Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[foxinexile]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I do think the EU is being unreasonable and I will give you examples. They say we are not allowed to seek negotiations to individual member states and it must all go through barnier and his team, yet this is not being reciprocated. Barnier and his team have talked to Sturgeon, Corbyn and today are pictured with Tony Blair (wtf). This ransom demand is not mentioned in the treaties, they won't tell us how much and want us to come up with the figure but refuse to start any other talks before agreement. 

The language I use might seem strong on here but that is intended for europhiles who we have been debating with on this for about 18 months, do not misinterpret this for me thinking these negotiations to be of more importance than they are. I'd be happy for us walk with no deal, I might even prefer it.

Have a look around the world, there are plenty of nations with much less to offer than us, standing on there own, and enjoying free trade deals with numerous nations. You don't have to be a superpower to benefit, it's an absolute fallacy.

Yes, Barnier and his team have talked to Sturgeon, Corbyn and Blair (and I don't disagree that the latter's appearance today is intentional maneuvering and posturing by him) but that is all they have done: talked. They haven't negotiated with this trio (sounds like the name of a dodgy solicitors!). Those three may have offered their opinions but they have no direct influence on negotiations at this time. Likewise, I'm sure May, Davis and Fox (an even worse sounding trio!) have likely discussed Brexit with various EU Heads of Government ... but those Heads have no direct influence on negotiations either. I fail to see what is unreasonable about that?

 

You say the EU27 won't tell the UK how much a settlement should be, yet neither has the UK offered any suggestions - and so we have an impasse. The concern from the EU27 is that net contributors such as Germany and the Netherlands will have to pay more in relation to the less that the UK pays. And those countries who are the biggest recipients will receive less in relation to the less the UK pays. Even if we were able to negotiate with individual Member States, we would not find many who are sympathetic to our position. There is a belief that the European Commission is driving this obstinacy. Absolutely not. They are taking this stance under direction from a collective group of 27 countries who are seeking protection of their own interests. How this translates to the UK being picked on/punished/bullied etc. is something I won't ever understand.

 

 

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

Yes, Barnier and his team have talked to Sturgeon, Corbyn and Blair (and I don't disagree that the latter's appearance today is intentional maneuvering and posturing by him) but that is all they have done: talked. They haven't negotiated with this trio (sounds like the name of a dodgy solicitors!). Those three may have offered their opinions but they have no direct influence on negotiations at this time. Likewise, I'm sure May, Davis and Fox (an even worse sounding trio!) have likely discussed Brexit with various EU Heads of Government ... but those Heads have no direct influence on negotiations either. I fail to see what is unreasonable about that?

 

You say the EU27 won't tell the UK how much a settlement should be, yet neither has the UK offered any suggestions - and so we have an impasse. The concern from the EU27 is that net contributors such as Germany and the Netherlands will have to pay more in relation to the less that the UK pays. And those countries who are the biggest recipients will receive less in relation to the less the UK pays. Even if we were able to negotiate with individual Member States, we would not find many who are sympathetic to our position. There is a belief that the European Commission is driving this obstinacy. Absolutely not. They are taking this stance under direction from a collective group of 27 countries who are seeking protection of their own interests. How this translates to the UK being picked on/punished/bullied etc. is something I won't ever understand.

 

 

So you accept they create a policy that we aren't allowed to talk to members of their 'club' but they openly talk to ours and accept that they demand a mystery figure but won't tell us how much and won't proceed until we guess it but you don't think it's fair to say it's unreasonable. Okay pal.

[Guest Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

You say the EU27 won't tell the UK how much a settlement should be, yet neither has the UK offered any suggestions - and so we have an impasse. The concern from the EU27 is that net contributors such as Germany and the Netherlands will have to pay more in relation to the less that the UK pays. And those countries who are the biggest recipients will receive less in relation to the less the UK pays. Even if we were able to negotiate with individual Member States, we would not find many who are sympathetic to our position. There is a belief that the European Commission is driving this obstinacy. Absolutely not. They are taking this stance under direction from a collective group of 27 countries who are seeking protection of their own interests. How this translates to the UK being picked on/punished/bullied etc. is something I won't ever understand.

 

 

 

We're not offering a figure because how can we if we have no idea what the future relationship might look like. For a start, any transitional agreement will likely see us carry on contributing which changes the amount we'd pay as a 'divorce bill'. Or as Davis has said before, we could pay extra to be able to negotiate FTA during a transitional period whilst still in the Customs Union. Similarly they want movement on the Irish border but to do that we need to talk about a future customs relationship. The problem is, the EU is built of being too complex to understand and their negotiating strategy is technical rather than practical. The EU27 will get fed up of Barnier's inability to progress things and tell him to press on. 

[foxinexile]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So you accept they create a policy that we aren't allowed to talk to members of their 'club' but they openly talk to ours and accept that they demand a mystery figure but won't tell us how much and won't proceed until we guess it but you don't think it's fair to say it's unreasonable. Okay pal.

No one has said we can't talk to individual Member States. I have no doubt discussions are happening on a daily basis. But whether you like it or not, current negotiations are being held by the UK and the EC (as the representative of the 27 other countries). We are negotiating directly with the EC. How is that unreasonable? Why does it concern you so much? And "they" demand a mystery figure yet won't tell us how much ... yet "we" demand a mystery figure but won't tell them how much. There clearly can't be any progression until this is resolved, so if there is unreasonableness, it comes from both of us, however much people might not like to acknowledge that.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, KingGTF said:

 

We're not offering a figure because how can we if we have no idea what the future relationship might look like. For a start, any transitional agreement will likely see us carry on contributing which changes the amount we'd pay as a 'divorce bill'. Or as Davis has said before, we could pay extra to be able to negotiate FTA during a transitional period whilst still in the Customs Union. Similarly they want movement on the Irish border but to do that we need to talk about a future customs relationship. The problem is, the EU is built of being too complex to understand and their negotiating strategy is technical rather than practical. The EU27 will get fed up of Barnier's inability to progress things and tell him to press on. 

They're not asking for a figure. They're asking us to provide our suggestion for how a figure should be calculated. Whilst you're right that the final figure will depend on the trade negotiations, presumably we could take account of this in our assessment of how a figure should be calculated. I think the government on posturing for the cameras by saying they can't provide this now - i think they just don't want to because it will get into the public arena - it will almost have to given they've published other brexit papers publically - and it will become readily apparent that we will be paying a significsnt sum. This won't go down well with brexiteers and they know it. 

[Guest]

Really interesting to see what he says the eu offered britain previously. 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4369500/euro-chief-guy-verhofstadt-launches-furious-rant-at-uk-for-demanding-flexibility-from-brussels-after-brexit-deadlock/

[Guest MattP]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/are-those-talking-down-our-chances-of-prospering-post-brexit-ever-going-to-stop/

 

Good read from the Speccy.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/are-those-talking-down-our-chances-of-prospering-post-brexit-ever-going-to-stop/

 

Good read from the Speccy.

I'd regard it as commentary on what we see happening. Let's be honest here, back when we were all arguing more vociferously about brexit i asked you numerous times what outcome you would regard as failure. Time and time again you wouldn't answer. Both sides are myopic. I struggle to see any upsides (though it isn't impossible) and simply comment on the activity we currently see that supports my view. It is no different to you refusing to admit that it could go horribly wrong and focusing o  stories that back your arguments. In every other arena of politics both sides can disagree robustly. When it involves brexit one side has decided that it isn't allowed to be discussed any more, referring to some tenuous idea of nation hating (or "doing us down" - boo hoo) if anybody dares disagree with the decision to leave. As with every other political decision, i absolutely reserve the right to watch with interest and hold to account those that took the decision to raise unneccessary risks. It is absolutely the same as what you would have done if labour had won the election and you would be absolutely within your rights to do so.

Edited 1 September 2017 by Guest

[Guest MattP]

Just now, toddybad said:

I'd regard it as commentary on what we see happening. Let's be honest here, back when we were all arguing more vociferously about brexit i asked you numerous times what outcome you would regard as failure. Time and time again you wouldn't answer. Both sides are myopic. I struggle to see any upsides (though it isn't impossible) and simply comment on the activity we currently see that supports my view. It is no different to you refusing to admit that it could go horribly wrong and focusing o  stories that back your arguments. In every other arena of politics both sides can disagree robustly. When it involves brexit one side has decided that it isn't allowed to be discussed any more, referring to some tenuous idea of nation hating if anybody dares disagree with the decision to leave. As with every other political decision, i absolutely reserve the right to watch with interest and hold to account those that took the decision to raise unneccessary risks. It is absolutely the same as what you would have done if labour had won the election and you would be absolutely within your rights to do so.

I would regard as a failure us coming out of the negotiation without the ability to do our own free trade deals, have total control over our borders or have the ECJ still being to overrule a British court. 

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

I would regard as a failure us coming out of the negotiation without the ability to do our own free trade deals, have total control over our borders or have the ECJ still being to overrule a British court. 

And I'm sure if negotiations move in a direction that, for example, still gave the ecj some jurisdiction (i hate to break it to you but to trade with them it will have even if not directly) then I'm sure you would be giving your view.

 

The question i really want answered though is how much pain do you believe is acceptable to get what you want from the negotiation? Now I'm not saying this would come to pass but project fear did involve some pretty scary ideas. If you got those 3 aims met but gdp dropped by 25% and 1 milliom more were unemployed would you be hsppy with the outcome? I'm trying to get a sense of whether there is any real world red line beyond which these things aren't worth it?

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'd regard it as commentary on what we see happening. Let's be honest here, back when we were all arguing more vociferously about brexit i asked you numerous times what outcome you would regard as failure. Time and time again you wouldn't answer. Both sides are myopic. I struggle to see any upsides (though it isn't impossible) and simply comment on the activity we currently see that supports my view. It is no different to you refusing to admit that it could go horribly wrong and focusing o  stories that back your arguments. In every other arena of politics both sides can disagree robustly. When it involves brexit one side has decided that it isn't allowed to be discussed any more, referring to some tenuous idea of nation hating (or "doing us down" - boo hoo) if anybody dares disagree with the decision to leave. As with every other political decision, i absolutely reserve the right to watch with interest and hold to account those that took the decision to raise unneccessary risks. It is absolutely the same as what you would have done if labour had won the election and you would be absolutely within your rights to do so.

It could go wrong, we could go for a soft brexit or worse, stay in.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

And I'm sure if negotiations move in a direction that, for example, still gave the ecj some jurisdiction (i hate to break it to you but to trade with them it will have even if not directly) then I'm sure you would be giving your view.

 

The question i really want answered though is how much pain do you believe is acceptable to get what you want from the negotiation? Now I'm not saying this would come to pass but project fear did involve some pretty scary ideas. If you got those 3 aims met but gdp dropped by 25% and 1 milliom more were unemployed would you be hsppy with the outcome? I'm trying to get a sense of whether there is any real world red line beyond which these things aren't worth it?

Any pain, I want us to be a fully independent country again, you could wipe my bank account to zero and I'd put up with it. 

 

But it won't be that, so I'm not going to worry. 

[Guest]

Just now, Strokes said:

It could go wrong, we could go for a soft brexit or worse, stay in.

Okay so that's a similar thing - just less specific- that what matt said. 

 

What I'm getting at is - presumably you want out of the eu because you think britain can do better and our people can do better outside? Otherwise why would it be worth getting out if it was only to make you, me and everybody else poorer? Surely a vote for leave is really about that? If it isn't then I'm worried about how scewed people's perpectives must be.

 

It follows that if we end up significantly poorer surely the question would be was it worth getting things that don't really mean anything in everyday life (ecj, immigeation rules etc) in exchange for making everyday life worse?

 

Now, to help you answer that honestly I'll offer a concession: for me i don't care if we are in or out of the eu. What i care about is people's lives, and theirs and our countries prosperity. I went remain as it seems a huge risk to me for things that don't mean anything to me personally -ecj, immigration rules etc. If we leave and are no worse off then I'll be okay with that. Its just at this moment it seems to me the government ate making a total hash of it.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Any pain, I want us to be a fully independent country again, you could wipe my bank account to zero and I'd put up with it. 

 

But it won't be that, so I'm not going to worry. 

Any pain. Forgive me but that is nuts.

And thst is the issue i have.

I order to get to call your country independent and have policies you like the sound of - which mean nothing to anybody's life on their own - you'd be willing for everybody to be cast into poverty. How is that a rationale decision?

 

So, for instance. If we get control of our borders but find that eu nurses no longer want to come here and the nhs collapses without them, that is a good thing?

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Any pain. Forgive me but that is nuts.

And thst is the issue i have.

I order to get to call your country independent and have policies you like the sound of - which mean nothing to anybody's life on their own - you'd be willing for everybody to be cast into poverty. How is that a rationale decision?

 

So, for instance. If we get control of our borders but find that eu nurses no longer want to come here and the nhs collapses without them, that is a good thing?

If that happens I'd vote to change the government not re-join the EU, but it won't, it would be insane.

 

The argument about this is totally pointless as we are talking about things that are never going to happen.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

If that happens I'd vote to change the government not re-join the EU, but it won't, it would be insane.

 

The argument about this is totally pointless as we are talking about things that are never going to happen.

No fair enough im using extreme examples i just wanted to know your 'red line' in principal.

 

 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Any pain, I want us to be a fully independent country again, you could wipe my bank account to zero and I'd put up with it. 

 

But it won't be that, so I'm not going to worry. 

Yeah it would be nice to be back In the black  

[Strokes]

43 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Okay so that's a similar thing - just less specific- that what matt said. 

 

What I'm getting at is - presumably you want out of the eu because you think britain can do better and our people can do better outside? Otherwise why would it be worth getting out if it was only to make you, me and everybody else poorer? Surely a vote for leave is really about that? If it isn't then I'm worried about how scewed people's perpectives must be.

 

It follows that if we end up significantly poorer surely the question would be was it worth getting things that don't really mean anything in everyday life (ecj, immigeation rules etc) in exchange for making everyday life worse?

 

Now, to help you answer that honestly I'll offer a concession: for me i don't care if we are in or out of the eu. What i care about is people's lives, and theirs and our countries prosperity. I went remain as it seems a huge risk to me for things that don't mean anything to me personally -ecj, immigration rules etc. If we leave and are no worse off then I'll be okay with that. Its just at this moment it seems to me the government ate making a total hash of it.

According to you leftys we only have to have a Tory government to be heading for a crisis or over the edge. It's not like there haven't been recessions, depressions whilst members of the EU. If you are asking me what the financial tipping point would be, for my admission that freedom was not worth it, the answer would be never.

Plenty of things could make brexit a disaster but finance and economy would never be on that list.

Weve survived rations during wars, to maintain our freedom and ability to be sovereign. 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

According to you leftys we only have to have a Tory government to be heading for a crisis or over the edge. It's not like there haven't been recessions, depressions whilst members of the EU. If you are asking me what the financial tipping point would be, for my admission that freedom was not worth it, the answer would be never.

Plenty of things could make brexit a disaster but finance and economy would never be on that list.

Weve survived rations during wars, to maintain our freedom and ability to be sovereign. 

 

Don't be silly. 

 

If we have a Tory govt. we are already in a crisis.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

According to you leftys we only have to have a Tory government to be heading for a crisis or over the edge. It's not like there haven't been recessions, depressions whilst members of the EU. If you are asking me what the financial tipping point would be, for my admission that freedom was not worth it, the answer would be never.

Plenty of things could make brexit a disaster but finance and economy would never be on that list.

Weve survived rations during wars, to maintain our freedom and ability to be sovereign. 

So I'll only say three things in this:

1- the same could be said about you righties and labour

2- the bit of me you won't find agreememt with thinks the answers you and Matt have given have convinced me that brexit is akin to some weird religious cult. It doesn't matter how the results show themselves in the real world, it's better just because it is. You obviously won't agree with that. 

3- what you've more chance of agreeing with: i don't think there'll ever be common ground and understanding between remainers and leavers as we are actually comparing apples and pears. We are bothered by the financial impact and measure brexit's success of failure in finance. You guys aren't actuslly bothered by the finance. I can't really imagine us ever seeing eye to eye on it. 

 

Not much point in me saying anything else really. 

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Don't be silly. 

 

If we have a Tory govt. we are already in a crisis.  

True, they do normally get handed a crisis  

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So I'll only say three things in this:

1- the same could be said about you righties and labour

2- the bit of me you won't find agreememt with thinks the answers you and Matt have given have convinced me that brexit is akin to some weird religious cult. It doesn't matter how the results show themselves in the real world, it's better just because it is. You obviously won't agree with that. 

3- what you've more chance of agreeing with: i don't think there'll ever be common ground and understanding between remainers and leavers as we are actually comparing apples and pears. We are bothered by the financial impact and measure brexit's success of failure in finance. You guys aren't actuslly bothered by the finance. I can't really imagine us ever seeing eye to eye on it. 

 

Not much point in me saying anything else really. 

It's amazing a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn can pontificate about others politics being akin to a cult and claim they care about finances so much.

 

You are supporting going down a route that has failed every single time it has been tried, sometimes with disastrous consequences. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's amazing a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn can pontificate about others politics being akin to a cult and claim they care about finances so much.

 

You are supporting going down a route that has failed every single time it has been tried, sometimes with disastrous consequences. 

Socialism hasn't be tried in this country since the 1930s properly.

Funny thing about brexit is its made tories that bang on about the need to stay within our means vote for the opposite of a sensible, planned approach. I'll take your words with a huge pinch of salt given you've said you don't care about the economic impact of brexit. I at least care about the economy - i just don't agree with you regarding what it needs. 

[Strokes]

52 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Socialism hasn't be tried in this country since the 1930s properly.

Funny thing about brexit is its made tories that bang on about the need to stay within our means vote for the opposite of a sensible, planned approach. I'll take your words with a huge pinch of salt given you've said you don't care about the economic impact of brexit. I at least care about the economy - i just don't agree with you regarding what it needs. 

I do care about the economy, I just care about freedom much more. 

If we didn't go to war with Germany in 1939 because it might damage our economy, we would all be blonde hair blue eyed German speaking nazis. 

Sometimes money and economics are not as important as other things. It's a difficult concept I know, we spend so much time focussing our politics on it. 

Not for one second do I think it will be anywhere near as bad you predict, not even at its worst.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I do care about the economy, I just care about freedom much more. 

If we didn't go to war with Germany in 1939 because it might damage our economy, we would all be blonde hair blue eyed German speaking nazis. 

Sometimes money and economics are not as important as other things. It's a difficult concept I know, we spend so much time focussing our politics on it. 

Not for one second do I think it will be anywhere near as bad you predict, not even at its worst.

I don't predict that, it was just a question. I think a trade deal with the eu is vital - walking away would be pretty bad imo - but we'll survive if we get one that's okay. 

Imo comparison with fighting wars is ridiculous. It was a club we helped form. Just think its become a scapegoat for people. Right wing media poisoned all discussion of europe.