Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tree13 said:
I think it's fairly safe to say May, Hammond and Robbins are up to their necks in this, along with the rest of the pro-Remain cabinet ministers. We have a Withdrawal Agreement that has been drafted by May and Barnier, both of whom want the UK to stay in the EU. It is a great example of why you don't let foxes provide the security for your hen house.

It's mind-boggling to think that the media are happy to echo the PM's claims that her deal "is the best deal available" when, as you correctly point out, it favours neither Leave nor Remain.

*****TINFOIL HAT ALERT*****
It appears to be a mechanism to sway the electorate into thinking that anything other than continued EU membership is a disaster (which might be true) but the truth of that statement is unknown simply because the people who are supposed to be doing their best to secure a decent deal to facilitate the UK's departure are openly against the very principle of that departure, and have artificially created a "truth" to suit their goals. They haven't tried to negotiate a good deal to facilitate a departure - they've tried (and succeeded) to draft a deal that is SO bad EVERYONE rejects it. This can then be used as "evidence" that brexit is impossible to achieve, and that in turn will be the rationale used by the Government to go on an all-out pro-leave offensive ahead of the second referendum.
*****TINFOIL HAT REMOVED*****

To use an analogy, it's the same as a major housebuilder pointing to his previous two years of sales and claiming they provide evidence that "No-one wants to buy a house with a garden anymore. We sold LOADS more houses without gardens over the last two years."... but failing to mention that in the same two-year period he simply didn't build any houses with gardens.
Click to expand...
There's probably an element of truth in that. But I don't think it's even secretive from the EU side, they are offering poor terms as they see the best possible terms as membership.
 
Tree13 said:
I think it's fairly safe to say May, Hammond and Robbins are up to their necks in this, along with the rest of the pro-Remain cabinet ministers. We have a Withdrawal Agreement that has been drafted by May and Barnier, both of whom want the UK to stay in the EU. It is a great example of why you don't let foxes provide the security for your hen house.

It's mind-boggling to think that the media are happy to echo the PM's claims that her deal "is the best deal available" when, as you correctly point out, it favours neither Leave nor Remain.

*****TINFOIL HAT ALERT*****
It appears to be a mechanism to sway the electorate into thinking that anything other than continued EU membership is a disaster (which might be true) but the truth of that statement is unknown simply because the people who are supposed to be doing their best to secure a decent deal to facilitate the UK's departure are openly against the very principle of that departure, and have artificially created a "truth" to suit their goals. They haven't tried to negotiate a good deal to facilitate a departure - they've tried (and succeeded) to draft a deal that is SO bad EVERYONE rejects it. This can then be used as "evidence" that brexit is impossible to achieve, and that in turn will be the rationale used by the Government to go on an all-out pro-leave offensive ahead of the second referendum.
*****TINFOIL HAT REMOVED*****

To use an analogy, it's the same as a major housebuilder pointing to his previous two years of sales and claiming they provide evidence that "No-one wants to buy a house with a garden anymore. We sold LOADS more houses without gardens over the last two years."... but failing to mention that in the same two-year period he simply didn't build any houses with gardens.
Click to expand...

May's deal only covers the withdrawal agreement. It doesn't cover the future relationship whatsoever, just the 'divorce payment', the treatment of EU/UK nationals, and the Irish border. If parliament can't agree on this, god help them when they actually start negotiating the important stuff.
 
JEBUS_LIVES said:
There's probably an element of truth in that. But I don't think it's even secretive from the EU side, they are offering poor terms as they see the best possible terms as membership.
Click to expand...
Takes us back to the question of the money, doesn't it?

I agree that the EU are offering awful terms for departure under May's deal, but I believe their motivation for doing so is simply because they want the UK to remain and continue as one of the five or six biggest contributors of cash to the EU budget. They don't give a toss about what's best for the UK, nor would I expect them to - they are negotiating on behalf of the other 27 countries. If they had any interest in the concerns raised by the UK then the last two years would have seen at least one recognisable figure from the EU (not Verhofstadt, Juncker, Tusk or Barnier, obviously, but someone of similar standing) make public statements about wanting to help ease these concerns. Someone would have spent time trying to explain in layman's terms what the many benefits of EU membership are, probably a whole department of somebodies would have been tasked to do what every government in my lifetime has failed to do: "sell" the concept of the EU to the British public. When our strongly pro-remain media cannot find anyone who rises above the mud-slinging to simply list all the benefits of EU membership, it does make you wonder what those benefits are.

If we revoke Art.50 and stay as members, the EU get their money.
If we leave on May's terms, the EU can simply refuse any future deal proposed and that will activate the backstop. Then they get their money, but we lose any existing membership benefits AND cannot leave the backstop without EU permission. And why would they give that permission if they have a situation whereby the UK still pays every year, is still bound by all the rules, but no longer gets ANY say whatsoever in what happens?

For anyone pro-leave, neither option is acceptable.
For anyone pro-remain, surely May's deal is unacceptable.

The last time the public voted, they voted to leave.
The last time Parliament voted, they voted to stay. But they didn't change the legislation, which currently sees us leaving on March 29th.

The whole thing is a mess, and pretty much nobody in public office, here or in Brussels, seems remotely interested in clearing it up. They're all on one gravy train or another.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
May's deal only covers the withdrawal agreement. It doesn't cover the future relationship whatsoever, just the 'divorce payment', the treatment of EU/UK nationals, and the Irish border. If parliament can't agree on this, god help them when they actually start negotiating the important stuff.
Click to expand...
Fully aware of that Bruce. Surprised it didn't come across in what I wrote.

The WA (as currently drafted) provides for what happens if the UK and the EU cannot agree terms of the future relationship: with this WA in place, we would be legally forced into Backstop. Once in Backstop, we would be unable to leave Backstop without EU permission... while in Backstop we would remain liable to pay membership fees and obey all rules, but cease to have representation. Once in Backstop, which is HUGELY favourable to the EU, why would they ever grant permission to change it?

Anyone who agrees to the current WA, be they Leave or Remain, should not be trusted with a vote IMHO.
 
Tree13 said:
Fully aware of that Bruce. Surprised it didn't come across in what I wrote.

The WA (as currently drafted) provides for what happens if the UK and the EU cannot agree terms of the future relationship: with this WA in place, we would be legally forced into Backstop. Once in Backstop, we would be unable to leave Backstop without EU permission... while in Backstop we would remain liable to pay membership fees and obey all rules, but cease to have representation. Once in Backstop, which is HUGELY favourable to the EU, why would they ever grant permission to change it?

Anyone who agrees to the current WA, be they Leave or Remain, should not be trusted with a vote IMHO.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone who advocates leaving with no deal should be trusted with a vote either.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
I'm not sure anyone who advocates leaving with no deal should be trusted with a vote either.
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating "no deal". I'm not advocating "remain". I'm analysing May's WA in the context of the alternatives currently available, and the demands of pro-remain and pro-leave positions.

May's WA is the worst current option available.
 
Tree13 said:
I'm not advocating "no deal". I'm not advocating "remain". I'm analysing May's WA in the context of the alternatives currently available, and the demands of pro-remain and pro-leave positions.

May's WA is the worst current option available.
Click to expand...

Sorry for not being clear, I wasn't advocating you were mate, but many Brexiters are going down that rabbit hole, and indeed the prime minister has said repeatedly her 'no deal is better than a bad deal' mantra. It's barmy and has stoked the fear that this temporary arrangement would last forever. It seems to me like it's an insurance policy against the swivel eyed loons in her party.
 
Tree13 said:
I'm not advocating "no deal". I'm not advocating "remain". I'm analysing May's WA in the context of the alternatives currently available, and the demands of pro-remain and pro-leave positions.

May's WA is the worst current option available.
Click to expand...
I disagree, if you balance out the demands of pro leave and pro remain, no matter which way you spin it, a No Deal is the worst current option.

Very few were arguing for no deal, most were riding in the back of saying 'we hold all the cards' and 'the EU will come to heel' once we vote out. The leave position was we regain control and we prosper as a result.

Granted May's deal is awful, but it attempts to not to financially detriment the UK. She's just handed over all control in the process.
 
Tree13 said:
Takes us back to the question of the money, doesn't it?

I agree that the EU are offering awful terms for departure under May's deal, but I believe their motivation for doing so is simply because they want the UK to remain and continue as one of the five or six biggest contributors of cash to the EU budget. They don't give a toss about what's best for the UK, nor would I expect them to - they are negotiating on behalf of the other 27 countries. If they had any interest in the concerns raised by the UK then the last two years would have seen at least one recognisable figure from the EU (not Verhofstadt, Juncker, Tusk or Barnier, obviously, but someone of similar standing) make public statements about wanting to help ease these concerns. Someone would have spent time trying to explain in layman's terms what the many benefits of EU membership are, probably a whole department of somebodies would have been tasked to do what every government in my lifetime has failed to do: "sell" the concept of the EU to the British public. When our strongly pro-remain media cannot find anyone who rises above the mud-slinging to simply list all the benefits of EU membership, it does make you wonder what those benefits are.

If we revoke Art.50 and stay as members, the EU get their money.
If we leave on May's terms, the EU can simply refuse any future deal proposed and that will activate the backstop. Then they get their money, but we lose any existing membership benefits AND cannot leave the backstop without EU permission. And why would they give that permission if they have a situation whereby the UK still pays every year, is still bound by all the rules, but no longer gets ANY say whatsoever in what happens?

For anyone pro-leave, neither option is acceptable.
For anyone pro-remain, surely May's deal is unacceptable.

The last time the public voted, they voted to leave.
The last time Parliament voted, they voted to stay. But they didn't change the legislation, which currently sees us leaving on March 29th.

The whole thing is a mess, and pretty much nobody in public office, here or in Brussels, seems remotely interested in clearing it up. They're all on one gravy train or another.
Click to expand...
Surely that's what the Benn and Labour ammendments were for, so only just over half the house prevented developing another way to leave besides May's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top