The opinions/views/wishes of those that DIDN’T vote don’t count, I don’t know why people keep banging on about this - a majority DID vote for Brexit so that’s the end of it.
1 Like
I disagree. That isn’t the ‘end of it’. Democracy isn’t a one vote, one time decision. If it had been, the referendum in 2016 should never have taken place after the one in 1975.
3 Likes
I’m glad you are so fixed on that, I’m not. Many of the people who didn’t vote count very much now as they are now in a much better position to see what their future holds. In a non binding referendum does any vote really count?
If it’s non binding why are people getting so exercised about the triggering of Article 50 and the current negotiations? Surely all Mrs May has to say is ‘just kidding’ and the whole thing can be called off?
If only. Politicians need votes to fulfil their life’s dreams and votes are more important than facts at the moment. It’s a great game.
1 Like
I don’t agree with you on that, we assume that those who vote do so in a way which is representative of those who don’t rather than that the opinion of non-voters is irrelevant. However that only holds true if there are no large disenfranchised groups who might have voted differently. In the case of Brexit one might argue that two such groups are the 16-17 year olds or those living abroad for more than 15 years.
Regardless of that I do not see that there is a demonstrable “will of the people” to leave the EEA - if we assume that the 48% who voted remain would all wish to remain in the EEA it only requires 4% of the leave voters for the “will of the people” to be for a “soft” Brexit. In fact given that the Leave campaign kept telling us it would be easy to retain access to the market it seems safe to assume most people who voted Leave also thought we would still have access to the common market.
Given a clear “will of the people” for retaining access to the common market why are we running headlong to a no deal exit?
1 Like
Because its all part of the plan. No expenditure at the ferry port’s, no adverts for immigration or customs staff. No investment in a new computerized customs declaration system, in fact no investment in anything whatsoever. Looking more and more like the plan is one big major cock up.
2 Likes
Oh Trev, I do love that you think there is even a plan…I suspect there isn’t!
1 Like
The plan went as far as “quieten the party Eurosceptics by demonstrating there is no public backing to leave the EU” and we have been cocking it up winging it from there.
2 Likes
There has always been a plan, plan based around the notion that the EU 27 need the UK more than the UK needs them. Most eurosceptic Tory MP’s feel there is no need to do anything because eventually the EU 27 will simply roll over and offer the UK whatever they ask for.
Every single Tory leaver I’ve ever seen interviewed on TV or quoted in articles in the press, has always without fail, stated that the EU 27 will eventually agree a good deal because they need us far more than we need them. So there you go, that’s the plan.
Maybe even the EU does need the UK more than the UK needs them - it remains to be seen how much the UK does actually need the UK.
But there is no doubt that the EU feels it needs a strong united EU more than it needs a deal with the UK.
So if the UK forces a choice between a deal with the UK that is seen as damaging to the EU, and no deal with the UK, it will choose no deal with the UK.
The above is not a plan. I’m not quite sure what it is but it is not a plan. Arrogance, perhaps; delusion, probably - but not a plan.
As Craig Trevor Horwood would say" it is disaster darling".
There is nothing to be gained by leaving the EU and My has
done nothing to show that she is capable to lead since she started.
I think the ‘plan’ was to negotiate with the EU about the terms of the UK’s withdrawal.
However, sadly it has now become apparent today that the EU has no real intention of actually negotiating anything. In order to be able to truly ‘negotiate’ something, both sides have to be willing to concede certain points to the other side. In my book that is called making concessions, but unfortunately today we have heard M. Barnier say, "Nous ne demandons pas aux Britanniques de faire des “concessions”. L’accord auquel nous travaillons ne se construira pas sur des “concessions”.
Clearly the EU side are not interested in conceding anything, and without concessions from both sides there is not going to be any agreement.
So there we have a clear indication that there will be no agreement in relation to Citizens Rights, the Irish Border, or the Financial Severance unless the UK just rolls over and accepts what the EU wants in entirety.
The EU won’t talk about trade until those three issues are sorted, so unless the UK just rolls over in relation to them, there are not going to be any trade talks at all.
The EU has no interest in making any concessions according to M. Barnier, and that makes reasonable negotiation impossible, and so the UK’s ‘plan’ has to be reworked towards either giving the EU everything that they demand, or just simply walking away from what are currently farcical and rather pointless talks.
You make us sound as though both sides are in the same position. It’s obvious that the UK is in a completely different position to the EU and that they are the one who is seeking change and therefore is the one who has to be prepared to alter its stance to get to the point where it has regained its borders and sovereignty. Why should the EU bend over backwards to help a member who is acting against the wishes and interests of the group?
Barbara have you been on the sherry darling?
Funny that you should ask that…I rarely drink alcohol.
But I love to watch dancing…especially Strictly.
There’s a limit to how much negotiating the EU can do on the exit terms (ie stage 1 of the “negotiations” - citizens’ rights, the Irish border and the money); it’s more a matter of agreeing what is right and fair to both sides. The EU stance on citizen’s rights is set in stone and they can’t compromise on that, The Irish border is, from what we read, being negotiated within parameters and some progress is being made. The EU wants the UK to agree a method of calculating the money owed, and the UK won’t discuss it. The UK view seems to think that what they owe is a matter for negotiation, that it is tied in with the future relationship, and that it’s their trump card. The EU view is committed over the coming years under agreements already signed, should be honoured, and it’s simply a matter of agreeing on the fairest way to calculate the amount due. To me the EU view makes more sense - how does what’s agreed in the future change commitments made in the past and what’s fair now - and I guess this is exactly why they insist on the 2 stage process, so that past and future are indeed kept separate and the past can’t become a negotiating chip. Ditto citizens’ rights, what’s fair is fair, it doesn’t depend on any future deal.
When/if it comes to the trade deal, that’s when the gloves come off and the negotiating starts.
Does everyone else on here see the payment as a matter for negotiation, am I naive in thinking that commitments should be honoured? For instance, in terms of project spending suppose one of the projects that the UK had agreed to part-fund was a five-year project to build a new community complex for a town in Cornwall. Suppose the UK “negotiates” its way out of paying its share. What happens to the community centre - does it remain unfinished if the other 27 don’t agree to pay more? and why should they? OK, paying 1/27th extra for one project might not sound a lot - but that means that if 28 projects of equal value have been agreed, and the UK refuses to pay a penny, one of those projects will have no funding.
That’s why to me, it is about working out a formula for calculating what should be paid, it’s not a matter for negotiation, it has nothing to do with the future relationship and keeping it up your sleeve as a trump card is blackmail…
1 Like
Normally one sends in a negotiating team with a clear brief and some indication of where compromise is acceptable. Not a broad “get the best deal you can” amongst conflicting opinions as to what that constitutes.
I wonder if it has been phrased to the team as “perfect continuation of the status quo while appearing to withdraw totally and not pay anything” but it sometimes feels as though this is what the UK believes it deserves - it is not surprising that the EU finds this difficult as a starting point.
That said the EU is being difficult in some areas - sorting the Irish border really does need us to know what sort of trade tariff’s will be applied.