EU Referendum

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'd hazard a guess that as you've used the exact same language as is in the newspaper article you know exactly what was meant.

What newspaper article? I didn't read a newspaper yesterday - though I did buy the Sunday Herald but didn't get to read it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I dont know another way to explain it to you. The first principal will be for the UK to leave the EU, I think that one needs no further explanation. The next major consideration is what is the best mutual trading arrangement can we agree that is in the best interests of both parties and in conjunction with this can we make an agreement on the UK keeping control over immigration. Do you think it would be a situation whereby we say "We want full and unfettered access to the single market with full control over immigration of EU Citizens or we will accept nothing" You know we cant go into talks saying that, so it's a matter of whats the best deal the EU is prepared to offer as their bottom line and what we are prepared to accept as ours, hopefully they will be close, otherwise we will need to decide where we go from there. I dont know what else you suggest we should do. Do you honestly think there should already be a statement that we just read out to the EU with a take it or leave it option?

Well that would at least demonstrate that we knew what we wanted - but I accept that's not going to happen and perhaps isn't a good starting point for negotiations. My question though is more aimed at what Leavers think leaving the EU will actually deliver. It is that that I do not hear a coherent and consistent definition of across the spectrum of Leavers, at the moment it doesn't seem at all clear that leavers actually know and agree on what they want other than leaving the EU - and they seem to have achieved that objective already. So what is the Red Line leave will agree upon for a negotiated settlement - what are the objectives; and what are the non-negotiables?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

An educated man knows that nobody can yet define what this means, the same way as those that wished to stay in the EU were unable to say what the way forward and what might or might not happen within the EU.

I'd have thought that an educated man would know the key aspects of what leaving the EU means; define one or more objectives for each; and put in place measures to determine whether the objectives had been met and what a successful negotiation would look like. How are the elecorate to know whether negotiations have been successful and how will the negotiators know what the Leave public will accept as delivering what they were promised.

Anyway - I wish Davies, Fox, BoJo et al all success in their negotiations - and the best outcome for at least some of us, if not us all.

 

[SocketRocket]

Well that would at least demonstrate that we knew what we wanted - but I accept that's not going to happen and perhaps isn't a good starting point for negotiations. My question though is more aimed at what Leavers think leaving the EU will actually deliver. It is that that I do not hear a coherent and consistent definition of across the spectrum of Leavers, at the moment it doesn't seem at all clear that leavers actually know and agree on what they want other than leaving the EU - and they seem to have achieved that objective already. So what is the Red Line leave will agree upon for a negotiated settlement - what are the objectives; and what are the non-negotiables?

I find your mode of discussion here rather strange, you keep asking what Brexit will deliver while knowing full well it will be for the UK to leave the EU and then arrangements concerning trade and immigration. I think everyone understands what the ideal arrangements would be and even when they have been explained you keep asking the same question almost like you have turned off your mind to the answers. You also know that there will be an extensive round of negotiations and the outcomes of these negotiations will not be clear until they have taken place. It's getting a little repetitive to keep saying this now.

You (and others) keep asking the Leavers or Brexiteers what article 50 will deliver. How can individual voters answer that for you, all they had was a tick box on a ballot paper, there wasn't a part of the paper asking you to create an exit plan on the back of the paper in less that 1,000 words. The process to deliver Brexit is a job for the politicians and their civil service compatriots. It would have been much better if Cameron had created a plan 'B' that would be the Government stance if the vote was to leave but he didnt, he completely mismanaged the whole thing due to him and others being so certain it wouldn't happen.

 

[Hobbit]

I'd have thought that an educated man would know the key aspects of what leaving the EU means; define one or more objectives for each; and put in place measures to determine whether the objectives had been met and what a successful negotiation would look like. How are the elecorate to know whether negotiations have been successful and how will the negotiators know what the Leave public will accept as delivering what they were promised.

Anyway - I wish Davies, Fox, BoJo et al all success in their negotiations - and the best outcome for at least some of us, if not us all.

So you acknowledge there will be negotiations but keeping asking on here for answers. The negotiations haven't taken place yet!!!!!!!!! How can anyone give you answers when no one on here knows what is being asked for????????????

 

[larmen]

I thought he was asking for the red line, and that should be known before.

Otherwise, if you set your targets after the result you will always achieve them.

 

[SocketRocket]

I thought he was asking for the red line, and that should be known before.

Otherwise, if you set your targets after the result you will always achieve them.

It wouldn't be a good strategy to lay down red lines before negotiations start. The nearest anyone can get to a 'Red Line' is that the UK will leave the EU and will not accept free movement of people. Hows that for a Brexiteer red line.

 

[Region3]

Regarding Scotland, can someone enlighten a simple person and tell me what specifically "Scotland's interests" are that Ms Sturgeon is so keen on protecting as Brexit happens.

Genuine question. Thanks.

 

[SocketRocket]

Regarding Scotland, can someone enlighten a simple person and tell me what specifically "Scotland's interests" are that Ms Sturgeon is so keen on protecting as Brexit happens.

Genuine question. Thanks.

She is being opportunist. What her interests are is making Scotland independent, She is using the Referendum vote to assist in obtaining her goal. Scotland leaving the UK and becoming a member of the EU probably wont happen anyway as it would be a disaster for Scotland and the EU wont allow it, she knows this but obtaining her ambition is nothing to do with whats best for the Scots.

 

[FairwayDodger]

She is being opportunist. What her interests are is making Scotland independent, She is using the Referendum vote to assist in obtaining her goal. Scotland leaving the UK and becoming a member of the EU probably wont happen anyway as it would be a disaster for Scotland and the EU wont allow it, she knows this but obtaining her ambition is nothing to do with whats best for the Scots.

I actually agree with most of that. The only incorrect bit is saying the eu won't allow it. Eu membership in the event of independence would be quite straightforward.

 

[vkurup]

She is being opportunist. What her interests are is making Scotland independent, She is using the Referendum vote to assist in obtaining her goal. Scotland leaving the UK and becoming a member of the EU probably wont happen anyway as it would be a disaster for Scotland and the EU wont allow it, she knows this but obtaining her ambition is nothing to do with whats best for the Scots.

Isnt that true for all politicians wherein personal ambitions prevails over what is good for the country as long as you can whip up enuf lies and half truths to appeal to the emotions of 50%+ populations.. hey presto you win a referendum. What you do after that can then becomes a millstone or you can hand it over to whoever else is next in line.

 

[larmen]

It wouldn't be a good strategy to lay down red lines before negotiations start. The nearest anyone can get to a 'Red Line' is that the UK will leave the EU and will not accept free movement of people. Hows that for a Brexiteer red line.

Well, but not everybody who voted out wanted no free movement. Yes, Nigel wanted it. And all the racists who voted out. And even some others.
But some people voted out while still wanting full access to the market and accepting movement, but they wanted control over the laws, the allocation of funds to the NHS instead of full EU contributions, ... . You can't just say that their red line now has to be no free movement.

 

[Region3]

She is being opportunist. What her interests are is making Scotland independent, She is using the Referendum vote to assist in obtaining her goal. Scotland leaving the UK and becoming a member of the EU probably wont happen anyway as it would be a disaster for Scotland and the EU wont allow it, she knows this but obtaining her ambition is nothing to do with whats best for the Scots.

Thanks for the reply, but rather than wanting to know what we think her motivations are, I'd like to know the "official" reasons.

As I said before, as far as politics goes I am simple, and probably very naive, but my thinking is along these lines - which is all guesswork backed up by zero facts.

The EU won't want to give us a free trade agreement because they need to make it appear that leaving was bad for us to discourage any others.
EU members have to abide by whatever deal is struck on our exit.

So if they impose a tariff on trade between the EU and the UK, is it in Scotland's best interests to pay the tariff on their trade with the EU, or on their trade with the UK?

I'd have thought it was the former, so was wondering what would be the benefit of Scotland being independent and joining the EU. I'd be surprised if it were because they'd rather have their laws determined by Brussels than Westminster, or if they wanted to continue with freedom of movement.

As I said, simple and naive, but what is the upside for Scotland leaving the UK and remaining in the EU?

 

[FairwayDodger]

As I said, simple and naive, but what is the upside for Scotland leaving the UK and remaining in the EU?

IMO there isn't one. If we have to choose then the uk is more important to us than the eu. Just a shame we might have to choose.

 

[SocketRocket]

Well, but not everybody who voted out wanted no free movement. Yes, Nigel wanted it. And all the racists who voted out. And even some others.
But some people voted out while still wanting full access to the market and accepting movement, but they wanted control over the laws, the allocation of funds to the NHS instead of full EU contributions, ... . You can't just say that their red line now has to be no free movement.

I was asked what the red lines should be so I said what I thought they should be, I never asked you to agree.

I would suggest that the majority of Leavers wanted the UK to take control of immigration, it was the issue that made most people vote to leave IMO. I take it you are not suggesting all or most of these people were racist in wanting the UK to have control of immigration, if you are then you have a poor grasp on the voters concerns, just like the political elite who completely misread the issue.

 

[SocketRocket]

Isnt that true for all politicians wherein personal ambitions prevails over what is good for the country as long as you can whip up enuf lies and half truths to appeal to the emotions of 50%+ populations.. hey presto you win a referendum. What you do after that can then becomes a millstone or you can hand it over to whoever else is next in line.

You are making the mistake of the political elite suggesting the electorate are too stupid to understand the issues. David Cameron et al tried that one and came a very big cropper. People on the whole are not as stupid as some consider them to be and politicians ignore that at their peril.

 

[larmen]

I was asked what the red lines should be so I said what I thought they should be, I never asked you to agree.

I would suggest that the majority of Leavers wanted the UK to take control of immigration, it was the issue that made most people vote to leave IMO. I take it you are not suggesting all or most of these people were racist in wanting the UK to have control of immigration, if you are then you have a poor grasp on the voters concerns, just like the political elite who completely misread the issue.

The point I am making is that the option was in or out. There is no out because off X or Y or Z or all of the above. So there is no clear mandate of what has to happen in brexit. No-one can say it's all about X, or mostly about Y. And the 'exit polls' don't count. If they are, then the answer is in ;-)

Even the brexit leaders would not be able to agree if they tried. Nigel and Boris had totally different reasons for out.
And of course not all people that voted out are racists, but all racists voted out.

 

[SocketRocket]

I actually agree with most of that. The only incorrect bit is saying the eu won't allow it. Eu membership in the event of independence would be quite straightforward.

I disagree. There are the objections of Spain and maybe others, there would also be the issues on whether an independent Scotland could meet the conditions of membership. Scotland runs a sizeable budgetary defect and would need to increase tax and reduce spending on quite a large scale, I cant imagine that the EU would be prepared to make up the costs, they would probably be insisting on austerity conditions that would make the Conservatives look like spendthrifts. There is also the situation whereby the UK as Scotland's largest trade partner by far could be in a position of applying trade tariffs, the EU currently makes up around 15% of Scotland's trade. The other issue is currency, I cannot see how Scotland would be able to use the Pound so would need some form of interim currency while waiting for EU membership and if accepted into the club would then have to use the Euro. It's as straightforward as a dogs hind leg.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I disagree. There are the objections of Spain and maybe others, there would also be the issues on whether an independent Scotland could meet the conditions of membership. Scotland runs a sizeable budgetary defect and would need to increase tax and reduce spending on quite a large scale, I cant imagine that the EU would be prepared to make up the costs, they would probably be insisting on austerity conditions that would make the Conservatives look like spendthrifts. There is also the situation whereby the UK as Scotland's largest trade partner by far could be in a position of applying trade tariffs, the EU currently makes up around 15% of Scotland's trade. The other issue is currency, I cannot see how Scotland would be able to use the Pound so would need some form of interim currency while waiting for EU membership and if accepted into the club would then have to use the Euro. It's as straightforward as a dogs hind leg.

But brexit's a doddle and it'll all work out for the best?

After some negotiating, independent Scotland would be welcomed into the eu with open arms. Sure there are things to resolve but that'll be much simpler than disentangling the uk from the eu. Try applying some of your brexit optimism to other issues you don't support.

 

[SocketRocket]

But brexit's a doddle and it'll all work out for the best?

After some negotiating, independent Scotland would be welcomed into the eu with open arms. Sure there are things to resolve but that'll be much simpler than disentangling the uk from the eu. Try applying some of your brexit optimism to other issues you don't support.

I admire your optimism and support for independence.

I prefer to apply my optimism to things I do support. Now if you are interested on my views about other issues then don't mention the CAP and it's effect on third world Farmers. But that's for another discussion.