Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Hubert Cumberdale]

I think the EU interpretation is not consistent with either the text or the spirit of the article, but like I said, I don't expect the EU to change its negotiating tactics, and I don't think there are enough grounds to mount a legal challenge against the EU which in any case would have to come before an EU court.

I actually agree with you entirely.

I would also venture that the EU is deliberately setting out to punish the UK so as to make an example and discourage others from leaving.

I think that's pretty much self-evident.

And its not surprising. They know full well that any damage incurred by EU member states will be dwarfed by the damage to the UK, and indeed, some members states will benefit to extent. An example would be by the fact that any UK financial services company that does business in the EU is now in the process of setting up new companies in Frankfurt, Luxembourg and so on.

The EU will prove they are perfectly willing to incur a degree of economic damage to advance a political agenda.

Leavers especially should not be surprised by this, since they are willing to incur catastrophic economic damage to further their political agenda.

All of this means the UK's negotiating position is hopelessly poor. The EU holds all the aces, and we have a bunch of jokers.

That this would be the case was obvious, and single greatest reason that voted remain.

 

[Information Analyst]

In a democracy, when a binary decision is made, then the choice has to be what the 52% voted for, not the 48%.

Yet the nature of the choice taken was not defined, and can take more than one form, thence the wishes of the >48% should be considered, along with those of the <52%. Not all of the latter wanted a hard Brexit.

 

[Information Analyst]

Desperate pseudo logic there. However you try to twist things, the majority voted to leave. I know you want to remain or "leave" in a manner that is roughly equivalent to remaining. If you get that then it will be be a defeat for democracy.

If you're such a fan of democracy, presumably you would support a second referendum, with various types of Brexit on the table. Otherwise, you would just be hypocritically using a slim technical majority to force through an outcome that the majority would not support.

 

[Amazer]

I actually agree with you entirely.

I would also venture that the EU is deliberately setting out to punish the UK so as to make an example and discourage others from leaving.

I think that's pretty much self-evident.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Anyone with more than one brain cell would know that any future deal with the EU would be not as good as the current deal with the EU. The difference between being member of a club and not being a member of that club.

It could just be my bias of course... but I haven't heard the EU make demands that go over and above anything that the UK would have been on the hook for if it had chosen to stay a member of the EU. Perhaps you can point out any?

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Anyone with more than one brain cell would know that any future deal with the EU would be not as good as the current deal with the EU. The difference between being member of a club and not being a member of that club.

It could just be my bias of course... but I haven't heard the EU make demands that go over and above anything that the UK would have been on the hook for if it had chosen to stay a member of the EU. Perhaps you can point out any?

Well, the EU know full well that the UK is desperate to talk trade and they are refusing to do so until the UK agrees to their demands.

That isn't negotiating, that's making a point.

And I'd do the same in that position.

 

[The Don]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Anyone with more than one brain cell would know that any future deal with the EU would be not as good as the current deal with the EU. The difference between being member of a club and not being a member of that club.

It could just be my bias of course... but I haven't heard the EU make demands that go over and above anything that the UK would have been on the hook for if it had chosen to stay a member of the EU. Perhaps you can point out any?

You might think the highlighted, but the Leave campaign repeatedly claimed that the post-Brexit deal with the EU would at worst be the same and would likely be better. Repeated statements to the contrary from people who actually had a flipping clue were dismissed as "Project Fear"

 

[ceptimus]

It could just be my bias of course... but I haven't heard the EU make demands that go over and above anything that the UK would have been on the hook for if it had chosen to stay a member of the EU. Perhaps you can point out any?

The EU won't put a figure on their "divorce bill" but let's assume they would settle for sixty five billion Euros.

Now we all agree that the much-discussed "£350 million per week" was a gross figure, so the actual contributions by the UK to the EU are nearer to €250 million per week which is about thirteen billion Euros per year.

So they're asking for a divorce bill payment equivalent to about five years of normal contributions - and I assume that they will demand continuing contributions over and above that amount for any continued access to the single market - depending on whether or not that can be negotiated and what level of access is agreed.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

You might think the highlighted, but the Leave campaign repeatedly claimed that the post-Brexit deal with the EU would at worst be the same and would likely be better. Repeated statements to the contrary from people who actually had a flipping clue were dismissed as "Project Fear"

According to Davis, following a leave vote, his first port of call would be Berlin not Brussels, to strike a deal.

Similar deals would then be struck with other EU member states.















Yes... I know....

 

[Amazer]

Well, the EU know full well that the UK is desperate to talk trade and they are refusing to do so until the UK agrees to their demands.

That isn't negotiating, that's making a point.

And I'd do the same in that position.

Maybe... although I'm not getting the sense that the EU is demanding anything other than what the UK would have been on the hook for if they had continued with their EU membership. I wouldn't exactly call that punishment.

 

[Amazer]

You might think the highlighted, but the Leave campaign repeatedly claimed that the post-Brexit deal with the EU would at worst be the same and would likely be better. Repeated statements to the contrary from people who actually had a flipping clue were dismissed as "Project Fear"

Just go to show that the Leave campaign was rather well clued in to the fact that there is a surprisingly large group of voters with one brain cell or less.

 

[3point14]

Just go to show that the Leave campaign was rather well clued in to the fact that there is a surprisingly large group of voters with one brain cell or less.

It's an underhand trick that's worked forever.

Convince those that can't think well that problem X is a result of (the entirely unrelated) situation Y and campaign on that.

Truth doesn't come into it. In fact, those that campaigned for leaving the EU, if I recall, wanted a 'US style' campaign, void of facts and strong on rhetoric. I was hoping we, as a nation, were going to be smarter than that.

God I was wrong.

 

[The Don]

Yes... I know....

What appears even more worrying to me is that there is not set of circumstances which would have them deflect from their path. If the price for keeping foreigners out, being able to sell bendy bananas by the pound and being free of EU oppression is the decimation of the UK economy then so be it.

I understand that after the Charge of the Light Brigade, Russian soldiers were smelling the breath of captured British horsemen, convinced that they had to be drunk to contemplate something so ruinously stupid. These days we have brethalysers but sentiment is the same

 

[jimbob]

What appears even more worrying to me is that there is not set of circumstances which would have them deflect from their path. If the price for keeping foreigners out, being able to sell bendy bananas by the pound and being free of EU oppression is the decimation of the UK economy then so be it.

I understand that after the Charge of the Light Brigade, Russian soldiers were smelling the breath of captured British horsemen, convinced that they had to be drunk to contemplate something so ruinously stupid. These days we have brethalysers but sentiment is the same

I keep thinking that the Tory sense of self-preservation will start to play, as there are plenty of ways they could gracefully exit whilst keeping face, but if they do lead us into a disaster (which harms a lot of their business sponsors) I'm not convinced they will be able to successfully shift the blame.

ETA: But I see no evidence for this optimism

 

[3point14]

I keep thinking that the Tory sense of self-preservation will start to play, as there are plenty of ways they could gracefully exit whilst keeping face, but if they do lead us into a disaster (which harms a lot of their business sponsors) I'm not convinced they will be able to successfully shift the blame.

ETA: But I see no evidence for this optimism

The tory party is surely playing a long game now:

Wreck the economy

Lose the election (whenever that might be)

Spend four to eight years blaming the incumbent labour party and the EU for all the ills created by the tories.

Return to power in triumph at some unspecified date.

 

[wobs]

Just go to show that the Leave campaign was rather well clued in to the fact that there is a surprisingly large group of voters with one brain cell or less.

I'm not a huge fan of insulting those I disagree with. Especially when its a sizeable chunk of the population.

 

[3point14]

I'm not a huge fan of insulting those I disagree with. Especially when its a sizeable chunk of the population.

Half the population are of below average intelligence.

 

[Aber]

I keep thinking that the Tory sense of self-preservation will start to play, as there are plenty of ways they could gracefully exit whilst keeping face

Please name them.

As far as I can tell, the Conservatives' red lines are control over immigration, and removing the UK from the jurisdiction of the ECJ (as otherwise it would "staying in the EU in all but name").

Everything else follows from the EU's red lines, given the above.

 

[ceptimus]

I'm sick of the childishness displayed by many leave supporters in this thread:

• Leave supporters are racists.
• Leave supporters are stupid.
• Leave supporters would vote remain if the referendum were held again.

And so on...


Regarding those three points above, they're all wrong.

• Sure some Leave supporters are racists but not the vast majority of them - or you're claiming that 52% of the population that voted are racists. And no doubt there were also racists that voted remain. I'll admit that of the racist population that voted, most will have voted Leave.
• I don't think the stupid argument is defensible at all. For one thing, even if it were true, then so what? Are you saying that stupid people should be denied their vote? But in any case, I don't think it is true: I suspect that just as many stupid people voted remain. Have there been any polls or studies that attempted to correlate votes with intelligence? It would be very easy to accept biased samples here - even if there are poll results that say that people with degrees (say) were more likely to vote remain (have there been any such polls? How were they conducted?) then you would still have to show that people with degrees are more intelligent than those without, correct for the bias of more young people holding degrees (because in recent years a higher proportion of the population goes into further education) and correct for the proportion of degree holders versus non-degree-holders that turn out to vote - and there are probably other sources of bias that I've not thought of.
• Doubtless some Leave voters would change their minds if another referendum were held - but so would some Remain voters. Also some people who voted first time wouldn't bother to vote (or have died or emigrated since the first vote) and there would be people who couldn't or didn't vote the first time who would vote in a second referendum. Which side would win in a hypothetical second referendum? I don't know; do you? What do the polls say and how much faith should we place in them? Also, those of you supporting a second referendum should ask yourself if you would have supported such if your side had won the first one. If there's a second referendum and the result is different, would you then support a third referendum? If not why not?

Come on guys, this is supposed to be a critical thinking forum. You can do better than this. Address the arguments and don't just insult those that hold the opposite view to your own.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Just go to show that the Leave campaign was rather well clued in to the fact that there is a surprisingly large group of voters with one brain cell or less.

I know quite a few people who voted leave and I wouldn't describe any of them as stupid (one of them is a civil engineer).

Mostly I haven't pressed them on their reasons, but the civ-eng guy said it just seemed like leaving was a good idea but now it didn't seem like it was a good idea at all.

Another one is more inscrutable - he is in his late 50's and plans to retire to Lanzarote. His entire life goal is to move there. He spends every single day of his annual leave entitlement in Lanzarote.

He voted leave.

He's not stupid though.

Like Mr civ-eng, he just didn't think things through.

I very nearly voted leave as I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the EU and generally regard it as a sinister and anti-democratic cabal of uber-capitalists but when it came to the crunch, I foresaw what a ****-show it would be (no plan, Gove/Bojo/Davis and other clowns in charge) and put pragmatism over principles.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Article 50

The bit the EU is in breach of is under part 2 where it says, "...the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

The EU have argued that the sentence should be interpreted as, "setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, and only then take account of the framework for its future relationship."

I think the EU interpretation is not consistent with either the text or the spirit of the article, but like I said, I don't expect the EU to change its negotiating tactics, and I don't think there are enough grounds to mount a legal challenge against the EU which in any case would have to come before an EU court.

It clearly states the negotiation is for withdrawal. Withdrawal has nothing to do with future trading arrangements. The uk government insists it does not want a future framework in place but wants to be a third party nation. That being the case there is no future framework to take account of particularly. The UK will have the same status in the EU as Uganda.

It is the UK that has refused to discuss a future framework as they will not accept the rights and freedoms that this would entail extending to EU citizens