Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

deja vu !

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has said a deal is 80 per cent agreed, in an apparent softening of tone as Theresa May faces down Tory rebels over the direction Britain should take in talks.

Speaking on a visit to the United States, Michel Barnier said he was determined to negotiate the remaining 20 per cent of the deal, with the Brussels deadline for an agreement just around three months away.

“After 12 months of negotiations we have agreed on 80 per cent of the negotiations,” he told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

I was surprised that that much has actually been agreed?

“I can tell you that it is crystal clear at the end of this negotiation, that the best situation, with the best relationship with the EU, will remain to be a member of the EU.”

Interesting that that is still on the table.

 Mr Morden wrote:

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has said a deal is 80 per cent agreed, in an apparent softening of tone as Theresa May faces down Tory rebels over the direction Britain should take in talks.

Speaking on a visit to the United States, Michel Barnier said he was determined to negotiate the remaining 20 per cent of the deal, with the Brussels deadline for an agreement just around three months away.

“After 12 months of negotiations we have agreed on 80 per cent of the negotiations,” he told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

I was surprised that that much has actually been agreed?

General rule of thumb for you. The first 80% of any project takes 20% of the time. The remaining 20% takes 80% of the time. Simply there are generally lots of easy things that we can agree to (paying to be part of the airline network etc). It's the bits that you can't agree on that take the time.

And the latter statement tells you what we need to know. They EU will always protect their interests. It is in the interests of the EU and UK to stay in the EU. Everything else is a sliding scale of pain.

 Riquende wrote:
Because avoiding Eurocrat smugness is a key aim of Brexit, beyond things like jobs, the economy, workers rights, environmental protections...

I do care about the others, which is why I’m saying go with efta rarher than just crashing out, but I completely and utterly despise the hierarchy of the EU, the smug, aloft, over paid, unaccountable bastards.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
Because avoiding Eurocrat smugness is a key aim of Brexit, beyond things like jobs, the economy, workers rights, environmental protections...

I do care about the others, which is why I’m saying go with efta rarher than just crashing out, but I completely and utterly despise the hierarchy of the EU, the smug, aloft, over paid, unaccountable bastards.

If Britain took its rightful place, a lot of those "smug, aloft, over-paid, unaccountable bastards" would be our "smug, aloft, over-paid, unaccountable bastards"

Indeed.

And it’s not as if we didn’t have influence.

The rebate for one.

Veto for another.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
Because avoiding Eurocrat smugness is a key aim of Brexit, beyond things like jobs, the economy, workers rights, environmental protections...

I do care about the others, which is why I’m saying go with efta rarher than just crashing out, but I completely and utterly despise the hierarchy of the EU, the smug, aloft, over paid, unaccountable bastards.

If Britain took its rightful place, a lot of those "smug, aloft, over-paid, unaccountable bastards" would be our "smug, aloft, over-paid, unaccountable bastards"

I don’t know. We couldn’t stop Drunker getting the top spot. Then there was the result of Cameron’s negotiation...

The UK can't have everything it wants fall in its lap.

We could have got Sir Brendan Jenkin the top spot if we tried properly.

What could we have done differently?

It’s weird, I don’t like us being told what to do but I don’t particularly like telling others what to do either. Except when we’re paying for it.

And, if brexit was cancelled before article 50 ran out, I can’t help but wonder what would happen. Could be really awkward...

We could have elected MEPs who actually do their job rather than misuse EU funds and not turn up to the committees they sit on.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What could we have done differently?

.. ...

We could have got stuck in, like everyone else.

 Mr Morden wrote:

“I can tell you that it is crystal clear at the end of this negotiation, that the best situation, with the best relationship with the EU, will remain to be a member of the EU.”

Interesting that that is still on the table.

It was never off the table. Only the brexiteers have been pretending it's a done deal.

“Great” Britain eh?

I don’t want to rehash my reasons for wanting to leave the eu, but it is clear that the real villains in all of this are our politicians, wbo’ve always fethed everything up and gotten themselves outplayed at every turn. As much as I hate her, at least Maggie had a semblance of competence. But then again, we get the politicians we vote for. So actually the real villains are the voters. Like me.

No.

The real villains are the gutter press barons.

They started the lies. They’re the ones that showed ongoing dissent based on said lies.

They’re the ones propping up the Tories, because of racist drivel and a desire to line their pockets.

Actually, I guess I should restate why I backed leave.

My entire politically conscious life, it’s always bugged me how our relationship with the eu just hinges on who’s Prime Minister and who controls Parliament. The eu only has to please them to get what it wants, and that’s easily done. Remember, it’s only by the grace of Gordon Brown that we aren’t using the euro. You think if him and Blair wanted it, they would have given us a referendum on that? Hell no. And once signed up to it, that’s permeant. No backsies. Sure we could vote them out but the damage is done. Same for when the eastern bloc countries began to join. Did Blair put a break on immigration from them to keep it under control? Did he balls. Same for the Lisbon treaty.

My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Because again, once it’s done it’s done. No backsies. There never is with the eu. By backing leave, but hoping for something like efta, I wanted to say ‘ok that’s far enough with the intergration’. No more giving up powers to Brussels, and if you want to try anything else you will ask us first. I could never back remain. That didn’t mean backing the status quo. That would have been taken as a green light by the eu and the Remainers who pollute the corridors of power here to rush on with even more intergration. Any complaints would have been met with ‘but you voted to stay so there.’

Future War Cultist wrote:“Great” Britain eh?

Geographical term referring to the fact that England, Scotland and Wales inhabit the largest ('greatest') of the British Isles.

Future War Cultist wrote:the smug, aloft, over paid, unaccountable bastards.

Is that a unique set of descriptors to EU politicians? Let's assume that you're using 'unaccountable' to mean unaccountable to you, and not to anybody at all.

Are there any smug, aloof, overpaid, unaccountable bastards:

Working in the City, hedging against a strong economy and making money when the rest of us are losing jobs and capital?

In directorships everywhere, downsizing companies to increase profit margins by laying off workers and forcing families under the poverty line?

In safe UK commons seats, where they only have to be 'in' with a small selection committee and not their consituents at large?

In the Civil Service, working anonymously everyday to implement and guide policy?

Luxuriously living in a variety of large historical mansions around the country in return for attending public events a few times a year?

Unaccountable bastards are an unfortunate fact of life unless you're in the 1% (because then they're accountable to you). Almost all of the history of human conflict is down to various groups of unaccountable bastards arguing between themselves and managing to convince the general populace that some other set of unaccountable bastards are so unaccountable, and so bastardly (bastardish?) that they're worth taking up arms against.

 Future War Cultist wrote:


My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Because again, once it’s done it’s done. No backsies. There never is with the eu. By backing leave, but hoping for something like efta, I wanted to say ‘ok that’s far enough with the intergration’. No more giving up powers to Brussels, and if you want to try anything else you will ask us first. I could never back remain. That didn’t mean backing the status quo. That would have been taken as a green light by the eu and the Remainers who pollute the corridors of power here to rush on with even more intergration. Any complaints would have been met with ‘but you voted to stay so there.’

You can always back out of anything. Leaving the Euro would be the hardest because the value of the new currency would take time to adjust and that could cause significant inflation. However for larger economic powers that shouldn't be too problematic as they have intrinsic value (it's not like Greece going back to being non-Euro). Schengen and the EU Army (which in itself is a fallacy) are also able to be left. Despite what the right wing press say there was no EU army and individual nations would still have control over their own military and could pull them out if they want.

Surely though that the PM is voted in by the populace and if they voted for them (or the party) then if they join that is just democratic process?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What could we have done differently?

It’s weird, I don’t like us being told what to do but I don’t particularly like telling others what to do either. Except when we’re paying for it.

And, if brexit was cancelled before article 50 ran out, I can’t help but wonder what would happen. Could be really awkward...

Our MEPs (excluding the idiot UKIPers) decided that they didn't want to join one of the main 'factions' and tried to go it alone. They ended up being massively isolated when the sort of decisions you are referring to come up. If they joined one of the main factions then we would have had a bigger say and influence (sound familiar?)

 Future War Cultist wrote:

My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it.

Would that be so terrible?

I mean, if you went back a thousand-odd years and told the people of the kingdoms of Wessex , Mercia, Northumbria and so on that they would be united as a single kingdom along with the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish they'd probably say much the same sort of thing. But we look on it now as the norm.

Crispy78 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it.

Would that be so terrible?

I mean, if you went back a thousand-odd years and told the people of the kingdoms of Wessex , Mercia, Northumbria and so on that they would be united as a single kingdom along with the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish they'd probably say much the same sort of thing. But we look on it now as the norm.

That's what I always think when I hear people insist that sovereignty is this inviolable right of nations. Humans always exist in a snapshot of time and struggle to accept that it's all transitory.

And if you want to go another thousand years back and tell the Catuvelauni, Iceni, Durotriges et al (Latin names, but I'm sure they had a way of referring to themselves and others) that their tribal identity would be long gone, hardly anybody would remember them and they would be many-times subsumed into a United Kingdom and see how much push back you get of people needing to respect culture, tradition and I'll be damned if I step into the shieldwall with even one of those Iceni bastards do you hear!?

 Riquende wrote:

Future War Cultist wrote:“Great” Britain eh?

Geographical term referring to the fact that England, Scotland and Wales inhabit the largest ('greatest') of the British Isles.

For feths sake, there always a patronising smart ass in here playing clever dick.

Right that’s it, I’m done for the night. Possibly even the week.

Instead of saying "I told you so" beyond this sentence, I'd like to ask the thread how we rehabilitate British politics so your politicians aren't such tosspots. At first I thought I'd mention proportional representation and have a rehash of that debate, but honestly, I don't know that PR would necessarily help. We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Instead of saying "I told you so" beyond this sentence, I'd like to ask the thread how we rehabilitate British politics so your politicians aren't such tosspots. At first I thought I'd mention proportional representation and have a rehash of that debate, but honestly, I don't know that PR would necessarily help. We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?

I don't think you'll ever get rid of it. Educating everyone to PhD level in a science subject might help (or any other where you learn how to objectively assess evidence). However as it's likely an evolved trait the likely solution is to get rid of the human race. That would solve the problem permanently. Ironically considering what we are doing to the planet that might not be so far off...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Instead of saying "I told you so" beyond this sentence, I'd like to ask the thread how we rehabilitate British politics so your politicians aren't such tosspots. At first I thought I'd mention proportional representation and have a rehash of that debate, but honestly, I don't know that PR would necessarily help. We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?

Respect.

Abolition of political parties? Every MP stands as an independent, with sole, sworn, responsibility to represent the best interests of their constituents, over all other interests.

Requirement for MPs to have been resident in their constituency for at least 5 years before standing, to prevent candidates being parachuted in.

Right of recall for constituents and implementation of various other professional codes of conduct that apply to other careers (if I lie or mislead in my professional capacity I can be fired or even prosecuted, if it causes harm. If a politician does it, it’s Tuesday.)

Term limits, to end career politicians (not so convinced on that one, some career backbenchers do very good work).

Move parliament out of London. They need to completely overhaul Westminster anyway, build a new one in Birmingham or Manchester and leave Westminster for formal occasions and as a tourist attraction.

Federalise the UK, preferably with several regional parliaments in England, rather than one big one. Give regional governments much greater authority and funding to manage things at a local level.

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head.

Presumably displeased at how easy this week is looking for him, and desperate to throw his open-goal PMQs away, Corbyn has appointed Naz Shah to equalities minister.

I think parliament should be a bit like jury duty; at least some should be randomly selected from the population based on some criteria on a relatively short term.

And/or insisting that the minister for something should have some qualification or experience in that something. Ideally a prior career, but at minimum some kind of diploma course.
Canada manages it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Actually, I guess I should restate why I backed leave.

My entire politically conscious life, it’s always bugged me how our relationship with the eu just hinges on who’s Prime Minister and who controls Parliament. The eu only has to please them to get what it wants, and that’s easily done. Remember, it’s only by the grace of Gordon Brown that we aren’t using the euro. You think if him and Blair wanted it, they would have given us a referendum on that? Hell no. And once signed up to it, that’s permeant. No backsies. Sure we could vote them out but the damage is done. Same for when the eastern bloc countries began to join. Did Blair put a break on immigration from them to keep it under control? Did he balls. Same for the Lisbon treaty.

My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Because again, once it’s done it’s done. No backsies. There never is with the eu. By backing leave, but hoping for something like efta, I wanted to say ‘ok that’s far enough with the intergration’. No more giving up powers to Brussels, and if you want to try anything else you will ask us first. I could never back remain. That didn’t mean backing the status quo. That would have been taken as a green light by the eu and the Remainers who pollute the corridors of power here to rush on with even more intergration. Any complaints would have been met with ‘but you voted to stay so there.’

My biggest fear is our current prime minister taking us out of the EU to try and keep some extremists happy, and forcing us to give away all of our power when someone undoes it.

What I don't get is this "we need to leave the EU in case our PM agrees to something we don't like" argument. Why not try to prevent our PM getting up? Why not wait til something we don't like has happened? Why don't we insist our MEPs actually represent us?

It's like amputating your foot in case you stub your toe.

Herzlos wrote:
I think parliament should be a bit like jury duty; at least some should be randomly selected from the population based on some criteria on a relatively short term.

And/or insisting that the minister for something should have some qualification or experience in that something. Ideally a prior career, but at minimum some kind of diploma course.
Canada manages it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Actually, I guess I should restate why I backed leave.

My entire politically conscious life, it’s always bugged me how our relationship with the eu just hinges on who’s Prime Minister and who controls Parliament. The eu only has to please them to get what it wants, and that’s easily done. Remember, it’s only by the grace of Gordon Brown that we aren’t using the euro. You think if him and Blair wanted it, they would have given us a referendum on that? Hell no. And once signed up to it, that’s permeant. No backsies. Sure we could vote them out but the damage is done. Same for when the eastern bloc countries began to join. Did Blair put a break on immigration from them to keep it under control? Did he balls. Same for the Lisbon treaty.

My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Because again, once it’s done it’s done. No backsies. There never is with the eu. By backing leave, but hoping for something like efta, I wanted to say ‘ok that’s far enough with the intergration’. No more giving up powers to Brussels, and if you want to try anything else you will ask us first. I could never back remain. That didn’t mean backing the status quo. That would have been taken as a green light by the eu and the Remainers who pollute the corridors of power here to rush on with even more intergration. Any complaints would have been met with ‘but you voted to stay so there.’

My biggest fear is our current prime minister taking us out of the EU to try and keep some extremists happy, and forcing us to give away all of our power when someone undoes it.

What I don't get is this "we need to leave the EU in case our PM agrees to something we don't like" argument. Why not try to prevent our PM getting up? Why not wait til something we don't like has happened? Why don't we insist our MEPs actually represent us?

It's like amputating your foot in case you stub your toe.

Why not implement obligatory referendi in such a case, would integrate the general public more and letigimate policy more.
Also ads in a hurdle for politicians to push through extreme policy.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

For feths sake, there always a patronising smart ass in here playing clever dick.

Right that’s it, I’m done for the night. Possibly even the week.

O...kay? Seriously, I've talked to many people who don't know this and seem to think that the 'Great' is some sort of honorific bestowed by the Pope or something for England being so damn awesome.

Don't worry though, we can pick up the "unaccountable bastards everywhere" part when you come back.

The feelings around identity, nationality and control are to some degree uncontrollable. In the current situation we have Scottish nationalists eager to escape the iron fist of the Westminster parliament, and simultaneously anrgy about losing EU membership. I give that as a point of illustration, not as a point of blame.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The feelings around identity, nationality and control are to some degree uncontrollable. In the current situation we have Scottish nationalists eager to escape the iron fist of the Westminster parliament, and simultaneously anrgy about losing EU membership. I give that as a point of illustration, not as a point of blame.

That's not about national identity though*, it's about not getting shafted by an unaccountable parliament, which doesn't treat them as an equal partner, steals their powers and overrules them on everything. Part of that is that Scotland seems a lot more socialist/lefty than England, and Englands size means that even with all Scottish seats being held by SNP MPs, they still don't have any meaningful say.

*The "Nationalist" part does throw some though, as it's not the same nationalist as the national socialists or the British Nationalist Party. It's better to treat it as "standing up for everyone *in* Scotland" Vs "standing up for everyone *from* Britain". SNP are fighting for everyone in Scotland, BNP are fighting against everyone that's not "British" (white).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why not implement obligatory referendi in such a case, would integrate the general public more and letigimate policy more.
Also ads in a hurdle for politicians to push through extreme policy.

As far as I can tell, referendi are a terrible way to decide on much, because most of the public don't know enough to answer properly and it's not worth everyone becoming experts on everything. But that relies on electing representatives that will take the time to learn stuff and can be trusted to act on the best interests of everyone.

Kind of the same as why I hire a plumber/electricial/mechanic/plasterer instead of doing it myself; I'm capable of doing it but I don't have the time to learn all of the skills.