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.

Can you all please just agree to disagree and move on? Motyak has already given a warning...

@DINLT I'd just like to point out that we didn't vote to just leave the financial union, as you claimed earlier, but voted to leave the whole financial and political union.

That has ramifications, and tbh, if someone didn't know, understand or care about any of the many, many ramifications of Brexit, perhaps then, they should not have participated, as they disqualified themselves from making an informed, rational and reasonable decision.

And in this case, no one can really claim that they knew, understood or cared about the entire ramifications on any side of the argument, and to put it to a referendum was an act of sabotage on the United Kingdom.

Your reactions and statements over the last few posts actually proves the point. You have declared ignorance, shown poor understanding of the situation, and even wilfully and deliberately discounted a huge part of the problem, and have therefore completely invalidated your position, whilst simultaneously demonstrating why we must have parliamentary democracy to make these decisions on our behalf.

Politicians maybe no better than us, but at least they are paid too, and entrusted in the role of making an informed decision on State wide issues for the whole of the UK, and then they are obliged to take responsibility for those decisions, if they fail.

DINLT. I would like to think better of you, but that's a cheap shot using a mans death.

And that applies to everyone. The troubles should not be used in that manner. Stop trying to use the deaths as some sort of points system. If you are going to refer to the troubles use them with relevance not as ammunition.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can you all please just agree to disagree and move on? Motyak has already given a warning...

I agree, tbh, there doesn't seem to be too much more that can be constructively said regarding the issue in NI. Everyone has made their position known to differing degrees of effectiveness, and they aren't shifting from their opinions.

Time to move on.

 r_squared wrote:
@DINLT I'd just like to point out that we didn't vote to just leave the financial union, as you claimed earlier, but voted to leave the whole financial and political union.

That has ramifications, and tbh, if someone didn't know, understand or care about any of the many, many ramifications of Brexit, perhaps then, they should not have participated, as they disqualified themselves from making an informed, rational and reasonable decision.

And in this case, no one can really claim that they knew, understood or cared about the entire ramifications on any side of the argument, and to put it to a referendum was an act of sabotage on the United Kingdom.

Your reactions and statements over the last few posts actually proves the point. You have declared ignorance, shown poor understanding of the situation, and even wilfully and deliberately discounted a huge part of the problem, and have therefore completely invalidated your position, whilst simultaneously demonstrating why we must have parliamentary democracy to make these decisions on our behalf.

Politicians maybe no better than us, but at least they are paid too, and entrusted in the role of making an informed decision on State wide issues for the whole of the UK, and then they are obliged to take responsibility for those decisions, if they fail.

So in other words get rid of parliament and leave the civil service in charge. Jim Hacker for PM! Your entire argument for parliamentary democracy relies on the integrity of the elected politicians.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
And this is the problem. There appears to be no soft brexit available. We seem to have two opposing camps here, dont leave and hard brexit. In theory those two should meet somewhere in the middle, but being honest here I do not see anyway of those two divergent views being reconciled. Whether its because the Uk is trying to negotiate with 27 other parties via one person who cant actually pass proposals on in a time efficient manner for a meaningful response, or the UK is a complete shambles or a mix of both.....

The nett effect is a massive game of chicken where neither side can blink. The EU cant be seen as weak just in case it starts an exodus. Even the meerest hint could embolden fringe parties into a fracture. So they cant blink. May and the current government are hanging on by a thread and any weakness there could spell the end of them. So they cant blink either. So where does that leave us?

Do you mean here on dakka or in the real world? If you don't mind me asking?

IMO, soft brexit - i.e membership of the efta etc., but not the eu, or something along the Norway model is about the best option to take. Though I a m an an ardent remainer (as an irishman, joining the eec/eu turned our country around and brought us into the 20th century and despite its flaws, i regard the Eu as fundamentally a good thing for Europe - better than us all slogging about solo, and I'd prefer a European army to the damned warmongering NATO regime) I have no huge hang ups issue soft brexit or 'norway' this an an approach - as an Irishman, I see it as about the best approach to take with regard to the uk's future relationship with Ireland too. And as I have family in Norway as well, I can appreciate how their relationship with the eu functions as well. There's no reason a relationship like this cannot work. And its mostly beneficial to all involved. Hard brexit unfortunately has too many consequences for it to be taken as anything other than a bloody parody by me.


The problem however as I see it is 'party over politics'. The maybot is a hostage is number 10, without an effective majority, and with a fanatical 'hard brexit' wing in her own party of about twenty, maybe thirty members that are determined to drive them over a cliff, come what may, and backed by the sectarian dup, who, despite Northern Ireland voting remain, are also determined to force a hard brexit, come what may, and against the mandate of Northern Ireland which voted to remain in the name of their own selfish sectarian interests. She has been pushed into a corner by them, and really has no room to manoeuvre. What's more, this was on top of a referendum with a significant-but-not-overwhelming turnout (like, say, the Scottish indy1 referendum) thst delivered the tiniest 'majority' towards leave, and takes no considerarion of the views of the 48% of the voters who said stay, or the nuanced views of the leavers who ranged from everything from blinkered 'brexit at any cost' to the more moderate views of 'leave, but keep a foot in the door'. IMO, a soft brexit should have been the only approach they would have gotten people behind, but no, May, and before her, Cameron played the bluekip card and leaned on their fanatics, to preserve their party, rather than the national interest, and interpreted the result as 'yes, harder, harder, now, oooooh'.

In other words, damned tories.

 AndrewC wrote:

So in other words get rid of parliament and leave the civil service in charge. Jim Hacker for PM! Your entire argument for parliamentary democracy relies on the integrity of the elected politicians.

Didn't Belgium manage quite well for a year or two with no functional government a few years back?

Then again, if I remember right that was said by top gear's clarkson...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

No no no and no. You've been gracious and I'll say I like responding to you because in the past I may have disagreed with your views but your posts have a history of being considered (Brexit aside). But I won't allow myself to be misrepresented.

I don't conflate your actions with those of the person carrying out the crime, nor are they used to justify the crime. I'm not ideologically minded in that way. I hope my input on the many gun threads that used to pop up shows that I'm capable of discerning that difference, and I respect that you've noted that.

But that is not what you are being taken to task for here. Nobody is saying that an individual act of violence will be your responsibility and I'm certainly not saying that because you voted exit that murder is justified. I will not be misrepresented like that. I however am saying that you are partly responsible for the UK looking like it will renege on its responsibilities in that agreement. And it is that agreement that has lead to the fragile peace we have. With no forethought, planning or any indication that anybody outside of those directly involved even care (and you've personally confessed to this no more than a page back), that fragile peace is endangered. You are partly responsible.

DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.

The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.

Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.

Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.

Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.

 AndrewC wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
@DINLT I'd just like to point out that we didn't vote to just leave the financial union, as you claimed earlier, but voted to leave the whole financial and political union.

That has ramifications, and tbh, if someone didn't know, understand or care about any of the many, many ramifications of Brexit, perhaps then, they should not have participated, as they disqualified themselves from making an informed, rational and reasonable decision.

And in this case, no one can really claim that they knew, understood or cared about the entire ramifications on any side of the argument, and to put it to a referendum was an act of sabotage on the United Kingdom.

Your reactions and statements over the last few posts actually proves the point. You have declared ignorance, shown poor understanding of the situation, and even wilfully and deliberately discounted a huge part of the problem, and have therefore completely invalidated your position, whilst simultaneously demonstrating why we must have parliamentary democracy to make these decisions on our behalf.

Politicians maybe no better than us, but at least they are paid too, and entrusted in the role of making an informed decision on State wide issues for the whole of the UK, and then they are obliged to take responsibility for those decisions, if they fail.

So in other words get rid of parliament and leave the civil service in charge. Jim Hacker for PM! Your entire argument for parliamentary democracy relies on the integrity of the elected politicians.

Cheers

Andrew

I'm guessing thats a humourous point about the civil service? But yes, we have to rely on the integrity of our elected officials and their ability to make informed decisions, otherwise we end up with situations not unlike what we are facing now, unfortunately caused by those very same elected officials making a spectacularly poor decision to hold a referendum in the first place. The irony of my argument being defeated by the example of having a bunch of politcians with the integrity and wisdom of a pack of hyenas.

feth it, let's go back to feudalism, seems simpler now.

 AndrewC wrote:
Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.

Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.

Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.

What compromise has been requested for the EU to consider?

nfe wrote:
DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.

The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.

DINLT does not represent all of us.

Bottom line is...I don't like the quite blatant End-game of the EU, a closely integrated massive super-state. I want Britain to remain a distinct and independent political entity, even if that diminishes us on the "world stage". (God how I loathe that term). I view my country as being distinct in culture, traditions, law etc from Continental Europe, and I wish to keep it that way. Therefore I view the EU and its built in inherent ethos of "Ever Closer Union" to be a threat to that.

If the EU was purely an economic union, I would not have voted Leave. But there is too much political baggage that comes with that, so I voted Leave.

If others are happy with Britain becoming amalgamated into what I think will one day be a de facto United States of Europe, then fine. I respect that differing opinion. I just don't agree with it.

Deadnight wrote:
Do you mean here on dakka or in the real world? If you don't mind me asking?

On Dakka its going to be another 15 pages at least in this thread. In the real world... Relying on the good graces of reformed 'paramiltary' types who used religion as an excuse for violence.

Didn't Belgium manage quite well for a year or two with no functional government a few years back?

Then again, if I remember right that was said by top gear's clarkson...

Get Clarkson to step in as lead negotiator? Or better yet use him to replace Boris. (Clarkson at least knows he's says stupid things)

Cheers

Andrew

Deadnight wrote:
and I'd prefer a European army to the damned warmongering NATO regime)

What makes you think the EU won't be just as warmongering?

Big military industrial complexes once established need to find ways to justify their continued existence. And the EU like most Empires is expansionist. It is inevitable that the EU will find itself in conflict with other nations.

 AndrewC wrote:
Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.

Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.

Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.

See, I don't really buy the validity of this. The EU is built on compromise. It is a group of 28 states with distinct needs and objectives. There are vetoes. Compromise between states is fundamental and constant.

What shouldn't be expected is for 27 states to compromise in order to please one whose government is out of step with the rest. That was at the core of the UK dissatisfaction with the EU. It's been consistently presented that we're not one of 28, but rather one against 27.

RE: the Irish border, only one side can compromise there. The solution the EU wants is the only solution that doesn't break the GFA (other than abandoning leave altogether, which isn't happening). Helpfully, it's a solution that was stated as a no brainer by many Leave voices during the campaign. Unfortunately, they're not calling the shots.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.

Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.

Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.

What compromise has been requested for the EU to consider?

So are you saying that the EU has no requirement to negotiate with the departure of the UK from the EU?

 AndrewC wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Deadnight, I would agree with your summation but disagree with the conclusion.

Its not damned Tories. Its damned politicians.

Had the EU shown any compromise then I don't think that we would be in this situation. As I said, both sides have their own particular cross to bear in this fiasco.

What compromise has been requested for the EU to consider?

So are you saying that the EU has no requirement to negotiate with the departure of the UK from the EU?

No, I'm saying that when the UK government's stated position is effectively "completely out of everything", there isn't any room for the EU to offer a compromise as the UK has stated it is not willing to give any ground, at all. Any such attempt when you try to negotiate will just end up like this (warning for language): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt8DoNerIPY

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

nfe wrote:
DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.

The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.

DINLT does not represent all of us.

Obviously. I thought that was very apparent in the above post. Perhaps not.

I have to say I'm curious about us being particularly distinct in terms of culture and traditions from continental Europe. Sure we have dissimilarities, but so do continental regions, and the differences between, say, northwestern and eastern Mediterranean Europe, or the Iberian peninsula and the Baltics are frequently more striking than those between the UK and France or Germany.

nfe wrote:
See, I don't really buy the validity of this. The EU is built on compromise. It is a group of 28 states with distinct needs and objectives. There are vetoes. Compromise between states is fundamental and constant.

What shouldn't be expected is for 27 states to compromise in order to please one who's government is out of step with the rest. That was at the core of the UK dissatisfaction with the EU. It's been consistently presented that we're not one of 28, but rather one against 27.

RE: the Irish border, only one side can compromise there. The solution the EU wants is the only solution that doesn't break the GFA (other than abandoning leave altogether, which isn't happening). Helpfully, it's a solution that was stated as a no brainer by many Leave voices during the campaign. Unfortunately, they're not calling the shots.

With individual vetoes holding sway there can be no compromise. And the Brexit deal, as far as I am aware, is not majority voting in the EU.

One side cant compromise, they can only concede. A compromise relies on both parties shifting their positions to meet somewhere in the middle. The EU wont shift positions, so the UK cant shift positions as stated earlier.

nfe wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

nfe wrote:
DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.

The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.

DINLT does not represent all of us.

Obviously. I thought that was very apparent in the above post. Perhaps not.

I have to say I'm curious about us being particularly distinct in terms of culture and traditions from continental Europe. Sure we have dissimilarities, but so do continental regions, and the differences between, say, northwestern and eastern Mediterranean Europe, or the Iberian peninsula and the Baltics are frequently more striking than those between the UK and France or Germany.

Jury trial for instance. The UK has traditionally had a stronger emphasis on Jury trials than Continental Europe. Though I am aware that it is declining even in the UK.

English Common Law is also something which I want to preserve and insulate against European influence.

I'm admittedly a layman on these matters (I got an E in A Level Law ). I'm just aware there are some key differences in legal tradition between the UK and continental Europe.

 AndrewC wrote:

nfe wrote:
See, I don't really buy the validity of this. The EU is built on compromise. It is a group of 28 states with distinct needs and objectives. There are vetoes. Compromise between states is fundamental and constant.

What shouldn't be expected is for 27 states to compromise in order to please one who's government is out of step with the rest. That was at the core of the UK dissatisfaction with the EU. It's been consistently presented that we're not one of 28, but rather one against 27.

RE: the Irish border, only one side can compromise there. The solution the EU wants is the only solution that doesn't break the GFA (other than abandoning leave altogether, which isn't happening). Helpfully, it's a solution that was stated as a no brainer by many Leave voices during the campaign. Unfortunately, they're not calling the shots.

With individual vetoes holding sway there can be no compromise. And the Brexit deal, as far as I am aware, is not majority voting in the EU.

One side cant compromise, they can only concede. A compromise relies on both parties shifting their positions to meet somewhere in the middle. The EU wont shift positions, so the UK cant shift positions as stated earlier.

Can you suggest specific issues on which the EU could compromise, and the new positions they could shift to, that don't simply represent concessions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

nfe wrote:
DINLT has spent a great deal of time maligning the rarely-presented narrative that all Brexiteers are ignorant, bigoted buffoons led by the most right-wing media, but here he is, always boasting about now he 'isn't a numbers man', proudly declaring his disinterest in British citizens because they live on another island, and throwing gleeful disdain at another sovereign state.

The last two pages make me feel very sorry indeed for the Brexiteers in this thread that can provide nuanced explanations as to their voting.

DINLT does not represent all of us.

Obviously. I thought that was very apparent in the above post. Perhaps not.

I have to say I'm curious about us being particularly distinct in terms of culture and traditions from continental Europe. Sure we have dissimilarities, but so do continental regions, and the differences between, say, northwestern and eastern Mediterranean Europe, or the Iberian peninsula and the Baltics are frequently more striking than those between the UK and France or Germany.

Jury trial for instance. The UK has traditionally had a stronger emphasis on Jury trials than Continental Europe. Though I am aware that it is declining even in the UK.

English Common Law is also something which I want to preserve and insulate against European influence.

I'm admittedly a layman on these matters (I got an E in A Level Law )

We need someone with a law background to chime in here, but I'm going to wager that there are probably differences just as substantial between Scots and English law as between English and some other European systems

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

No, I'm saying that when the UK government's stated position is effectively "completely out of everything", there isn't any room for the EU to offer a compromise as the UK has stated it is not willing to give any ground, at all. Any such attempt when you try to negotiate will just end up like this (warning for language): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt8DoNerIPY

Is it? The UK has tried to negotiate access to the EU markets since this started. And wanted to do so in conjunction with the Financial Settlement. Now to me the negotiation there and compromise there equates how much is paid against what access is retained. Does that seem unreasonable to you?

Yet the hard reality is that the EU want paid without discussing what that money actually opens up for us.

The EU has not compromised on anything so far.

Some people have lauded that approach, they feel that the EU has all the cards for this negotiation, and they may well be right. But you then cannot blame the others for refusing to play in a rigged game and walk away from the table.

Cheers

Andrew

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

No, I'm saying that when the UK government's stated position is effectively "completely out of everything", there isn't any room for the EU to offer a compromise as the UK has stated it is not willing to give any ground, at all. Any such attempt when you try to negotiate will just end up like this (warning for language): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt8DoNerIPY

I think this is a little disingenuous. There is always room for negotiation, for compromise. Whether an agreement can be reached on specific items, and whether it can be reached within a specific timescale are two separate things though.

To take a case in point, there's the European drug testing and approval body. Approached as a sole issue, there are many aspects to it which are negotiable. You could agree to synchronise certain aspects of the approval process, and leave alternative parts separate. You could agree to jointly fund specific testing laboratories to cut costs. Or not. And so on. On that single issue, I am sure that there are many hundreds of areas which two respective bodies could sit down and negotiate over, and likely come to an agreement on certain aspects pleasing to all, whilst leaving out that which displeases either. The end result would likely be that everybody got something of value that they wanted, even if they didn't get everything that they wanted.

That scenario multiplied many times over is how more far ranging trade and diplomatic agreements are made. They are lengthy and costly, but entirely feasible. They're how the EU and any other state conducts trade agreements with many sovereign nations around the world. They are usually carried out with due respect for both parties, and a willingness to discard propositions which might cross any 'red lines' that the opposing party has. You go as far as both parties will agree upon to try and build structures and rules which are of nothing but mutual value to both parties. There is usually a little give and take, but nothing extreme.

Observing the ongoing Brexit saga, I think it is safe to say that neither side is willing to compromise, and both wish to have their cake and eat it. The EU has made several thoroughly outrageous propositions whilst abandoning all diplomatic niceties, and the British stance has been reasonably vacuous and along the lines of 'Yes, we know that we're leaving, but can't we still keep the best parts?' The negotiation has, in other words, been the opposite of the usual approach to such affairs. Without speculating on the reasons behind either one (as they have been discussed to death already), I think it is a terrible shame that both sides of the table appear to be so beholden to those vested interests which agitate so fiercely as to cause this state of affairs.

nfe wrote:
We need someone with a law background to chime in here, but I'm going to wager that there are probably differences just as substantial between Scots and English law as between English and some other European systems

True, and thats why we have Devolution.

The difference is, I wish to draw a line at the English Channel. Others wish to be a part of a wider European Union.

Both sides of the debate have merits and flaws, its more a matter of preference I think.

There is no right or wrong answer here (except of course when it comes to the possibility of renewed bloodshed in Northern Ireland. That is something which I think we can all agree...bar one notable exception...should be avoided at all costs).

nfe wrote:
Can you suggest specific issues on which the EU could compromise, and the new positions they could shift to, that don't simply represent concessions?

How about linking the financial settlement into the trade talks. How about the application of EU law on the unborn children of EU nationals who have yet to even get married to the nth generation.

All compromises can be termed concessions. Lets say that the UK agreed to pay £80billion as settlement, is that a compromise or a concession?

The point is this, the EU has refused to look at any other negotiations until EU rights, cash and Ireland is settled. The UK want to open it up completely. If the UK can see how good a deal they get elsewhere then they are more likely to change positions on the others. As it stands the EU could negotiate the first to their satisfaction and then walk away from the rest leaving the UK high and dry.

Cheers

Andrew

We should agree to a bill, but stipulate that it will only be paid on condition that we are able to reach mutually agreeable compromises on all other matters such as trade.

So in other words threaten to renege on payments you owe if you do not get a satisfactory compromise on other fields? That sounds a bit petty.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So in other words threaten to renege on payments you owe if you do not get a satisfactory compromise on other fields? That sounds a bit petty.

As petty as agreeing to a bill in good faith, only for the EU to bugger off leaving us empty handed once they have what they wanted out of us?

Note that I did say mutually agreeable. Not "give in to all our demands", which is the line of argument that the EU is taking.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So in other words threaten to renege on payments you owe if you do not get a satisfactory compromise on other fields? That sounds a bit petty.

Could be, but is it any pettier than asking to be paid just to discuss trade with no guarantees that you'll actually get any trade deals?

See Shadow types quicker than me....

I really don't think the bill stands up as an example. Suggesting someone should only agree to pay what they owe to secure future deals is pretty outrageous.

I don't think there was a real need to settle it prior to beginning other negotiations - other than the fact that prominent and extremely influential members of government, one of whom had (has?) a real chance of being PM before the deal is done, we're adamant that we should just tell the EU to beat it.

Had the UK been saying 'of course well settle up, can we please negotiate other issues simultaneously?', I'd be on board with you.