Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

lawred2 wrote: »

only took 9 short sweet years

That's practically a lunch date.

downcow wrote: »

Try answering the question i asked as opposed to the question you want to answer ie
Then if the negotiators had came back with a plan that left EU beholding to the UK indefinitely and the EU27 was disgusted with it and rejected it. Would you accept me saying,tough, this is the WA and the UK will not reopen it (as if it was now closed) and we won't talk about it??

If the EU27 sent a negotiating team who willingly arrived at an agreement so far off the mark it was not recognisable to the desires of the parliament, then yes, the EU27 would have only themselves to blame for not prepping and managing their negotiation team and their options would be:
(1) accept the deal as is (this option remains open to the UK)
(2) offer something in return for renegotiating the deal (the EU have hinted at this option remaining open to the UK (by "moving the red lines"))
(3) walk away with no deal (this option remains open to the UK).

The choice would be the EU's and, whether the EU like it or not, blame for the ultimate deal would lie entirely in their court.

But let's follow your analogy for a minute and consider your scenario doesn't allow for a further situation whereby the EU negotiation team were asking things genuinely sought by the EU27 but for the UK were simply just not acceptable to them no matter what - what then?
Is it all the UK's fault, are they just being mean by not giving the EU exactly what they want?
When the EU keep pleading with the UK to give them exactly what they want, over and over, and the UK keep politely stating "sorry, but we're not willing to offer you that", does that make the UK intransigent?
If the EU call UK MPs pretty nasty names repeatedly and the UK start to return the favour, does that make the UK the big bullies in the negotiation process?
When the EU aren't willing to accept their fate and end up defaulting to no deal and face into years of uncertainty, is it fair to blame the UK entirely for the EU's outcome?

eagle eye wrote: »

Did you ever make a mistake? Did people forgive you and forget about it?

People died to give others the right to vote. Women were denied the vote for years.

That is simply not a mistake, that is willful ignorance.

But even if one was to accept that it was a genuine mistake, led in large part by a campaign of lies and misinformation by the media and senior political figures, then why have the polls not moved?

Where is the outcry for a second vote. One can only assume that people still have yet to take the time to actually educate themselves on the realities of what they voted for and accepted that they were duped.

One can only forgive a mistake when the person accepts that a mistake was actually made.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Everyone has made mistakes.
However, I have never nade a mistake such as I want my home country (where all my important financial ties are bound to) to exit the EU and it's convenient internal borderless access but at the same time take it for granted that it won't affect me staying in the EU.
What exactly did they think they were voting for then?

As for forgiveness, who do you think should be forgiving them and in what way? How should we forget about their mistake?

Should the same forgiveness and forgetfulness be applied to peoplke who made the mistake of being born in the wrong country e.g. Syria and decided to move to the UK?

And remember, Brexiteers are always telling us the the people did fully understand what they were voting for and any suggestion that they didn't is the type of arrogance that lead to the vote in the first place.

So which is it? Do we continue on to accept the will of the people as unmoving and made with the full details, or accept that many people made a mistake?

Downcow is currently pushing the idea that the TM and her negotiators, along with the cabinet and the entire government, has also simply made a mistake in terms of what they negotiated and as such we should simply start all over again for their benefit.

Yet they are fully behind HMG being in charge of all future trade deals!

eagle eye wrote: »

A lot of people thought they were voting to stop immigration.
With all the terrorist activity in the UK over the past 15 or so years it's understandable that people would vote to stop free movement.

Well then they are idiots because the facts and information was out for everyone to see that it was far bigger and more complex than just stopping immigration

robinph wrote: »

In fairness to the guy asking the question I think he was asking it only because he knew it was so stupid a bunch of ideas and to get it on the record.

Exactly, the person who asked it is from the SNP of all parties! I'd imagine he asked it specifically to draw a parallel between Ireland and Scotland with a view to pointing out the stupidity of asking such a question, and in particular for the Scottish audience (with a view towards their own independence).

First Up wrote: »

Has the UK been subjected to terrorist attacks from EU citizens?

It is sort of irrelevant. The fear of terrorist attacks is certainly very real and in that respect people will vote accordingly.

However, Brexit will actually do very little to curb that problem. Brexit will likely see an increase in immigration from non EU countries. They are also not proposing that people cannot continue to visit the Uk, just that they cannot stay and work. So any terrorists that do live outside the UK can simply arrive, do their stuff and get out.

And in return for not making any real difference, they have voted to dramatically reduce their own rights in terms of FOM.

Leroy42 wrote:

It is sort of irrelevant. The fear of terrorist attacks is certainly very real and in that respect people will vote accordingly.

We are all entitled to fear terrorist attacks but a geography lesson would help people focus on where the threats come from.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Or simplify all of that and say "one backstop unless and until a mutually acceptable alternative arrangement is agreed between the two parties." :cool:

In effect, my deal is still a backstop up until and when the UK can provide satisfactory alternative arrangements, but it's also calling the UK's bluff on a time limit. If it does nothing else, it would at least force UK negotiators to explain to the EU, definitively, why it is they want a time limit and to discuss what would happen at the end of that.

And also, crucially, the idea that independent judges could be brought in to assess the backstop would allay UK fears that the EU was proposing a backstop as a way to de facto annex NI, or use it as leverage in some way.

I see Bertie graciously offered his time to the Exiting the European Union Committee in Westminster today.

One particular highlight seems to have been his citing 'an 800-year past of difficulties', as reported by the Irish Times. There is a snippet of video in the article on this. It was in relation to comments on the suggestion that 'Ireland throws in its lot with the UK'.

I'll try and watch this in full later on parliament tv.