstadt

 

 

 

 

 

Oh Please!

You quoted an article that both supported and undermined the point you were trying to make, I admitted I don't know how it will all pan out and neither do you.   Neither the Express or the Grunaid is going to shed much light on what are currently completely hypothetical scenarios.  And don't put words in my mouth "your logic is akin..."  Give me some peace.

[beyond our ken]

On 10/18/2018 at 9:48 AM, saintnextlifetime said:

I'm struggling to think of any benefit we got from them that wasn't paid for , membership also meant turning our backs on very old friends like New Zealand for instance.  .

Of course the benefits need to be paid for.  The exchequer is a net contributor but the UK economy as a whole is a net beneficiary.

 

And it could be argued that countries like NZ and Australia have developed from their previous colonnial identity to be seen as nations in their own right as a result of Britain looking closer to home for alliances.

[Bud the Baker]

10 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Oh Please!

You quoted an article that both supported and undermined the point you were trying to make, I admitted I don't know how it will all pan out and neither do you.   Neither the Express or the Grunaid is going to shed much light on what are currently completely hypothetical scenarios.  And don't put words in my mouth "your logic is akin..."  Give me some peace.

Nope they support my point that the rebate the UK currently receives is unpopular with other countries in the EU and that in the hypothetical case the UK withdrew it's A50 there will be substantial opposition to having the rebate granted again.

My guess unlike yours is supported by events in the real world.

There's one simple way to stop comparisons you don't like - stop posting shit!

[The Original 59er]

As we all know, the actual question posed to the electorate was fundamentally flawed.

To remind all (or even anyone sufficiently still interested to be reading this marginal thread!), the question was as follows:

Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?  You were then given two choices to place your cross.

The question posed was so misguided as it asked the question, but didn't remotely explain under what circumstances might you want to leave, or want to remain.

As someone so aptly put it:

The problem with the question
The question assumes a binary choice — Remain or Leave the EU — while voting theory warns that allowing only two options can easily be a misleading representation of the real choice. When the true situation is more complex, and especially if it is one that arouses strong passions, then reducing the question to a binary one might suggest a political motivation. As a result of the present process, we actually don’t know how people would have voted when they had been offered the true options.

Compare the question: ‘Do you still beat your mother ?’
When you are allowed only a Yes or No answer, then you are blocked from answering:

‘I will not answer that question because if I say No then it suggests that I agree that I have beaten her in the past.’

In the case of Brexit, the hidden complexity concerned:
— Leave, and adopt an EFTA or WTO framework?
— Leave, while the UK remains intact or while it splits up?
— Remain, in what manner?

It's a bit like asking the voting public a simple straightforward question: "Do want to go to war"? Most might say no, but behind the question could lie a plethora of reasons why it might be appropriate under certain circumstances to go to war.

Given the Tories didn't think for one minute that the public would say no, they went through with the process to try and stick the knife into the moaning fringe in the party who complained about the wrongs of Europe. So having asked the flawed question, they then compounded it by then taking the narrow majority and stating it was the nation's wish to leave the EU, so that is what we will now do.

Pretty obviously no Plan A, certainly no Plan B and definitely no Plan C. As far as the government have been concerned and for that matter the Labour Party also, the narrow decision of the voting public was a definitive answer, and it's only now that the terms and conditions attached to the action are nearer to being evident that questions are being raised as to a second referendum or at least a delay to the process.

I say all the above as someone who in fact has been ambivalent for a long number of years about our membership of the EU. I see it as a large cumbersome undemocratic beast that centralises power between France and Germany and tends to bully a number of states if they don't comply. Bear in mind many of the countries that have adopted the € have never, ever complied with the economic tests set by the central banks of Europe and have been encouraged in, only to tie the countries closer in all respects to the central powers. We originally joined the European Economic Community for trade reasons and trade reasons alone. Tony Blair essentially sold us out and gave Europe much larger control over many aspects of our lives in the UK. I will admit some elements for the better, but also some to our detriment.

So given the marginal state of the vote and also the pretty obvious splits in both the Tories and Labour and the very obvious lack of planning, it shouldn't surprise anyone that we are where we are right now, i.e. nowhere near a satisfactory solution.

I'm not a betting man, but I would probably place my money on a 'no deal' being negotiated and the result will be that we will pay nothing to the EU coffers, we will have free movement across the Irish borders (but check boats and planes as they enter the mainland from Northern Ireland), and we will then have to wait to see the pressures placed on the EU bureaucrats by the various large conglomerates in Europe who want to continue with normal trading with the  British public (BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Aldi, Lidl etc, etc) and in the meantime we can approach New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the US etc and we can open trade links with countries that have been up to now, basically excluded from trading with us due to major import implications.

The world will not end, the EU will need to reform (as other countries have clearly shown that their voting public are now more inclined to leave than stay if remotely given the choice) and the UK will come out of this period with a quite different outlook on life.............................................................. 

[Bud the Baker]

I don't agree with the notion that people didn't know what they were voting for and find it condescending -  sure the exact terms couldn't be specified at the time of the referendum but how many Leave voters have changed their minds (is there any evidence that a significant number have?) - certainly none of the ones I know have done so.

I suspect most people have just hardened their original opinion.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Bud the Baker

[St.Ricky]

59 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I don't agree with the notion that people didn't know what they were voting for and find it condescending -  sure the exact terms couldn't be specified at the time of the referendum but how many Leave voters have changed their minds (is there any evidence that a significant number have?) - certainly none of the ones I know have done so.

I suspect most people have just hardened their original opinion.

I'm not sure on this Bud. I'm not at all sure that most of us fully grasped the implications.  Migration, Sovereignty and Economics were very emotive issues. My guess would be that those who voted Leave because of Migration or Sovereignty would still vote leave (in the main) but those who did so on Economic Arguments put forward by Leave may be wavering or have changed.

Sovereignty is one that fascinates me where we have a UK Government claiming "back" sovereignty whilst simultaneously saying to Scotland.. Sorry, no Lads and Lasses.

 

[beyond our ken]

On 10/19/2018 at 9:24 PM, Bud the Baker said:

Nope they support my point that the rebate the UK currently receives is unpopular with other countries in the EU and that in the hypothetical case the UK withdrew it's A50 there will be substantial opposition to having the rebate granted again.

My guess unlike yours is supported by events in the real world.

There's one simple way to stop comparisons you don't like - stop posting shit!

What a nasty wee baker you are!  Time to lay off the yeast.

I refer you to your own post earlier

"We might very well stay full members of the EU but it'll be on worse terms than we had prior to the Referendum and what we were offered to avoid this mess! "

Saying it WILL be on worse terms and supporting your view with an article (not "events", or even a single  event) that suggests it MIGHT be on worse terms (without describing what we would keep and what we would concede) is what I would call posting shit.  I simply stated there is a debate to be had and there is something for all sides to lose if the EU members want to pull apart and de-cherrypick the UK membership terms.

Edited October 26, 2018 by beyond our ken

[beyond our ken]

4 hours ago, The Original 59er said:

As we all know, the actual question posed to the electorate was fundamentally flawed.

To remind all (or even anyone sufficiently still interested to be reading this marginal thread!), the question was as follows:

Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?  You were then given two choices to place your cross.

The question posed was so misguided as it asked the question, but didn't remotely explain under what circumstances might you want to leave, or want to remain.

As someone so aptly put it:

The problem with the question
The question assumes a binary choice — Remain or Leave the EU — while voting theory warns that allowing only two options can easily be a misleading representation of the real choice. When the true situation is more complex, and especially if it is one that arouses strong passions, then reducing the question to a binary one might suggest a political motivation. As a result of the present process, we actually don’t know how people would have voted when they had been offered the true options.

Compare the question: ‘Do you still beat your mother ?’
When you are allowed only a Yes or No answer, then you are blocked from answering:

‘I will not answer that question because if I say No then it suggests that I agree that I have beaten her in the past.’

In the case of Brexit, the hidden complexity concerned:
— Leave, and adopt an EFTA or WTO framework?
— Leave, while the UK remains intact or while it splits up?
— Remain, in what manner?

It's a bit like asking the voting public a simple straightforward question: "Do want to go to war"? Most might say no, but behind the question could lie a plethora of reasons why it might be appropriate under certain circumstances to go to war.

Given the Tories didn't think for one minute that the public would say no, they went through with the process to try and stick the knife into the moaning fringe in the party who complained about the wrongs of Europe. So having asked the flawed question, they then compounded it by then taking the narrow majority and stating it was the nation's wish to leave the EU, so that is what we will now do.

Pretty obviously no Plan A, certainly no Plan B and definitely no Plan C. As far as the government have been concerned and for that matter the Labour Party also, the narrow decision of the voting public was a definitive answer, and it's only now that the terms and conditions attached to the action are nearer to being evident that questions are being raised as to a second referendum or at least a delay to the process.

I say all the above as someone who in fact has been ambivalent for a long number of years about our membership of the EU. I see it as a large cumbersome undemocratic beast that centralises power between France and Germany and tends to bully a number of states if they don't comply. Bear in mind many of the countries that have adopted the € have never, ever complied with the economic tests set by the central banks of Europe and have been encouraged in, only to tie the countries closer in all respects to the central powers. We originally joined the European Economic Community for trade reasons and trade reasons alone. Tony Blair essentially sold us out and gave Europe much larger control over many aspects of our lives in the UK. I will admit some elements for the better, but also some to our detriment.

So given the marginal state of the vote and also the pretty obvious splits in both the Tories and Labour and the very obvious lack of planning, it shouldn't surprise anyone that we are where we are right now, i.e. nowhere near a satisfactory solution.

I'm not a betting man, but I would probably place my money on a 'no deal' being negotiated and the result will be that we will pay nothing to the EU coffers, we will have free movement across the Irish borders (but check boats and planes as they enter the mainland from Northern Ireland), and we will then have to wait to see the pressures placed on the EU bureaucrats by the various large conglomerates in Europe who want to continue with normal trading with the  British public (BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Aldi, Lidl etc, etc) and in the meantime we can approach New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the US etc and we can open trade links with countries that have been up to now, basically excluded from trading with us due to major import implications.

The world will not end, the EU will need to reform (as other countries have clearly shown that their voting public are now more inclined to leave than stay if remotely given the choice) and the UK will come out of this period with a quite different outlook on life.............................................................. 

The beloved Mrs t signed the Maastrich Treaty, not Tony Blair.

And much as it might make sense to you, the EU is driven by politics and not pragmatism.  i can't see the bureaucrats caving in to the big businesses.  Just as you say politics will change because of business, the chances are that it will be business that will re-adjust in line with the new political reality making everyone poorer but the politicians will not be short of others to blame.

[oaksoft]

19 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

The beloved Mrs t signed the Maastrich Treaty, not Tony Blair.

And much as it might make sense to you, the EU is driven by politics and not pragmatism.  i can't see the bureaucrats caving in to the big businesses.  Just as you say politics will change because of business, the chances are that it will be business that will re-adjust in line with the new political reality making everyone poorer but the politicians will not be short of others to blame.

It was John Major. Thatcher was long gone by then.

Blair then signed us up to the social chapter unless my memory is failing me. That had a large effect.

Edited October 26, 2018 by oaksoft

[Bud the Baker]

14 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

What a nasty wee baker you are!  Time to lay off the yeast.

I refer you to your own post earlier

"We might very well stay full members of the EU but it'll be on worse terms than we had prior to the Referendum and what we were offered to avoid this mess! "

Saying it WILL be on worse terms and supporting your view with an article (not "events", or even a single  event) that suggests it MIGHT be on worse terms (without describing what we would keep and what we would concede) is what I would call posting shit.  I simply stated there is a debate to be had and there is something for all sides to lose if the EU members want to pull apart and de-cherrypick the UK membership terms.

Another newspaper article, reporting on events in the real world (where else) - how many do you want?

There will be no debate, it would have been a struggle to keep the rebate even without Brexit - the UK invoked A50 so there are no longer any UK membership terms to de-cherrypick. 

 

Quote

Britain would lose its EU budget rebate were it to decide to cancel Brexit and stay in the bloc, the European Commission’s budget chief has said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-budget-rebate-gunther-oetinger-second-referendum-remain-a8580616.html

[St.Ricky]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It was John Major. Thatcher was long gone by then.

Blair then signed us up to the social chapter unless my memory is failing me. That had a large effect.

There was certainly a move towards accepting a lot, if not all, of the Social Chapter.

I voted Remain. I would be happy to Remain. 

Doesn't mean the EU doesn't need reforming.

[The Original 59er]

2 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

I don't agree with the notion that people didn't know what they were voting for and find it condescending -  sure the exact terms couldn't be specified at the time of the referendum but how many Leave voters have changed their minds (is there any evidence that a significant number have?) - certainly none of the ones I know have done so.

I suspect most people have just hardened their original opinion.

Switzerland run plebiscites fairly frequently on any number of subjects.

I recall one for the concept of building a motorway from Zurich out to the main airport. That was approved by the majority vote. 

They then held a further referendum to approve opening the said built motorway and that was turned down . In due course (of course) the said motorway was opened no doubt with a green grass strip up the middle to make everyone happy.

If there was a lesson to be learned, politicians shouldn't ask the question in the first place unless they are sure they are going to get the answer they want.

The politicians here asked the UK the question, not remotely thinking they would get a 'leave' answer. They asked the wrong question or questions in the first place, and therein lies their and now our problem.

[Bud the Baker]

15 minutes ago, The Original 59er said:

Switzerland run plebiscites fairly frequently on any number of subjects.

I recall one for the concept of building a motorway from Zurich out to the main airport. That was approved by the majority vote. 

They then held a further referendum to approve opening the said built motorway and that was turned down . In due course (of course) the said motorway was opened no doubt with a green grass strip up the middle to make everyone happy.

If there was a lesson to be learned, politicians shouldn't ask the question in the first place unless they are sure they are going to get the answer they want.

The politicians here asked the UK the question, not remotely thinking they would get a 'leave' answer. They asked the wrong question or questions in the first place, and therein lies their and now our problem.

Yea I agree that Leave won the 2016 referendum mainly because of complacency in the Remain camp. 

I might be wrong but I've yet to see any evidence that a second referendum (let's ignore 1975) would produce a different result - I'd be happy to see it if there is.

If Remain had to produce specific terms and given their quibbles they'd have to (and is there enough time for that?) in a Peoples Vote IMO they'd face the same problem TM currently faces in parliament - that there is no detailed Option that would receive majority support. 

Flawed as the 2016 referendum was it is now up to Parliament to make a decision. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I'm not sure on this Bud. I'm not at all sure that most of us fully grasped the implications.  Migration, Sovereignty and Economics were very emotive issues. My guess would be that those who voted Leave because of Migration or Sovereignty would still vote leave (in the main) but those who did so on Economic Arguments put forward by Leave may be wavering or have changed.
Sovereignty is one that fascinates me where we have a UK Government claiming "back" sovereignty whilst simultaneously saying to Scotland.. Sorry, no Lads and Lasses.
 

What is this extra sovereignty that UK craves that we will get from brexit? Has anyone ever clarified it either before or after the vote?

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

4 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

I'm not sure on this Bud. I'm not at all sure that most of us fully grasped the implications.  Migration, Sovereignty and Economics were very emotive issues. My guess would be that those who voted Leave because of Migration or Sovereignty would still vote leave (in the main) but those who did so on Economic Arguments put forward by Leave may be wavering or have changed.
Sovereignty is one that fascinates me where we have a UK Government claiming "back" sovereignty whilst simultaneously saying to Scotland.. Sorry, no Lads and Lasses.
 

What is this extra sovereignty that UK craves that we will get from brexit? Has anyone ever clarified it either before or after the vote?

Seems to have been defined as making your own laws and not answering to the European Court. Surely, they argue, any self respecting country would want those things?