UK & EU Politics Thread

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.

**Steve steveson**

Ketara wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:

So that’s the best pro leave argument you have “it will be painful for a few years then everyone will move on”?

Errr...no? It was me saying I'd come back to talk politics when events have moved on and people will discuss other things for more than a brief five posts between Brexit? I get that you're desperate for someone to argue with now mostly everyone bar DINLT has buggered off and stopped engaging, but come on guv.

Ok. Sorry, I misunderstood, so it.s a case of not wanting to debate or accept responsibility for this gak storm? I'm not desperate to argue with anyone. I'm quite happy to discuss how monumentally stupid the thing is on its own merits, but if leavers are going to come on and peddle the same old lies of course I, and many others, will question that and will provide facts to disprove it, not just sit idly by just in case we upset you.

If you really want to see my views on the whole thing, you're welcome to hit the 'Filter Posts' button, and go back six months to read them.

And the increasingly dire news we are seeing has done nothing to change that view? You are just happy to carry on digging us deeper? Fine, as long as you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences, good or bad.

**Ketara**

Steve steveson wrote:

Fine, so how is any of that the fault of the EU? How is any of those problems made worse by being in the EU or better by being out of it? You have listed things that worry you about the politics and priorities in this country, then said this has nothing to do with brexit, then said that this is the reason you voted to leave the EU.

Okay. Given I literally said:

Again (still staring at you, Steve Steveson), I'm not making reference specifically to Brexit above

I'm really not sure how much more particular I can be here. I was primarily referring in my post to a comment by another user about my apparent 'blitheness' to economic troubles.

When I did place my vote to leave, I did it for other reasons

There is my very literal note that it was not my reason for Brexit as you later assert. Given that you seem utterly compelled to view everything I write solely in the light of Brexit to the point of absurdity though(despite two literal disclaimers aimed directly at you), I don't see much point in replying further.

**Future War Cultist**

If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?

**Kilkrazy**

Some of the impact assessments have been published today and journalists are already extracting some gems of Hard Brexy Bonuses...

No-deal could force UK credit card users to pay £166m 'Brexit tax', government admits

**Steve steveson**

Ketara wrote:

There is my very literal note that it was not my reason for Brexit as you later assert. Given that you seem utterly compelled to view everything I write solely in the light of Brexit to the point of absurdity though(despite two literal disclaimers aimed directly at you), I don't see much point in replying further.

If that is what you wish to do, then so be it. But if you are going to reply to peoples comments on Brexit and it's impact, how can it be taken in any other way but to be about Brexit. Your "disclaimers" just come across as a rather high handed way to avoid criticism. If you don't want to discuss it then don't. That's up to you. I am only "compelled to view everything I write solely in the light of Brexit" when you are replying to peoples comments about Brexit.

**tneva82**

Herzlos wrote:

How do you think the thousands of staff will react when Nissan closes it's UK factories?

Obviously going to be singieg national anthem and stating their suffering is good price for SOVERNITY!!! We live for the country, we die for the country and all that eh?

**jouso**

Future War Cultist wrote:
If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?

Do you really have to be so brazen about that?

Remember that they need to take you in and that joining a major trade and economic organisation implies a compromise towards the future of the union and its individual members.

Best case the Norwegians, Swiss, etc. will feel they're being taken advantage of. Worst case they will think you're taking them for idiots. To think there was a time British diplomacy was the undisputed no 1.

**Not Online!!!**

jouso wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?

Do you really have to be so brazen about that?

Remember that they need to take you in and that joining a major trade and economic organisation implies a compromise towards the future of the union and its individual members.

Best case the Norwegians, Swiss, etc. will feel they're being taken advantage of. Worst case they will think you're taking them for idiots.

If it comes to a ratification process this leads to a vote (atleast in switzerland) and in my case this will be a solid NO, since this would even worsen our relationship with the EU more. Infact the UK is diplomatically now regarded as highly unreliable and not interested in a fair / equal partnership with any institution/ group.

**reds8n**

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1032588129386065920

let the good times roll.

"Extra bureaucracy won't just for expensive goods. Confirmation that Value Consignment Relief will not be extended to goods being brought from EU. I.e. all parcels brought into the UK from the EU under the value of £135 would be subject to VAT. Will be passed on to consumers."

" ..It's clear from these documents that there is no real idea about how no deal could function for Northern Ireland. Each section ends with this proverbial shrug of the shoulders. Essentially- 'let's hope it doesn't happen.'"

must admit I had no idea we were importing 3000 sperm samples from Denmark.

....

" Recognition that Britain would have establish and have in operation lots of new regulatory bodies ready to go on Brexit day- e.g. this on pediatric medicines Seems a tall order considering we have just over 200 days to go."

"warnings over lag times: e.g. organic farmers would lose their access to EU markets on Brexit day as they wouldn't be certified as organic traders. They'd have to wait a minimum of 9 months to apply for a new certificate which would allow them to resume trading."

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1032603083350704128

" Raab announces that UK will waive checks on imports of medicines from EU if there’s a No Deal, but can’t guarantee EU will reciprocate... second biggest U.K. drug maker Astra Zeneca has already spent £30m duplicating its Manchester facility in Sweden for purposes of EU export"

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1032598585618178049

"Big concession from Raab today: UK still needs the EU to cooperate under no deal scenario on crucial areas of data sharing, banking and between ports. Without that, no deal would undoubtedly mean short to mid term disaster."

awesome .. so no deal only actually works..err... if we manage to make a deal.

listen to this :

https://soundcloud.com/bbcradiokent/nodealbrexit-heated-debate

**Future War Cultist**

jouso wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?

Do you really have to be so brazen about that?

Remember that they need to take you in and that joining a major trade and economic organisation implies a compromise towards the future of the union and its individual members.

Best case the Norwegians, Swiss, etc. will feel they're being taken advantage of. Worst case they will think you're taking them for idiots. To think there was a time British diplomacy was the undisputed no 1.

What I meant was that after the dust settled, we could possibly work with the other efta countries for a better collective deal. I know Norway isn’t entirely happy with the current set up, so maybe we could put our heads together and see what could be done.

**Ketara**

Future War Cultist wrote:
If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?

I think you're on the right track, but that the time for such things has passed.

There was a point just after we'd voted and before we'd issued our notice that there was another path. Namely; dialling up Switzerland, Norway, and all the other "one foot iner's" to work out some sort of united position for renegotiating everything with the EU. Seeking to set up, in effect, the two tier Europe bandied about for so long. Judging by the noises which came out of Brussels post-vote, the shock of losing the referendum would likely have been enough to jolt things moving in that direction.

It would have been an opportunity to make it not about 'us', per se; but a way of progressing forward in harmony with a number of European neighbours, harnessing a lot of the discontent which exists over the current EU setup. It would also have cut out a lot of the ill-feeling, and soothed many of the worries that those who voted Remain had (and still have), because there could have been a fair bit of give and take over what 'associate' membership looked like. Certainly, it would have been the most democratic way of taking all views into account after the referendum.

But now? No, after mulling it over, I think not. We've gone too far into negotiations to suddenly involve other parties (leaving aside the question of why on earth they'd be interested). I lay that blame at the door of the Tory party; and more specifically, May's desire to hold an election. Her weakening of her majority gave the dozen odd hard Brexiteers sufficient clout to nudge us away from such things.

Now we've little choice but to either abdicate the previous vote and fall back into line, or carry on to the (quite possibly bitter) conclusion. The third way is shut.*

*And yes, that was an LOTR reference.

**Darkjim**

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/23/dont-hoard-medicines-for-brexit-health-secretary-says

From the cabinet that brought you "easiest deal in history", "no deal is better ...." etc etc etc.

Hint - do stockpile medicines.

**Kilkrazy**

I agree with everything you just said.

It seems like the politicians went mad after the referendum, taking the almost 52% vote as a rigid command to plunge out of the EU at any cost whatsoever while ignoring the legitimate concerns of the 48%+ who voted for Remain.

Thus we got Article 50 laid down in law, we got the Red Lines, and these have led to a futile impossible negotiation against a ridiculous self-imposed deadline.

All that is the past, though. If the current negotiations come to anything I think they will be a bodge job which won't satify anyone at all. But chaotic Hard Brexit will be much, much worse.

The only way to retrieve the situation is to rescind Article 50, remain in the EU on the current terms, and prepare for the possibility of a very long term campaign to reform the EU frmo within or else apply to join EFTA.

**Ketara**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree with everything you just said.
It seems like the politicians went mad after the referendum, taking the almost 52% vote as a rigid command to plunge out of the EU at any cost whatsoever while ignoring the legitimate concerns of the 48%+ who voted for Remain.

Completely. The fact over 50% of voters chose out means that the strength of feeling was sufficient a vote needed to be held. I don't blame the Tories for that. And I'm really not convinced a more detailed set of 'choices' could have been proffered in advance; you couldn't exactly negotiate options with the EU before the vote. But so many voted to remain that the country was clearly split down the middle, and a bare bones numerical majority wasn't really sufficient justification for going whole hog in the way we have done. 60% perhaps, but 51.5%? Errr, not quite. By the same measure though, something needed to be done. 51.5% is sufficiently big after all, that we couldn't possibly remain on existing terms and still call ourselves democratic.

No, it is clear that the status quo was no longer cutting it. A change had to be made. That's something which I think a lot of the talk over just holding another referendum in the hope of swinging us back by 2% ignores. After all, we can't go on having referendums every five minutes depending on public feelings from latest headlines. We can't do it a third time 6 months later because that 2% floated back the other way, and then again 2 years later, etc etc.

The sensible thing to have done would have been to proceed as I described above, spend a year working out the kinks and lobbying/negotiating, before then hold a second and final referendum between retaining the new 'associate status' or full-on Brexit. I said it at the time (if you look back in this thread), and I maintain it now. Diplomacy and institution of a general outer-tier membership was the best chance we had at getting everything we wanted.

Now? Now we get the other undemocratic extreme. May might have had sufficient strength to take the third road if she hadn't held the election, and there were rumblings in that direction from the other 'one foot iners' just beforehand. Once her majority got slashed and she was beholden to the dozen hard Brexiteers though, it ceased to be an option.

EDIT:- ...and godammit, I got sucked back in again.

**reds8n**

https://twitter.com/RHADuncanB/status/1032611989288308736

Big change for hauliers in #Brexit no deal. Every haulier moving goods between UK and EU will be responsible for making Safety and Security Declarations. This will include all hauliers moving goods, including vans. more details and links - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trading-with-the-eu-if-theres-no-brexit-deal … Way too late.

he's the policy director of the UK Road Haulage association.

https://twitter.com/RHADuncanB/status/1032613254714077184

Minister says that 300 new border force staff for #brexit no deal will be in place. Great, spread over 364 days, say 20 hour per day, cover Heathrow (all terminals), Dover, Gatwick, Hollyhead, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Hull, Portsmouth, Manchester, etc. Cover import and export too

farcical.

**Mr Morden**

Ketara wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree with everything you just said.
It seems like the politicians went mad after the referendum, taking the almost 52% vote as a rigid command to plunge out of the EU at any cost whatsoever while ignoring the legitimate concerns of the 48%+ who voted for Remain.

Completely. The fact over 50% of voters chose out means that the strength of feeling was sufficient a vote needed to be held. I don't blame the Tories for that. And I'm really not convinced a more detailed set of 'choices' could have been proffered in advance; you couldn't exactly negotiate options with the EU before the vote. But so many voted to remain that the country was clearly split down the middle, and a bare bones numerical majority wasn't really sufficient justification for going whole hog in the way we have done. 60% perhaps, but 51.5%? Errr, not quite. By the same measure though, something needed to be done. 51.5% is sufficiently big after all, that we couldn't possibly remain on existing terms and still call ourselves democratic.

No, it is clear that the status quo was no longer cutting it. A change had to be made. That's something which I think a lot of the talk over just holding another referendum in the hope of swinging us back by 2% ignores. After all, we can't go on having referendums every five minutes depending on public feelings from latest headlines. We can't do it a third time 6 months later because that 2% floated back the other way, and then again 2 years later, etc etc.

The sensible thing to have done would have been to proceed as I described above, spend a year working out the kinks and lobbying/negotiating, before then hold a second and final referendum between retaining the new 'associate status' or full-on Brexit. I said it at the time (if you look back in this thread), and I maintain it now. Diplomacy and institution of a general outer-tier membership was the best chance we had at getting everything we wanted.

Now? Now we get the other undemocratic extreme. May might have had sufficient strength to take the third road if she hadn't held the election, and there were rumblings in that direction from the other 'one foot iners' just beforehand. Once her majority got slashed and she was beholden to the dozen hard Brexiteers though, it ceased to be an option.

EDIT:- ...and godammit, I got sucked back in again.

Good post and pretty much in agreement - I would add that Cameron was a self serving coward who left immediately instead of seeing it through as he promised which did not help....

**jouso**

Ketara wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree with everything you just said.
It seems like the politicians went mad after the referendum, taking the almost 52% vote as a rigid command to plunge out of the EU at any cost whatsoever while ignoring the legitimate concerns of the 48%+ who voted for Remain.

Completely. The fact over 50% of voters chose out means that the strength of feeling was sufficient a vote needed to be held. I don't blame the Tories for that. And I'm really not convinced a more detailed set of 'choices' could have been proffered in advance; you couldn't exactly negotiate options with the EU before the vote.

You can't negotiate but you can get a mandate for certain outcome. The whole problem with Brexit is that it means different things to different people.

Britain has been effectively negotiating with themselves the whole time.

**tneva82**

jouso wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
If you’re still here Ketara, what do you think of the EFTA/EEA option? Especially as a means to an end?

Do you really have to be so brazen about that?

Remember that they need to take you in and that joining a major trade and economic organisation implies a compromise towards the future of the union and its individual members.

Best case the Norwegians, Swiss, etc. will feel they're being taken advantage of. Worst case they will think you're taking them for idiots. To think there was a time British diplomacy was the undisputed no 1.

Yeah I'm sure Norway etc would be happy to take country that left in less than good terms only for them to leave 2nd time again. Yeah. Makes sense...

**Ketara**

jouso wrote:

You can't negotiate but you can get a mandate for certain outcome. The whole problem with Brexit is that it means different things to different people.

That sounds nice in theory (assuming you're saying we could get the EU to agree to renegotiate different things on different outcomes; I might be misreading you); but the reality is that it ends up with the same result back in country on the ground. Say the EU agrees to whatever and I put on the ballot card:

1. Stay in the EU.
2. Renegotiate EU membership.
3. Try and form second tier membership group and negotiate.
4. Full Brexit

It looks clear. But looking more closely, neither 2 or 3 actually give us any real detail. It's in effect, voting for a blank cheque. Which means that then even if we get 2 or 3, then we need to run another referendum on the basis of whether or not what actually comes out of it matches what people thought would come out of it, or a fifth outcome altogether (which wasn't on the original voting card). Then you have the issue of splitting a vote four ways. If there's no dominant voice, and we end up with 25% in each category, what next? How do you proceed?

As you say, Brexit means different things to different people. There really was no coherent way of determining it in a single Yes/No referendum, be it with a binary choice or ten.

**TheAuldGrump**

Herzlos wrote:
He values the democracy that produced the answer he wants. It's a pretty common trait ~~of the right~~.

It is a common human failing, period.

Humans are funny creatures, elevated trouping primates that we are.

The Auld Grump

**jouso**

Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:

You can't negotiate but you can get a mandate for certain outcome. The whole problem with Brexit is that it means different things to different people.

That sounds nice in theory (assuming you're saying we could get the EU to agree to renegotiate different things on different outcomes; I might be misreading you); but the reality is that it ends up with the same result back in country on the ground. Say the EU agrees to whatever and I put on the ballot card:

Canada, Norway/Swiss and WTO are distinct enough to be put on the ballot so that there's still wriggle room to iron British specific kinks.

The UK knew this from day one, and the EU has reminded them at every point of the way.

A ballot with 4 options: Remain, EFTA, Canada, full Brexit would have been perfectly feasible and given the British negotiators something they lack now. Position, direction and a target.

The whole we want all of the good stuff but none of the downsides (clearly meant for the British public) has soured the other negotiating partner much more than the actual vote result.

**Kilkrazy**

The ballot should have been

Yes / No / WTF

or even better:

YEEAH / FETA / WTF / EUGH

**Ketara**

jouso wrote:

Canada, Norway/Swiss and WTO are distinct enough to be put on the ballot so that there's still wriggle room to iron British specific kinks.

The UK knew this from day one, and the EU has reminded them at every point of the way.

A ballot with 4 options: Remain, EFTA, Canada, full Brexit would have been perfectly feasible and given the British negotiators something they lack now. Position, direction and a target.

Beyond the cut and paste convenience, why on earth would you ever adopt a trade agreement negotiated by a country with less than clout than yourself, with a completely different economy and internal priorities? We could have adopted the bizare hodgepodge Switzerland has with the EU right now, or the Turkish model instead, but why would you want to?
Yeah, I get it gives position/direction/target, but that's like saying you should determine to buy the first set of clothes you see when you walk in a store no matter how ill-fitting.

Your four choices also fail to take into account alternative options; like that I've mentioned since the start regarding aiming for a multiple tier Europe. And on top of that, as said (and ignored) above, your proposal runs smack bang into the problem that you may well end up with people voting multiple ways. If you get 25% voting for each option, where does your position/direction/target end up then? You end up with even more of a mess than the binary vote (and that takes some doing).

There was no clear way of doing this. That much is certain.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I wanted Article 50 activated on June 24th, and I make no apologies for that.

But in many respects, we abandoned our own constitution, because referendums have never been our way.

In the normal course of things, a party would have ran a GE on a Brexit ticket, secured the majority, and then passed the necessary acts of parliament to take us out.

That was our way for 300 years.

But alas, the referendum revealed a glaring fault line in our politics: that the people and the MPs are miles apart.

If 52% of the public wanted out of the EU, does it not stand to reason that a similar amount of MPs would hold that view?

Feth no. Instead, what we got was 70% of MPs pro-EU, a pro-EU house of lords, and every apparatus of government pro-EU.

Never has the gap being those who govern and those who are governed, been so huge...

It's a damning indictment of the state of our politics.

It's one reason why I wanted A50 activated so damn quickly, because I knew that lot would try and weasel out of it, and I was proven right: court room battles at every turn, people's referendum bollocks, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, etc etc

**A Town Called Malus**

Alternatively, 70% of the countries representatives are pro-EU because it is their job to look at the details and determine what is best for their constituents and the country as a whole.

But please, continue banging your populist drum about how parliament must reflect the wishes of 50% of the country on this one issue whilst ignoring the no-doubt countless other issues in which there is a disagreement.

I have a feeling if there was a referendum about bringing the death penalty back there would be a reasonable percentage in support of it. Does that mean we should also make sure there is an equal percentage of MPs in support of the death penalty.

And those who wanted out of the EU had a party they could vote for to get that representation in Parliament. They chose not to. You chose to vote for the SNP despite their position on EU membership, DINLT. Why didn't you vote for an anti-EU party if you wanted parliament to reflect the position of the country on Brexit? It's almost like political representatives are not chosen for their stances on single issues, like brexit.

**jouso**

Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:

Canada, Norway/Swiss and WTO are distinct enough to be put on the ballot so that there's still wriggle room to iron British specific kinks.

The UK knew this from day one, and the EU has reminded them at every point of the way.

A ballot with 4 options: Remain, EFTA, Canada, full Brexit would have been perfectly feasible and given the British negotiators something they lack now. Position, direction and a target.

Beyond the cut and paste convenience, why on earth would you ever adopt a trade agreement negotiated by a country with less than clout than yourself, with a completely different economy and internal priorities? We could have adopted the bizare hodgepodge Switzerland has with the EU right now, or the Turkish model instead, but why would you want to?
Yeah, I get it gives position/direction/target, but that's like saying you should determine to buy the first set of clothes you see when you walk in a store no matter how ill-fitting.

Your four choices also fail to take into account alternative options; like that I've mentioned since the start regarding aiming for a multiple tier Europe. And on top of that, as said (and ignored) above, your proposal runs smack bang into the problem that you may well end up with people voting multiple ways. If you get 25% voting for each option, where does your position/direction/target end up then? You end up with even more of a mess than the binary vote (and that takes some doing).

You don't adopt anything wholesale, the names are just an easy to remember tag. As I said, specifics will be ironed out later on because for all the formal differences between the Swiss and the Norwegian models ultimately they work very similarly.

The viable options are remain, one foot in, one out (accept 4 pillars, yadda yadda), stay out but with a comprehensive trade deal (hence Canada, but it can perfectly be named Korea) or crash out.

Why isn't there a multiple tier Europe in the ballot? Because that's not up to the UK to decide. That takes finding like-minded partners within the EU, make a plan and have it approved. The EU is not going to change the way it's fundamentally built because of a referendum on a single country, no matter how important.

There are preferential voting systems which ensure there is consensus. Either an Autralian-like system or a 2nd round system.

**Ketara**

jouso wrote:

You don't adopt anything wholesale, the names are just an easy to remember tag. As I said, specifics will be ironed out later on because for all the formal differences between the Swiss and the Norwegian models ultimately they work very similarly.

The viable options are remain, one foot in, one out (accept 4 pillars, yadda yadda), stay out but with a comprehensive trade deal (hence Canada, but it can perfectly be named Korea) or crash out.

Why isn't there a multiple tier Europe in the ballot? Because that's not up to the UK to decide. That takes finding like-minded partners within the EU, make a plan and have it approved. The EU is not going to change the way it's fundamentally built because of a referendum on a single country, no matter how important.

There are preferential voting systems which ensure there is consensus. Either an Autralian-like system or a 2nd round system.

So...your solution is to;

a) plonk on a few extra options you like the sound of in an imprecisely worded fashion to be 'ironed out' (which can mean almost anything) later,
b) exclude any solutions without a precedent or involving third parties ( in whichthere are a number of plausible alternative courses of action), and
c) then cross your fingers, hope you get a clear result, and if not, keep going back to the polls?

I'm sorry, but this sounds to me like a way of keeping every single one of the complaints people had about the binary choice, with a massive added dollop of confusion and over-complication.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

In an ideal world, myself, Future War, Ketara, Shadow Captain and any other Leave supporters, would bring our miniatures, and settle this on the table top against a Kilkrazy/reds8n/Malus/Jouso/Herzlos + others, tournament team.

To paraphrase Sean Connery in The Untouchables: they bring a dreadnought, you bring a predator. They bring a titan, you bring an orbital bombardment. That's the dakka way!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Alternatively, 70% of the countries representatives are pro-EU because it is their job to look at the details and determine what is best for their constituents and the country as a whole.

But please, continue banging your populist drum about how parliament must reflect the wishes of 50% of the country on this one issue whilst ignoring the no-doubt countless other issues in which there is a disagreement.

I have a feeling if there was a referendum about bringing the death penalty back there would be a reasonable percentage in support of it. Does that mean we should also make sure there is an equal percentage of MPs in support of the death penalty.

And those who wanted out of the EU had a party they could vote for to get that representation in Parliament. They chose not to. You chose to vote for the SNP despite their position on EU membership, DINLT. Why didn't you vote for an anti-EU party if you wanted parliament to reflect the position of the country on Brexit? It's almost like political representatives are not chosen for their stances on single issues, like brexit.

I support the SNP becuase obvously I want Scotand to make the decisions. The EU referendum was a case in point. Naturally, I'm glad of the result, but had I been a die-hard EU supporter, it would have made little difference, because ultimately, the EU referendum was deicded in England...

It's ironic that I, as a leaver live in a pro-Remain area, and pro-Remain dakka members live in Leave areas. Anybody for a house swop?

**jouso**

Ketara wrote:
jouso wrote:

You don't adopt anything wholesale, the names are just an easy to remember tag. As I said, specifics will be ironed out later on because for all the formal differences between the Swiss and the Norwegian models ultimately they work very similarly.

The viable options are remain, one foot in, one out (accept 4 pillars, yadda yadda), stay out but with a comprehensive trade deal (hence Canada, but it can perfectly be named Korea) or crash out.

Why isn't there a multiple tier Europe in the ballot? Because that's not up to the UK to decide. That takes finding like-minded partners within the EU, make a plan and have it approved. The EU is not going to change the way it's fundamentally built because of a referendum on a single country, no matter how important.

There are preferential voting systems which ensure there is consensus. Either an Autralian-like system or a 2nd round system.

So...your solution is to;

a) plonk on a few extra options you like the sound of in an imprecisely worded fashion to be 'ironed out' (which can mean almost anything) later,
b) exclude any solutions without a precedent or involving third parties ( in whichthere are a number of plausible alternative courses of action), and
c) then cross your fingers, hope you get a clear result, and if not, keep going back to the polls?

I'm sorry, but this sounds to me like a way of keeping every single one of the complaints people had about the binary choice, with a massive added dollop of confusion and over-complication.

It is a way to avoid bundling all the "we don't like the way things are" into a single option with exactly zero detail on what exactly meant. The results of doing which are painfully visible now.

Everyone (leave and remain) spoke about Canada, Norway, etc. as shorthand for different levels of access and integration during the campaign, it's not like it's a novel concept.

**Herzlos**

The benefits from picking a deal negotiated with a country with "less clout than us" is:
1. We don't actually have that much clout - that's painfully clear now.
2. We want to conclude a deal within the 2 year A50 Window. We could petition for our own bespoke deal, but what'd we do in the 8 years between the transition running out and the new deal being ratified?

I always assumed the plan was to pick a deal closest to what we want, settle on that within the 2 years, and then go onto negotiate our ++++ parts. It's the most logical approach and the only one the EU is giving us. The only problem seems to be that we can't decide on one.