Politics, politics, politics

[monkeybarry]

For years its been the politics of spin.

Instead of "I believe in this, and this is why you should vote for me" it has become a pantomime of "Dont vote for that clam, and heres why".

Started with Blair to my memory, all the xfactor flimflam as opposed to proper policy.

Brexit is a great opportunity to shake all that up.

Which isnt to say its the EUs fault, but is to say people are seeing real and genuine change based on a vote, and with the issues likely to follow - will want to see more real and genuine change following.

Totally agree.
I have no faith in the UK electorate though.
Brits like the status quo and are subservient to the upper classes by nature.

 

[scaramanga]

That maybe true, but this is where the government is heading, is it not? I'd prefer that choice to the choice of Chequers (which won't happen) or WTO.

It's been 2 years and this is where we are at. If there is a 2nd vote, it will happen under this government. I can't see this government doing any better in the negotiations if the past 2 years are anything to go on.

I agree that the negotiating has been terrible, but the idea that it's OK for the EU to not negotiate at all by simply giving us the choice of a handful of non-negotiable options is wrong IMO.

The EU's position has been the equivalent of us stating no "Divorce bill," no protection for EU citizens, no deal whatsoever and refusing to move from that position at any point.

 

[SpurMeUp]

For years its been the politics of spin.


Brexit is a great opportunity to shake all that up.

Which isnt to say its the EUs fault, but is to say people are seeing real and genuine change based on a vote, and with the issues likely to follow - will want to see more real and genuine change following.

Very much agree about shaking up politics and seeing some genuine innovations. Long long overdue. Not just fluff and rebranding but real democratic improvements. Quite a bit could be done imo

But don’t agree with the Brexit stuff. Can anyone outline what “real and genuine change people are seeing” as a result of Brexit?

Only things I can list seem negative. Price rises on imported goods, more expensive holidays, housing market faltering (could be a good thing I do concede), government massively distracted. What genuine change are you talking about? What does/will they look like?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[r-u-s-x]

I agree that the negotiating has been terrible, but the idea that it's OK for the EU to not negotiate at all by simply giving us the choice of a handful of non-negotiable options is wrong IMO.

The EU's position has been the equivalent of us stating no "Divorce bill," no protection for EU citizens, no deal whatsoever and refusing to move from that position at any point.

yes it is and if we had that position the EU would have said we will walk away, just the same option open to us. They came into the talks telling us what was negotiable (and they have negotiated on those) and what was not, we cant be tinkled off with them for sticking to a position. A lot of people thought they were bluffing, they said they were not bluffing and stuck to that - this seems like an honest position to take.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Maybe it'll be a visa system for travel and work - that'll be a pain in the ass. Plus mine are just at uni or starting in 2 years time - they'd like to take up the option of a year in Europe if possible. I'm thinking that'll disappear but maybe all sides will see the sense in sharing knowledge.

On that point, my daughter was thinking of studying in Germany - about £200 per term at the Film School in Berlin. As it is, she's paying £9250 a year for Leeds (though Leeds is an awesome city to be fair)...

Have to wait and see, but as it is I wouldnt be assuming its impossible at this point.

Totally agree.
I have no faith in the UK electorate though.
Brits like the status quo and are subservient to the upper classes by nature.

When the brick hits the fan, and you want change, and you see someone promoting policies that you believe in - you think people wont follow?

Its a bit chicken and egg, I admit, but IMO Brexit should lead to politicians actually having to do the job as intended* - and any hardship people feel will snap them out of their antipathy/ambivalence to actually pay attention.

We have seen with the referendum, voting counts - and for many that will be a bit of an epiphany.



*IMO a few things will happen. Most of the old guard will retire because they dont have the stomach for actually doing it, new blood will step up, and the people will demand more as well.

 

[scaramanga]

yes it is and if we had that position the EU would have said we will walk away, just the same option open to us. They came into the talks telling us what was negotiable (and they have negotiated on those) and what was not, we cant be tinkled off with them for sticking to a position. A lot of people thought they were bluffing, they said they were not bluffing and stuck to that - this seems like an honest position to take.

In which case there was nothing to negotiate and this should have been done a long time ago.

I think it's perfectly right to not like their position here. Walking into a negotiation refusing to negotiate from the outset is not negotiating.

 

[r-u-s-x]

In which case there was nothing to negotiate and this should have been done a long time ago.

I think it's perfectly right to not like their position here. Walking into a negotiation refusing to negotiate from the outset is not negotiating.

We effectively went in saying we would negotiate within the restrictions. Walking into a negotiation clearly outlining what is negotiable is the best way to negotiate.

Nothing we could offer would make them change their position on these points, they said this at the outset. We decided to proceed within these restrictions thinking that this was an opening gambit... it wasn't.

 

[Rorschach]

In which case there was nothing to negotiate and this should have been done a long time ago.

I think it's perfectly right to not like their position here. Walking into a negotiation refusing to negotiate from the outset is not negotiating.

It was never a real negotiation. It's their club with their rules, and their message from the off was if you don't like what's on offer you can leave, which is where we are at now.

 

[Rorschach]

A little while ago, a few of us in this thread were talking about a hypothetical 2nd vote. Initially, I thought that the choices should be something like Remain/Norway/Canada/WTO.

IMO, any choices given in a 2nd vote should be ones that are ready to go with the EU -- so we can't have "Chequers" on there knowing that the EU rejects it. But then @nayimfromthehalfwayline made a good point, asking why should Remain be on a 2nd vote? We have already voted as a country to leave, so the choices should be on how we leave. And that's a very fair point.

But then I think we also came to the conclusion that the Norway option is basically like remaining, but worse because we have no power within the EU. So perhaps remain should be on there afterall.

I am in favour of the final decision being put to a final vote. But I am a bit wary of what the question will be. In hindsight, I think we can see the question in the first referendum wasn't adequate. We voted to leave, but to leave means different things depending on who you ask. To some it's Norway, to some it's Canada, to some it's WTO.

To be honest, I think that these are the 3 choices we have. Yes, Norway is like a worse version of what we currently have (with perhaps some minor benefits). But it does mean we technically leave, so it makes it more valid in a 2nd referendum than a Remain option (which can be charged as asking the same question again and again until we get the result we like).

So yeah, after that ramble, I think I'd like to see a 2nd vote with 3 choices: Norway, Canada and WTO. All are actually do-able with the EU, all present their own problems, nothing quite solves N. Ireland. But I think this is where we are. And I'd vote Norway.

Norway with NI staying in the customs union (in some sort of fudge) is the best of a bad lot.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

A little while ago, a few of us in this thread were talking about a hypothetical 2nd vote. Initially, I thought that the choices should be something like Remain/Norway/Canada/WTO.

IMO, any choices given in a 2nd vote should be ones that are ready to go with the EU -- so we can't have "Chequers" on there knowing that the EU rejects it. But then @nayimfromthehalfwayline made a good point, asking why should Remain be on a 2nd vote? We have already voted as a country to leave, so the choices should be on how we leave. And that's a very fair point.

But then I think we also came to the conclusion that the Norway option is basically like remaining, but worse because we have no power within the EU. So perhaps remain should be on there afterall.

I am in favour of the final decision being put to a final vote. But I am a bit wary of what the question will be. In hindsight, I think we can see the question in the first referendum wasn't adequate. We voted to leave, but to leave means different things depending on who you ask. To some it's Norway, to some it's Canada, to some it's WTO.

To be honest, I think that these are the 3 choices we have. Yes, Norway is like a worse version of what we currently have (with perhaps some minor benefits). But it does mean we technically leave, so it makes it more valid in a 2nd referendum than a Remain option (which can be charged as asking the same question again and again until we get the result we like).

So yeah, after that ramble, I think I'd like to see a 2nd vote with 3 choices: Norway, Canada and WTO. All are actually do-able with the EU, all present their own problems, nothing quite solves N. Ireland. But I think this is where we are. And I'd vote Norway.

Brexiteers frequently say that Norway would be worse than the status quo, because control is lost.

If they are so insistent that the status quo is preferable to a Mad Max Brexit, let's keep it on the ballot. After all, we could be down to third preference votes by that point.

 

[the dza]

Brexiteers frequently say that Norway would be worse than the status quo, because control is lost.

If they are so insistent that the status quo is preferable to a Mad Max Brexit, let's keep it on the ballot. After all, we could be down to third preference votes by that point.

I do agree, but politically a Norway style Brexit would be more final imo. If we put Remain back on and Remain wins, then it will churn more and more. At least if Remain is off the ballot, the first referendum result has been respected. And then it's just a new democratic mandate that is being given for how we leave.

 

[scaramanga]

It was never a real negotiation. It's their club with their rules, and their message from the off was if you don't like what's on offer you can leave, which is where we are at now.

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.

 

[scaramanga]

We effectively went in saying we would negotiate within the restrictions. Walking into a negotiation clearly outlining what is negotiable is the best way to negotiate.

Nothing we could offer would make them change their position on these points, they said this at the outset. We decided to proceed within these restrictions thinking that this was an opening gambit... it wasn't.

A better way of phrasing that is that they insisted we agree to all of their terms before they even started listening to ours.

At that point we should have started preparing enough boats to ship 1m people to Calais.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I do agree, but politically a Norway style Brexit would be more final imo. If we put Remain back on and Remain wins, then it will churn more and more. At least if Remain is off the ballot, the first referendum result has been respected. And then it's just a new democratic mandate that is being given for how we leave.

All this stuff about avoiding churn, not upsetting UKIP, keeping the country together: it's basically an argument for avoiding a Tory split and keeping the populist headbangers in Labour. I'm not keen on either.

 

[the dza]

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.

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.

 

[r-u-s-x]

A better way of phrasing that is that they insisted we agree to all of their terms before they even started listening to ours.

At that point we should have started preparing enough boats to ship 1m people to Calais.

No its really not, they just set out what they were willing to negotiate - this is normal. We went in because we thought we held all the cards and could bring these things to the table... we couldn't.

I don't think your tactics would have worked for two reasons.

1). You wouldn't get these ideas through parliament and would have been voted out after the first attempt. There are enough Tories who know it is political suicide to go down this path it would have got nowhere.
2). we really don't hold all the cards and would lose if we got petty.


The level of the divorce bill was negotiated, we had the opportunity to bring a workable solution to the Irish issue etc.

 

[the dza]

All this stuff about avoiding churn, not upsetting UKIP, keeping the country together: it's basically an argument for avoiding a Tory split and keeping the populist headbangers in Labour. I'm not keen on either.

Fair enough, but I think effectively ignoring the first referendum (by asking people to vote for Remain again) is wrong. This way, we accept the first referendum result, but have an opportunity to vote to stay as closely aligned as possible with the EU. It's a fair compromise imo, imperfect though it is.

 

[the dza]

All this stuff about avoiding churn, not upsetting UKIP, keeping the country together: it's basically an argument for avoiding a Tory split and keeping the populist headbangers in Labour. I'm not keen on either.

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."

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Fair enough, but I think effectively ignoring the first referendum (by asking people to vote for Remain again) is wrong. This way, we accept the first referendum result, but have an opportunity to vote to stay as closely aligned as possible with the EU. It's a fair compromise imo, imperfect though it is.

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.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

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."

Yes, but the Tories would be divided like they were from, ooh, 1992 to 2015. Not like they would be if the eye-swivellers had a real grievance.