• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

the dza said:
But could they then have gone just as psycho and said "here's all your retired Brits -- oh, by the way, I hope you don't expect any planes to takeoff/land at our airports" etc. etc. This would be a dangerous game to play for both sides imo, which is why I think they have avoided it, come up with the "divorce bill" and so on.
Click to expand...

This is a real sticking point for me, but I simply do not understand why either party has to go into this with any aggression/animosity/need to beat the other, at all.

Why can it not be as simple as "Hey, you're going in a direction we do not want to travel, we'd like to cut off from all the political shenanigans and simply have a trading relationship" vs "ok, well thats a shame - but its in all our interest to continue trading so lets talk".


the dza said:
Also, thinking about it. If there was a 2nd vote and "Norway" won, UKIP would still be upset and the Tories would be divided. Because we'd still follow EU rules and probably have free movement, they'd be arguing against it. To which I'd retort "will of the people."
Click to expand...

Norway is quite literally a fudging stupid thing to pursue, probably the worst of all worlds. Nobody is happy, nothing really changes, except we have taken ourselves from having a seat at the top table to eating with the kids.
 
scaramanga said:
It's a trade deal, has been from the start. All trade deals are negotiations and all negotiations require two willing parties.

We've massively underplayed our hand and really should have pushed the no "divorce bill," tax haven on your doorstep, here's 1m jobless Poles, enjoy Calais approach much harder - it would have brought them to the table with what they didn't want to bring to the table.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree that the UK have not made best use of what little leverage they had . It could be argued that the bolshie rhetoric of the last week should have been the tone of the inital discusion and not now, but that time is gone.
If you accept the EU's stance on the 4 pillars as being indivisable then the scope for negotiations are constrainted by this opening position. That fact is that May did not take this claim at face value. You can call it a trade deal but it is not really that. You can't unbake this cake.

The real trade deal is something that will be agreed with the EU after all this is over.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
This is a real sticking point for me, but I simply do not understand why either party has to go into this with any aggression/animosity/need to beat the other, at all.

Why can it not be as simple as "Hey, you're going in a direction we do not want to travel, we'd like to cut off from all the political shenanigans and simply have a trading relationship" vs "ok, well thats a shame - but its in all our interest to continue trading so lets talk".




Norway is quite literally a fudging stupid thing to pursue, probably the worst of all worlds. Nobody is happy, nothing really changes, except we have taken ourselves from having a seat at the top table to eating with the kids.
Click to expand...

I think the answer to both of your points is "politics." The EU says they have 4 pillars, they aren't going to have one of the big players leave, get all the good stuff with none of the obligations, otherwise the Italians/Dutch and anybody else with any clout will fancy a bit of that and the "EU Project" would be dead in the water. That much was clear before the referendum, but all we heard was "ahh, the krauts will still want to sell us cars." etc. Turns out the other team care more about preserving their organisation than about selling us cars. Right or wrong, this is the reality the government has met with when they presented their Chequers plan.

Norway is worse than remain. But, if we are to leave, then it is the least damaging option in the opinion of many, and it was an option mooted by some on the leave side pre-referendum. As much as you think it'd be a disaster, there are others who think the same about WTO. So the only fair thing to do is to vote on it, imo. People will still argue, whatever the result, but after two votes we'd just have to crack on and implement the deal.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Perhaps the compromise between these positions is a very strong association agreement: Norway, CU, alignment on some non-EEA areas (there are lots), ERASMUS, Horizon 2020, and guaranteed representation on all relevant commission working groups.

Proper BRINO, in other words, which Norway isn't.

That would be on the table, or at least has been mooted. And then I'd agree with you, the optics of "respecting" the whim of the people are better.

I still wish, though, like Caligula, that the people had but one neck. They're clams.
Click to expand...

I think if Norway were the option, it would be Norway + Customs Union as this solves N.Ireland (if I am following things correctly, I could very well be wrong).
 
the dza said:
I think the answer to both of your points is "politics." The EU says they have 4 pillars, they aren't going to have one of the big players leave, get all the good stuff with none of the obligations, otherwise the Italians/Dutch and anybody else with any clout will fancy a bit of that and the "EU Project" would be dead in the water. That much was clear before the referendum, but all we heard was "ahh, the krauts will still want to sell us cars." etc. Turns out the other team care more about preserving their organisation than about selling us cars. Right or wrong, this is the reality the government has met with when they presented their Chequers plan.

Norway is worse than remain. But, if we are to leave, then it is the least damaging option in the opinion of many, and it was an option mooted by some on the leave side pre-referendum. As much as you think it'd be a disaster, there are others who think the same about WTO. So the only fair thing to do is to vote on it, imo. People will still argue, whatever the result, but after two votes we'd just have to crack on and implement the deal.
Click to expand...

flimflam though, isnt it?

Why should it be political, instead of practical?

Its the whole EU idea of one size fits all, with no consideration for differing nations having differing wants/needs.

Yes, if we leave with a free trade deal (and nothing besides) thats better *for us*, from our point of view, based upon our wants and needs. So - why is that a problem? Why is it assumed to be better for all? Why would it threaten the EU - when practically there really arent many others that would even work with that sort of deal (let alone desire it)?

Given the EUs was born out of a desire for peace in europe, why wouldnt they approach this with a reasoned and compassionate tone? Instead of the rather aggressive "If you're not with us, you're against us" tone, and immediate conditions they know full well wont work for us?

Fundamentally, I just do not see why it should even be a problem.

Unless, of course, the EU is much more an empire...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
flimflam though, isnt it?

Why should it be political, instead of practical?

Its the whole EU idea of one size fits all, with no consideration for differing nations having differing wants/needs.

Yes, if we leave with a free trade deal (and nothing besides) thats better *for us*, from our point of view, based upon our wants and needs. So - why is that a problem? Why is it assumed to be better for all? Why would it threaten the EU - when practically there really arent many others that would even work with that sort of deal (let alone desire it)?

Given the EUs was born out of a desire for peace in europe, why wouldnt they approach this with a reasoned and compassionate tone? Instead of the rather aggressive "If you're not with us, you're against us" tone, and immediate conditions they know full well wont work for us?

Fundamentally, I just do not see why it should even be a problem.

Unless, of course, the EU is much more an empire...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say empire, but yeah, the EU was never only about trade and never will be. We have to negotiate with them in this reality, not one where they risk their project failing (and that is how I think they see it)
 
the dza said:
I wouldn't say empire, but yeah, the EU was never only about trade and never will be. We have to negotiate with them in this reality, not one where they risk their project failing (and that is how I think they see it)
Click to expand...

Thats rhetoric, IMO, a broad brush to justify them acting as they are.

Realistically I dont see how dealing with us so everyones a winner leads to the downfall of the EU.

Just in pure practical terms - trade or not - most countries take out more than they pay in. Why would they feel better off outside?
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Thats rhetoric, IMO, a broad brush to justify them acting as they are.

Realistically I dont see how dealing with us so everyones a winner leads to the downfall of the EU.

Just in pure practical terms - trade or not - most countries take out more than they pay in. Why would they feel better off outside?
Click to expand...

Why do you think they are negotiating in the way that they are (other than to make an exit less attractive for the other members)? It's the only explanation that makes sense to me. If they didn't care about what other members might think/do, then I'm sure they'd just say to us "stay and we'll end free movement for you" and the issue would be closed imo.
 
the dza said:
Why do you think they are negotiating in the way that they are (other than to make an exit less attractive for the other members)? It's the only explanation that makes sense to me. If they didn't care about what other members might think/do, then I'm sure they'd just say to us "stay and we'll end free movement for you" and the issue would be closed imo.
Click to expand...

Freedom of movement is a cornerstone to slowly erasing the national borders that exist within the EU zone and by proxy creating the new EU superstate "one European Nation" boundary. If they stop it for us, others will also want the same and then the Political Union ambition of the EU crumbles.
The EU bigwigs haven't done all this work to get to this point to lose it overnight...
 
the dza said:
Why do you think they are negotiating in the way that they are (other than to make an exit less attractive for the other members)? It's the only explanation that makes sense to me. If they didn't care about what other members might think/do, then I'm sure they'd just say to us "stay and we'll end free movement for you" and the issue would be closed imo.
Click to expand...

I think they are trying to punish us, and use us as an example to ward off other countries getting any ideas. They are bullying us into a flimflam position, and I think its all about control. "Play nice or else".

I also think, really, there is no need for it.

Who is going to leave? The only ones that would really ruin the bloc, and could pull it off similarly to us, are France and Germany - and they EU works well enough for them they would have no intent to leave.

Pretty well all other nations are unequivocally better off in than out. So what purpose does making an example of us serve?

Incidentally, a no deal Brexit kicks them in the balls as well. Say goodbye to their 40bn divorce bill, ongoing contributions and trade with us (the 5th [or 6th?] largest economy in the world). And for what? To have a threat on the table to keep everyone in line?
 
They value the EU and believe it makes their members better off, there are costs as well as benefit but there is a net benefit. Why give someone outside of the EU a better deal than their members, it encourages others to go for the same deal.

They understand that they will lose from not letting the UK only take what they see as benefit, however they see the break up of the EU as more of a cost. In this situation there is no positive outcome so they chose the least negative.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I think they are trying to punish us, and use us as an example to ward off other countries getting any ideas. They are bullying us into a flimflam position, and I think its all about control. "Play nice or else".

I also think, really, there is no need for it.

Who is going to leave? The only ones that would really ruin the bloc, and could pull it off similarly to us, are France and Germany - and they EU works well enough for them they would have no intent to leave.

Pretty well all other nations are unequivocally better off in than out. So what purpose does making an example of us serve?

Incidentally, a no deal Brexit kicks them in the balls as well. Say goodbye to their 40bn divorce bill, ongoing contributions and trade with us (the 5th [or 6th?] largest economy in the world). And for what? To have a threat on the table to keep everyone in line?
Click to expand...

I believe the UK are the 3rd biggest net financial contributor - there's your answer: the others - including France and Germany - will have to pick up the shortfall..
 
glorygloryeze said:
I believe the UK are the 3rd biggest net financial contributor - there's your answer: the others - including France and Germany - will have to pick up the shortfall..
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure 1) Germany, 2) UK and 3) Holland are the only net contributors to the EU. France are net beneficiaries because of CAP
 
r-u-s-x said:
They value the EU and believe it makes their members better off, there are costs as well as benefit but there is a net benefit. Why give someone outside of the EU a better deal than their members, it encourages others to go for the same deal.

They understand that they will lose from not letting the UK only take what they see as benefit, however they see the break up of the EU as more of a cost. In this situation there is no positive outcome so they chose the least negative.
Click to expand...


This is the fallacy. While it might be a better deal for us (might, many still argue otherwise), who is to say its a better deal for all or any else?

A straight trade deal, no rebates, not grants, no CAP, no FOM, none of it. Its that actually a universally better deal?
 
Some of the delusion in this thread is funny. How can you leave a club but retain the benefits? It makes no sense.

How would we feel if France was leaving, and while we continued to pay into the EU, France got all the access while not paying into the EU and not having the supposed negatives of membership?

Personally i don’t think freedom to move about the continent of Europe is a negative. Freedom is good!

The EU will have to bolster its rules on migrants. If Migrants are not working after a month they should be subject to some action - sent back to their country of origin. As we know there is EU legislation to support this, but it’s not been tested or fully utilised.

Norway option is a no no. Everyone - remain and leave - agree we are worse off. Really the difference that separates the two camps is whether variances of a harder Brexit could be a success.

So far Leavers have been reticent, a form of harder Brexit would be to the UKs advantage. They have to say this as they have all their chips on Out. But they have already rolled back on the benefits of a ‘soft Brexit’ which was proposed during the campaign, and people like Farrage have even said we shouldn’t leave - suggesting to me that some know in their heart Leaving is the wrong move for the UK.

Even 2 years on, no one can outline a credible vision of the uk outside the Eu, but the problems with leaving are increasingly clear. The ERG, posters on here, and anyone else has had ample opportunity to envisage a proud independent UK. I’ve even tried to put myself in that mindset and outline something positive. While an agile UK is attractive there isn’t actually much in the EU holding back the UK. The truth of the matter is most of the changes needed in the UK are national and not related to the EU. While the benefits of the EU are tangible, the benefits of leaving are speculative at best.

The sooner we get a politician who has the courage to outline why we need to stay in, and create a vision of the UK that appeals to Brexit voters, while staying in the EU, the less our country will suffer. It will happen, but who knows when.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
r-u-s-x said:
They value the EU and believe it makes their members better off, there are costs as well as benefit but there is a net benefit. Why give someone outside of the EU a better deal than their members, it encourages others to go for the same deal.

They understand that they will lose from not letting the UK only take what they see as benefit, however they see the break up of the EU as more of a cost. In this situation there is no positive outcome so they chose the least negative.
Click to expand...

This is my take on it. Their inflexibility is to protect "the project" rather than simply spite. Many experts were saying before the referendum that we wouldn't have the leverage in these negotiations and it seems, thus far, that they were right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back