Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Sign in to follow this  
BFG

UK politics

Recommended Posts

"If and when there is a Brexit and the UK is out of the EU for a number of years then I would say hold a second vote and see where people are if you want. "

 

That is probably not an option. The EU is not a club one can go back and forth from, in an out. If UK exits, and changes its mind, it will take some thirty years to allow them back in. For anger to cool. All understand UK's contribution to the EU, but none are willing to sacrifice the whole of it for it. For the time being UK has not left, they have had EU parliament elections, and time soothes most wounds.

 

 

Mmh, the unrest in France has calmed down, and that started on rising diesel prices. I think it would be jumping to conclusions to think that was more than a healthy societal response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU is not known in the world to be an easy partner to negotiate with. There are very many very skilled negotiators from different countries there. Though the trade talks with Japan went more smoothly than the ones with Canada. If UK were to leave, it would have to be treated as a third party, obligations to Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and perhaps the Swiss, would mandate that legally even if there was a goodwil to do otherwise. (What is called in UK debate the Norway option, it I understand requires preferential treatment)

 

So because they pay for that in turn, Norway, Iceland, Liechenstein and perhaps Switzerland (I cannot remember the exact EU-Swiss relations), will not allow any country to have it easier than they do. Entry candidate countries would have it easier, as would an independent Scotland (It gets thrown about inaccurately that Spain would veto their entry, alike Greece did with Macedonia until the name issue was settled into North Macedonia, but Spain has plain said they object not at all if the secession (is that the right word, withdrawal) is at the approval or acceptance of the capital, London in this case) when they were intending to enter, a few years who cares, it takes that long to settle a trade agreement, but. There cannot be a third country or a country not in the EU that will be treated better, as well, or less than a scale good than they are. And EU will hold to its agreements.

Edited by Graendals favourite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nolder said:

I still think it's wrong to have votes until you get the result you want btw.

Leave won and regardless of polls the vote has not been honored yet.

If and when there is a Brexit and the UK is out of the EU for a number of years then I would say hold a second vote and see where people are if you want.

If you go down the road of trying to game Leave out of their win you're shaking their faith in democracy.

They would be fully within their rights to just call for another vote, if you're lucky.

If they lose faith entirely you might have civil unrest like France.

 

But that's because you appear to think leave is leave is leave and don't see a difference between them

 

The "mandate" is to leave with a deal. At no point was a hard border in Ireland, world trade organisation rules, no deal etc mentioned by anyone (regardless of whether you listened to remain or leave regarding single market and customs union)

 

The situation people voted for is not what is happening, that is why the argument for a vote exists. There's always been a vocal minority calling for a referendum/reversal since the vote. It didn't take off until leave became further and further away of what was actually voted on

 

That all ignores the fact that if it was a legally binding vote it would have been overturned due to financial irregularities in the leave campaign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the referendum was horrifically naive and is why we're in the mess we have now. Brexiteers still don't have a way to leave that fulfils any of the promises they made during the referendum

 

I don't like the idea of a second referendum (not because I think it's unfair but because of the societal mess that leaves) but we need it because no-one has another way to resolve the situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"but we need it because no-one has another way to resolve the situation"

 

Just leave! Then negotiate with the EU for better terms holding the 53 billion Pound Sterling that the UK would make to the EU (and which May agreed to pay in her deal). Basicly without the Uk picking up the tab either Germany would have to pick it up or Poland would be shortchanged on it's annual payments from the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

"but we need it because no-one has another way to resolve the situation"

 

Just leave! Then negotiate with the EU for better terms holding the 53 billion Pound Sterling that the UK would make to the EU (and which May agreed to pay in her deal). Basicly without the Uk picking up the tab either Germany would have to pick it up or Poland would be shortchanged on it's annual payments from the EU.

 

Sometimes I find it hard to tell when you're serious or when you're just stirring lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Graendals favourite said:

"If and when there is a Brexit and the UK is out of the EU for a number of years then I would say hold a second vote and see where people are if you want. "

 

That is probably not an option. The EU is not a club one can go back and forth from, in an out. If UK exits, and changes its mind, it will take some thirty years to allow them back in. For anger to cool. All understand UK's contribution to the EU, but none are willing to sacrifice the whole of it for it. For the time being UK has not left, they have had EU parliament elections, and time soothes most wounds.

 

 

Mmh, the unrest in France has calmed down, and that started on rising diesel prices. I think it would be jumping to conclusions to think that was more than a healthy societal response.

Sounds more like a prison than a club for sure. No wonder they want out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BFG said:

 

But that's because you appear to think leave is leave is leave and don't see a difference between them

 

The "mandate" is to leave with a deal.

uiUfUq5.png

 

There is nothing on this ballot about leaving with a deal. It's Leave or Remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BFG said:

 

Sometimes I find it hard to tell when you're serious or when you're just stirring lol

I think he's serious.

It's like if you're in a bad relationship but you want to make sure you get all your clothes and the dog and maybe the Playstation and...

 

JUST LEAVE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nolder said:

Sounds more like a prison than a club for sure. No wonder they want out.

Nothing of the sort. It is a voluntary organisations. Leaving it means the priviliges no longer apply. No that I play golf, but if you leave the golf club you now longer get to play at the court. One understands it that the price of departure is pensions to civil workers and other commitments agreed on earlier.

 

Like one deciding on getting a speeding thicket, that no, I decide I did not decide to over-speed after all. I did not decide to hire those civil servants after all, and have no care for their pensions. UK, or May's agreement, does not think so.

Edited by Graendals favourite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nolder said:

uiUfUq5.png

 

There is nothing on this ballot about leaving with a deal. It's Leave or Remain.

Again not sure if serious, but if you are that's insanely disingenuous

 

Sample US ballots suggest that when you vote you put a tick by a name. So presumably you'd be ok if Trump suddenly went open border, after all you just voted for trump not the policies he stated at the time

 

Or if you want to go to technicalities, leaving the EU is not the same thing as leaving the customs union or single market, so where's the vote on that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BFG said:

Again not sure if serious, but if you are that's insanely disingenuous

 

Sample US ballots suggest that when you vote you put a tick by a name. So presumably you'd be ok if Trump suddenly went open border, after all you just voted for trump not the policies he stated at the time

 

Or if you want to go to technicalities, leaving the EU is not the same thing as leaving the customs union or single market, so where's the vote on that? 

Really? For your information in the US people vote for President usually on their general stances not the nitty gritty details. So People who voted for Trump would be quite accept if Trump decided to keep the borders open but would generally not be too concerned with the details of his plan to close the borders to illegals.

 

Moreover, the customs union and single market are part and parcel of the EU structucture so voting to leave the Eu would seem to imply that the UK would leave the customs union and the single market. This however, does not mean that people voting to leave the UK would expect their leaders to at the very least negotiate the best deal possible using all the leverage it can muster instead of accepting almost the entirety of the EU's initial negotiating position. Moreover, leaving the EU does not mean that the UK is totally forsaking trade with the EU as both are members of the ETC and moreover both have an economic interest to enter into a blilateral treaty (either now or in the future) that would allow for "freer" trade between the UK and the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BFG said:

Again not sure if serious, but if you are that's insanely disingenuous

 

Sample US ballots suggest that when you vote you put a tick by a name. So presumably you'd be ok if Trump suddenly went open border, after all you just voted for trump not the policies he stated at the time

 

Or if you want to go to technicalities, leaving the EU is not the same thing as leaving the customs union or single market, so where's the vote on that? 

?????

 

You're misrepresenting the vote.

It was Remain in the EU or Leave the EU.
 

Quote

So presumably you'd be ok if Trump suddenly went open border, after all you just voted for trump not the policies he stated at the time

Obviously I wouldn't like it but yeah that's how the system works here. 

You vote for an individual and pray they do at least one or two things they said they were going to do.

 

I don't know if you've been paying attention but of the policies Trump laid out that I was most in favor of...basically none have happened. So I am pretty much already in this supposedly hypothetical situation you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Nolder said:

?????

 

You're misrepresenting the vote.

It was Remain in the EU or Leave the EU.
 

Obviously I wouldn't like it but yeah that's how the system works here. 

You vote for an individual and pray they do at least one or two things they said they were going to do.

 

I don't know if you've been paying attention but of the policies Trump laid out that I was most in favor of...basically none have happened. So I am pretty much already in this supposedly hypothetical situation you're talking about.

 

Ok, I won't divert into US politics, other than to say regarding the border it's the difference between building a wall and removing all infrastructure/personnel already there, ie genuinely open borders (the opposite of what was promised, not the status quo)

 

 

 

 

 

This isn't misrepresenting the vote, leaving the EU is not the same as leaving the customs union or single market, which is why their are some countries in the single market and/or the customs union while not in the EU

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Really? For your information in the US people vote for President usually on their general stances not the nitty gritty details. So People who voted for Trump would be quite accept if Trump decided to keep the borders open but would generally not be too concerned with the details of his plan to close the borders to illegals.

 

Ok, agreed people vote on generalities not specifics. So let's look at the general promises made by vote leave, let's start with a deal, since they said no deal would be insanity. Or maybe no economic shock. Or maintaining access to the SM (when they weren't saying we'd still be in it) etc. No deal doesn't deliver even the basics of what they said

 

Quote

 

Moreover, the customs union and single market are part and parcel of the EU structucture so voting to leave the Eu would seem to imply that the UK would leave the customs union and the single market. This however, does not mean that people voting to leave the UK would expect their leaders to at the very least negotiate the best deal possible using all the leverage it can muster instead of accepting almost the entirety of the EU's initial negotiating position. Moreover, leaving the EU does not mean that the UK is totally forsaking trade with the EU as both are members of the ETC and moreover both have an economic interest to enter into a blilateral treaty (either now or in the future) that would allow for "freer" trade between the UK and the EU.

 

Ok, again the EU, the CU and the SM are separate things (and I was/am being facetious on purpose). It is not possible to be in the EU and not in the CU or SM, it is possible to be in either of the others and not in the EU

 

It's probably important to separate out the withdrawal agreement from a future trading agreement, this is something that over here appears to be misunderstood or misrepresented a lot

 

The withdrawal agreement covers 4 major things

 

The money we owe, agreed at £39 billion (not as high as you stated earlier but not small either)

 

Reciprocal rights for EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa 

 

The Northern Irish border

 

A 2 year transition period during which we can negotiate trade agreements, not just with the EU, but the rest of the world, but removes the cliff edge. It also allows the continuation of security working together, access to EU programs we want to stay part of etc etc etc 

 

 

The only thing that's really objected to is the backstop (which ironically, was negotiated for in its current form by our government)

 

 

I dislike the deal, in the detail it implies a hard brexit and I don't want to cut ties that much, but from an objective point of view it delivers most of the key promises of brexit

 

I believe we would be in a stronger position if we maintained the position we had at the beginning, that nothing is agreed till everything is. Ie in theory we have a negotiated withdrawal, now let's negotiate the FTA. Then sign both, no need for the backstop and we're all good. However that means staying fully in the EU during these negotiations and that's politically unfeasible so [elaborate shrug gif]

 

 

 

The EU and the UK both want a free trade agreement, or something very close to it, but a trade agreement is not the same as the WA and hasn't been negotiated yet.

Edited by BFG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BFG said:

 

Ok, I won't divert into US politics, other than to say regarding the border it's the difference between building a wall and removing all infrastructure/personnel already there, ie genuinely open borders (the opposite of what was promised, not the status quo)

 

 

 

 

 

This isn't misrepresenting the vote, leaving the EU is not the same as leaving the customs union or single market, which is why their are some countries in the single market and/or the customs union while not in the EU

 

 

That's all fine but there is no such thing as a mandate for "Leave but.. ". It's just Leave.

If there are other things to figure out they need to be figured out after not before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ok, agreed people vote on generalities not specifics. So let's look at the general promises made by vote leave, let's start with a deal, since they said no deal would be insanity. Or maybe no economic shock. Or maintaining access to the SM (when they weren't saying we'd still be in it) etc. No deal doesn't deliver even the basics of what they said"

 

It delivers the essential part of what they claimed, reuturning  immigration policy and the power to decide their own destiny in the future back to the UK.

  

While the economic component of Leaving the EU is an important aspect it is not nor even the most important for those who voted Leave.

 

 

"The money we owe, agreed at £39 billion (not as high as you stated earlier but not small either"

 

I made an honest mistake the figure I quoted was in US Dollars not Pound Sterling and was based on the exchange rate that was current when the story I got it from was written.

 

But please note that the UK "owes" that amount only to the extent that it is in the EU when the amount becomes due and payable. If the Uk leaves the EU under a no deal situation it is not obligated to pay such some. Moreover, while the payment of such some was bviously negotiable and was something that the EU wished for the UK got nothing of worse in exchange for agreeing to pay it under the negotiated deal . Agreement to pay it is simply another example that the  "Deal" was negotiated in bad faith by by Remainders that only paid lip serivce to the result of the Brexit referendum.

 

 

"I believe we would be in a stronger position if we maintained the position we had at the beginning, that nothing is agreed till everything is. Ie in theory we have a negotiated withdrawal, now let's negotiate the FTA. Then sign both, no need for the backstop and we're all good. However that means staying fully in the EU during these negotiations and that's politically unfeasible so [elaborate shrug gif]"

 

The terms have a FTA could easily have been neogotiated within the three years since the Brexit referendum that it was not is another strong indication that the Government which was lead by Remainders was engaged in a Bad Faith attempt to  either negotiate a deal that would change little of substance in the Uk relationship with the EU while still caliming to adhered to the results of the Brexit referendum or even worse was an attempt to negotiate the worst possible agreement so as to give rise to the Remainer cause.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

"Ok, agreed people vote on generalities not specifics. So let's look at the general promises made by vote leave, let's start with a deal, since they said no deal would be insanity. Or maybe no economic shock. Or maintaining access to the SM (when they weren't saying we'd still be in it) etc. No deal doesn't deliver even the basics of what they said"

 

It delivers the essential part of what they claimed, reuturning  immigration policy and the power to decide their own destiny in the future back to the UK.

 

With the best will in the world that is a simplification of why people voted leave. And that is the problem. "Sovereignty" is the most important issue to some people, I'll even give you most people who voted leave, as is immigration. However the leave vote incorporates everyone who voted for every option, not just those who voted on immigration and sovereignty.  They were not the only promises made

 

If you won't accept polls as evidence. Despite a 70ish%(?) vote to leave, a soft brexit/referendum party won the Peterborough by-election, when they had a large leave vote majority (and protest votes are popular at by-elections, same as council and EU elections)

 

Quote

  

While the economic component of Leaving the EU is an important aspect it is not nor even the most important for those who voted Leave.

 

No arguments on this lol

 

Quote

 

"The money we owe, agreed at £39 billion (not as high as you stated earlier but not small either"

 

I made an honest mistake the figure I quoted was in US Dollars not Pound Sterling and was based on the exchange rate that was current when the story I got it from was written.

 

But please note that the UK "owes" that amount only to the extent that it is in the EU when the amount becomes due and payable. If the Uk leaves the EU under a no deal situation it is not obligated to pay such some. Moreover, while the payment of such some was bviously negotiable and was something that the EU wished for the UK got nothing of worse in exchange for agreeing to pay it under the negotiated deal . Agreement to pay it is simply another example that the  "Deal" was negotiated in bad faith by by Remainders that only paid lip serivce to the result of the Brexit referendum.

 

 

"I believe we would be in a stronger position if we maintained the position we had at the beginning, that nothing is agreed till everything is. Ie in theory we have a negotiated withdrawal, now let's negotiate the FTA. Then sign both, no need for the backstop and we're all good. However that means staying fully in the EU during these negotiations and that's politically unfeasible so [elaborate shrug gif]"

 

The terms have a FTA could easily have been neogotiated within the three years since the Brexit referendum that it was not is another strong indication that the Government which was lead by Remainders was engaged in a Bad Faith attempt to  either negotiate a deal that would change little of substance in the Uk relationship with the EU while still caliming to adhered to the results of the Brexit referendum or even worse was an attempt to negotiate the worst possible agreement so as to give rise to the Remainer cause.

 

 

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The problems arise from the Irish border, and I can link to a video from a vote leave staffer about the thought process behind it if you want.

 

In principle you're right, the issue is that at some point our government are going to have to choose between regulatory alignment with the EU, q hard border in Ireland or an internal border. Brexiteers still think they'll find a unicorn and until they admit that unicorns aren't real we're messed up. This isn't the remainers unable to solve this, it's the brexiteers.

 

But in general I think we're going around in circles, you think the most important thing is immigration and sovereignty, from the people I know who voted leave, I'd give that to 50% of them which doesn't make a majority, which is why a referendum on what's actually on offer instead of the fantasy sold is important

 

Farage will scream betrayal, and people will believe him. That will happen anyway regardless of how we leave, that was always going to happen. There's no easy fix to it unfortunately

Edited by BFG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Farage. He is so under appreciated in the UK.

If you guys don't want him you should give him to us. 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In principle you're right, the issue is that at some point our government are going to have to choose between regulatory alignment with the EU, q hard border in Ireland or an internal border. Brexiteers still think they'll find a unicorn and until they admit that unicorns aren't real we're messed up. This isn't the remainers unable to solve this, it's the brexiteers."

 

Why exactly the Irish border a problem? The extent that a border is militarized,  hard or soft is a function of bilateral agreements (or disagreements).  The Ireland is an Island in which there two Nations that inhabit it decided under the Easter Agreements  to have an open border. It seems to me that it's the EU is overstepping it's authority in attempting to negotiate a border policy of a member country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Farage will scream betrayal, and people will believe him. That will happen anyway regardless of how we leave, that was always going to happen. There's no easy fix to it unfortunately"

 

Farange like Trump is not the cause of the outrage merely the person that effectively voiced the outrage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

"Farage will scream betrayal, and people will believe him. That will happen anyway regardless of how we leave, that was always going to happen. There's no easy fix to it unfortunately"

 

Farange like Trump is not the cause of the outrage merely the person that effectively voiced the outrage.

 

Lol, maybe I'm just being cynical then :rolleyes:

 

to an extent Farage is voicing frustration that exists. I'll leave alone how much of the frustration that exists is actually down to the EU. But Farage is an opportunist. Brexit can never deliver what was promised by the brexiteers, so will always be a betrayal, maybe I'm just being cynical in thinking that farage is being opportunistic when pre referendum he was arguing for the "Norway option" but now that's a betrayal of the leave vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try to get to the GFA tomorrow or over the weekend, lol. I don't understand it well enough to explain it simply and don't have time now for a longer explanation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm just being cynical in thinking that farage is being opportunistic when pre referendum he was arguing for the "Norway option" but now that's a betrayal of the leave vote"

 

 

Yes prior to the Tories agreeing to hold a Brexit referendum he supported the Norway option as it was the most that he could hope for. Once the nation voted for Brexit, the situation obviously changed as totally leaving the EU had become not only possible but the express wish of the voters as signaled by Leaves victory in the referendum. 

 

If the government had done it's best to secure a good deal instead of either capitulating cmpletely to the wishes of the EU, a case might be made that the Norway option might be the objective best that could be agreed to, But having the government (led by remainders) so completely betray there stated aim to adhere to the results of the Brexit Referendum, calls to accept the Norway plan is seen as a rather transparent wish by Remainders to do everything they can to dishonor the democratic will that voted for Brexit.

 

 

A last aside. You keep saying that the polls now show that a majority would now vote for Remain. But how would that change if the option presented were not simply a no deal Brexit and remaining in the EU but included a third option that was essentially the Norway solution or something akin to it? Might not a large portion of those now claiming to support Remain not opt for that Third intermediate option?

 

By GFA are you suggesting that either the Global Furniture Alliance or the Guatamaln Families Association have something relevant to say on the Brexit process? 😉

Edited by CUBAREY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/sighs there is really no point to this lol

 

Farage was talking about Norway during the referendum (if you want to be facetious, then he wasn't advocating it as the brexit campaign were very careful not to advocate an actual brexit because they knew if they did they'd lose, but it was a possibility) now anything short of crashing out is a betrayal, even though crashing out was never mentioned and therefore the one thing that nobody actually voted for lol

 

To summarise

 

Nobody who voted leave voted for world trade organisation rules or for no deal, because that was literally never floated as an option during the campaign. What was said by various leave campaigners during the referendum was "literally nobody is threatening our place in the single market", "would Norway be such a bad thing?" etc. It doesn't matter how many times you or vote leave say we voted on WTO rules Vs remain, it's not true and we do not know how the brexit vote broke down at the time, without another vote now we don't know now

 

So the leave vote was diverse, and for many different things. We have no way of quantifying what the country actually voted for

 

Following the vote, the right (and may) increasingly hijacked the vote and said it meant a hard brexit which runs headlong into the GFA (guitar foundation of america obvs). government won't admit that they need to choose between regulatory alignment, hard external border or a hard internal border (or the maybe possible unicorn which is that technology will cope once developed, estimated to need 2-10 years depending on the source) which is why we've made no progress in the last 6 months to 3 years. May negotiated a hard brexit, that was voted down by the brexiteers lol. And for all you talk about leave being hijacked by remainers, leave still have no actual consensus on what leave should look like

 

There are people who will accept a no deal, they are not a majority, there are people who will accept a hard brexit, they are not a majority, there are people who support various softer brexits, they are not a majority and a soft brexit is more likely to split the leave vote than the remain, since during the initial referendum that was how they were counted. In the polls remain beats every actual version of leaving, what's not been tested afaik is multiple versions of leave vs remain 

 

In my ideal world a vote with multiple options needs to be a transferable. Any option will need to attain more than 50% of the vote for us to make any progress, I suspect that we'd end up with no deal/remain as the last 2 options with the split being decided by soft brexiteers. It won't happen as government can't even organise themselves to do that lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...