RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think the major issue is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place and it's risible that we're electing officials for what may be a 4 month period. It's not the honouring our international obligations bit that's the issue, but the bit where we've fucked everything up so badly that we have to.

Puja

I'd agree the idea we'd ever have been done in this time frame was lunacy, but now we're here it's thusly not a surprise and I'd prefer we honour our obligations

Though I do also think the European Parliament a waste of time and money, I'd have no issue with elected national governments simply submitting representatives or perhaps national parliaments on a proportional basis

Oh God no.

That would be terrible. Remember not every country has an actually functioning (or used to be functioning) government. The Romanians would just be even more corrupt than now, and that's before you get to the fascists in government elsewhere.

However, if the EU wants an elected parliament, that has to be where the power resides. With the closed doors Commission running the show, it's a farce.

For votes to have a legitimacy I'm basically looking for 70% voter turnout, ideally higher. EU parliamentary elections woefully fail such target. So pretending they have a democratically elected parliament seems to me a farce and we could simply skip the requirement tying the whole into national elections

Okay there's corruption, but I'm not sold smaller voter turnouts that promote the interests of the more rabid sections of society do anything to address that anyway

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think the major issue is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place and it's risible that we're electing officials for what may be a 4 month period. It's not the honouring our international obligations bit that's the issue, but the bit where we've fucked everything up so badly that we have to.

Puja

well quite, I thought even a Diggers high on snowballs would have gotten that.

It still should have been obvious from the outset we'd be in this position, getting upset about the obvious coming to pass is weird

The outset being the leave vote? Or the triggering of A50? Granted it's arguable that this degree of cockup was obvious even from that far out, but the original plans were to avoid this.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: well quite, I thought even a Diggers high on snowballs would have gotten that.

It still should have been obvious from the outset we'd be in this position, getting upset about the obvious coming to pass is weird

The outset being the leave vote? Or the triggering of A50? Granted it's arguable that this degree of cockup was obvious even from that far out, but the original plans were to avoid this.

Puja

again, quite.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
It still should have been obvious from the outset we'd be in this position, getting upset about the obvious coming to pass is weird

The outset being the leave vote? Or the triggering of A50? Granted it's arguable that this degree of cockup was obvious even from that far out, but the original plans were to avoid this.

Puja

again, quite.

From the vote this looked unavoidable, either we'd have delayed A50 and secured some pre negotiations delaying us past this point or the negotiations would continue past this point unless we bizarrely conceded on everything point the EU raised

So being surprised now is surprising

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
The outset being the leave vote? Or the triggering of A50? Granted it's arguable that this degree of cockup was obvious even from that far out, but the original plans were to avoid this.

Puja

again, quite.

From the vote this looked unavoidable, either we'd have delayed A50 and secured some pre negotiations delaying us past this point or the negotiations would continue past this point unless we bizarrely conceded on everything point the EU raised

So being surprised now is surprising

ah the gift of 20/20 hindsight. Or the prescience to predict events including May calling a snap election, in which she managed to miss an open goal. I'm assuming you put a huge bet on there being EU elections, as the odds must have been tremendous.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: again, quite.

From the vote this looked unavoidable, either we'd have delayed A50 and secured some pre negotiations delaying us past this point or the negotiations would continue past this point unless we bizarrely conceded on everything point the EU raised

So being surprised now is surprising

ah the gift of 20/20 hindsight. Or the prescience to predict events including May calling a snap election, in which she managed to miss an open goal. I'm assuming you put a huge bet on there being EU elections, as the odds must have been tremendous.

Be nice. It's not like a lot of people weren't saying the time frame is unrealistic ahead of time. If we knew what Brexit meant, other than Brexit, then maybe it'd have been possible to sort the WA, but maybe other problems than the Irish border would have resulted

Even if you'd thought it deliverable there had to be the strong possibility you'd be wrong

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
From the vote this looked unavoidable, either we'd have delayed A50 and secured some pre negotiations delaying us past this point or the negotiations would continue past this point unless we bizarrely conceded on everything point the EU raised

So being surprised now is surprising

ah the gift of 20/20 hindsight. Or the prescience to predict events including May calling a snap election, in which she managed to miss an open goal. I'm assuming you put a huge bet on there being EU elections, as the odds must have been tremendous.

Be nice. It's not like a lot of people weren't saying the time frame is unrealistic ahead of time. If we knew what Brexit meant, other than Brexit, then maybe it'd have been possible to sort the WA, but maybe other problems than the Irish border would have resulted

Even if you'd thought it deliverable there had to be the strong possibility you'd be wrong

I must have missed all those sooth sayers three years ago.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: ah the gift of 20/20 hindsight. Or the prescience to predict events including May calling a snap election, in which she managed to miss an open goal. I'm assuming you put a huge bet on there being EU elections, as the odds must have been tremendous.

Be nice. It's not like a lot of people weren't saying the time frame is unrealistic ahead of time. If we knew what Brexit meant, other than Brexit, then maybe it'd have been possible to sort the WA, but maybe other problems than the Irish border would have resulted

Even if you'd thought it deliverable there had to be the strong possibility you'd be wrong

I must have missed all those sooth sayers three years ago.

I don’t know how, they basically rolled out the people who wrote A50 saying the conclusion on doing so was nobody would be stupid enough to initiate such a short countdown to leaving

And you seem like the sort to listen to Radio 4

Then the EU really should’ve allowed the UK’s requests for preliminary negotiations to start prior to A50 being triggered and should’ve allowed concurrent negotiations rather than demanding they be staggered.

Mellsblue wrote:Then the EU really should’ve allowed the UK’s requests for preliminary negotiations to start prior to A50 being triggered and should’ve allowed concurrent negotiations rather than demanding they be staggered.

I'm sure they would on pre A50 negotiations, concurrent would have been a bigger issue , but on this we folded far too quickly to pander to some absurdist notion we were getting on with delivering it.

But political problems were bound to delay such an enormous venture into foreign affairs. And quite frankly that we had no idea what we wanted is a much bigger problem, actually it still is, we've got Labour, Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party all being pro leave, and never mind agreeing with each other what Brexit means they don't bar the Brexit Party even agree with themselves what it means, and the Brexit Party is one drunken lunatic who doesn’t think having any actual policies to put before the electorate is valid

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Then the EU really should’ve allowed the UK’s requests for preliminary negotiations to start prior to A50 being triggered and should’ve allowed concurrent negotiations rather than demanding they be staggered.

I'm sure they would on pre A50 negotiations, concurrent would have been a bigger issue , but on this we folded far too quickly to pander to some absurdist notion we were getting on with delivering it.

But political problems were bound to delay such an enormous venture into foreign affairs. And quite frankly that we had no idea what we wanted is a much bigger problem, actually it still is, we've got Labour, Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party all being pro leave, and never mind agreeing with each other what Brexit means they don't bar the Brexit Party even agree with themselves what it means, and the Brexit Party is one drunken lunatic who doesn’t think having any actual policies to put before the electorate is valid

The EU categorically ruled out any negotiations prior to triggering A50 and refused to start negotiations until we agreed to the timetable. I don’t blame them, other than the fact it’s hardly the act of an ally to condemn talks to almost certain failure from the very outset.

I agree that there is no consensus to what different factions want. Though, how that sits with your belief that May should sort consensus prior to triggering A50 I don’t know.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Be nice. It's not like a lot of people weren't saying the time frame is unrealistic ahead of time. If we knew what Brexit meant, other than Brexit, then maybe it'd have been possible to sort the WA, but maybe other problems than the Irish border would have resulted

Even if you'd thought it deliverable there had to be the strong possibility you'd be wrong

I must have missed all those sooth sayers three years ago.

I don’t know how, they basically rolled out the people who wrote A50 saying the conclusion on doing so was nobody would be stupid enough to initiate such a short countdown to leaving

And you seem like the sort to listen to Radio 4

Really? Was that immediately after the vote, when you claim it was obvious that we'd be having EU elections despite voting to leave.

And if that's meant to be some sort of insult, so be it. But I don't.

anyone see the Beeb documentary on Brexit from the EU point of view? I thought it was a spoof at first, like the Thick of It. But no, people really do behave like that. Everyone came out of it as an utter tosspot.

Banquo wrote:anyone see the Beeb documentary on Brexit from the EU point of view? I thought it was a spoof at first, like the Thick of It. But no, people really do behave like that. Everyone came out of it as an utter tosspot.

Can’t bring myself to watch it. The “we have our first colony” quote will have Brexit Party HQ smiling from ear to ear.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:anyone see the Beeb documentary on Brexit from the EU point of view? I thought it was a spoof at first, like the Thick of It. But no, people really do behave like that. Everyone came out of it as an utter tosspot.

Can’t bring myself to watch it. The “we have our first colony” quote will have Brexit Party HQ smiling from ear to ear.

That's the problem, it just confirms anti EU bias. They are just as big a set of tossers as our mob, just better organised and with a strategy.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Then the EU really should’ve allowed the UK’s requests for preliminary negotiations to start prior to A50 being triggered and should’ve allowed concurrent negotiations rather than demanding they be staggered.

I'm sure they would on pre A50 negotiations, concurrent would have been a bigger issue , but on this we folded far too quickly to pander to some absurdist notion we were getting on with delivering it.

But political problems were bound to delay such an enormous venture into foreign affairs. And quite frankly that we had no idea what we wanted is a much bigger problem, actually it still is, we've got Labour, Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party all being pro leave, and never mind agreeing with each other what Brexit means they don't bar the Brexit Party even agree with themselves what it means, and the Brexit Party is one drunken lunatic who doesn’t think having any actual policies to put before the electorate is valid

The EU categorically ruled out any negotiations prior to triggering A50 and refused to start negotiations until we agreed to the timetable. I don’t blame them, other than the fact it’s hardly the act of an ally to condemn talks to almost certain failure from the very outset.

I agree that there is no consensus to what different factions want. Though, how that sits with your belief that May should sort consensus prior to triggering A50 I don’t know.

I know what the EU said, but I don't believe that would have proved a tenable position, not even close
And if we think the EU is proving obstructionist in negotiations we're going to hate dealing with Japan, India, China, Russia, the USA et al

And my position on concensus is sort it before Brexit negotiations start, and if you cannot sort it don't start

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I must have missed all those sooth sayers three years ago.

I don’t know how, they basically rolled out the people who wrote A50 saying the conclusion on doing so was nobody would be stupid enough to initiate such a short countdown to leaving

And you seem like the sort to listen to Radio 4

Really? Was that immediately after the vote, when you claim it was obvious that we'd be having EU elections despite voting to leave.

And if that's meant to be some sort of insult, so be it. But I don't.

Certainly within months of the vote, how soon before or after A50 was triggered I don't specifically recall

And it wasn’t an insult, listening to Radio 4 is an act of a sound sort. Other than the Archers, that's for weirdos

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm sure they would on pre A50 negotiations, concurrent would have been a bigger issue , but on this we folded far too quickly to pander to some absurdist notion we were getting on with delivering it.

But political problems were bound to delay such an enormous venture into foreign affairs. And quite frankly that we had no idea what we wanted is a much bigger problem, actually it still is, we've got Labour, Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party all being pro leave, and never mind agreeing with each other what Brexit means they don't bar the Brexit Party even agree with themselves what it means, and the Brexit Party is one drunken lunatic who doesn’t think having any actual policies to put before the electorate is valid

The EU categorically ruled out any negotiations prior to triggering A50 and refused to start negotiations until we agreed to the timetable. I don’t blame them, other than the fact it’s hardly the act of an ally to condemn talks to almost certain failure from the very outset.

I agree that there is no consensus to what different factions want. Though, how that sits with your belief that May should sort consensus prior to triggering A50 I don’t know.

I know what the EU said, but I don't believe that would have proved a tenable position, not even close
And if we think the EU is proving obstructionist in negotiations we're going to hate dealing with Japan, India, China, Russia, the USA et al

And my position on concensus is sort it before Brexit negotiations start, and if you cannot sort it don't start

If you know what they said why did you say that they would’ve started negs before A50 was triggered when the categorically stated they wouldn’t?
So what should the UK do? Just stand there and both refuse to budge? The EU are used to just taking fairly untenable positions and refusing to budge. Any reading on their previous negotiations will tell you that.
This isn’t a discussion about future talks but this one. It’s a very different discussion from leaving a trading bloc, and more, than it is to form one. As I said I don’t necessarily blame the EU for the stance, other than its not a good way to deal with an ally and net contributor to EU over decades. It’s also very bad faith to setup negotiations to fail at the very outset. Which, according to you, was blindingly obvious to all.

You’ve missed my point on consensus. As can be seen at present, there is no consensus. Just not starting negotiations and allowing that to frustrate the result of a referendum is also untenable.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don’t know how, they basically rolled out the people who wrote A50 saying the conclusion on doing so was nobody would be stupid enough to initiate such a short countdown to leaving

And you seem like the sort to listen to Radio 4

Really? Was that immediately after the vote, when you claim it was obvious that we'd be having EU elections despite voting to leave.

And if that's meant to be some sort of insult, so be it. But I don't.

Certainly within months of the vote, how soon before or after A50 was triggered I don't specifically recall

And it wasn’t an insult, listening to Radio 4 is an act of a sound sort. Other than the Archers, that's for weirdos

Well that's convinced me.....

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The EU categorically ruled out any negotiations prior to triggering A50 and refused to start negotiations until we agreed to the timetable. I don’t blame them, other than the fact it’s hardly the act of an ally to condemn talks to almost certain failure from the very outset.

I agree that there is no consensus to what different factions want. Though, how that sits with your belief that May should sort consensus prior to triggering A50 I don’t know.

I know what the EU said, but I don't believe that would have proved a tenable position, not even close
And if we think the EU is proving obstructionist in negotiations we're going to hate dealing with Japan, India, China, Russia, the USA et al

And my position on concensus is sort it before Brexit negotiations start, and if you cannot sort it don't start

If you know what they said why did you say that they would’ve started negs before A50 was triggered when the categorically stated they wouldn’t?
So what should the UK do? Just stand there and both refuse to budge? The EU are used to just taking fairly untenable positions and refusing to budge. Any reading on their previous negotiations will tell you that.
This isn’t a discussion about future talks but this one. It’s a very different discussion from leaving a trading bloc, and more, than it is to form one. As I said I don’t necessarily blame the EU for the stance, other than its not a good way to deal with an ally and net contributor to EU over decades. It’s also very bad faith to setup negotiations to fail at the very outset. Which, according to you, was blindingly obvious to all.

You’ve missed my point on consensus. As can be seen at present, there is no consensus. Just not starting negotiations and allowing that to frustrate the result of a referendum is also untenable.

I didn't say don't start negotiations I said don't trigger the countdown. Also what would the EU have done by refusing to negotiate? They on daily basis would have strengthened the anti EU feeling across Europe, it wasn’t remotely going to play for them, better brexit than a dismantling of the whole, and they would have been struggling along with the UK reasonably gumming up anything and everything they wanted to discuss outside brexit

And I've no idea why you would want to start negotiations without knowing what you wanted to achieve just because of stuff

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I know what the EU said, but I don't believe that would have proved a tenable position, not even close
And if we think the EU is proving obstructionist in negotiations we're going to hate dealing with Japan, India, China, Russia, the USA et al

And my position on concensus is sort it before Brexit negotiations start, and if you cannot sort it don't start

If you know what they said why did you say that they would’ve started negs before A50 was triggered when the categorically stated they wouldn’t?
So what should the UK do? Just stand there and both refuse to budge? The EU are used to just taking fairly untenable positions and refusing to budge. Any reading on their previous negotiations will tell you that.
This isn’t a discussion about future talks but this one. It’s a very different discussion from leaving a trading bloc, and more, than it is to form one. As I said I don’t necessarily blame the EU for the stance, other than its not a good way to deal with an ally and net contributor to EU over decades. It’s also very bad faith to setup negotiations to fail at the very outset. Which, according to you, was blindingly obvious to all.

You’ve missed my point on consensus. As can be seen at present, there is no consensus. Just not starting negotiations and allowing that to frustrate the result of a referendum is also untenable.

I didn't say don't start negotiations I said don't trigger the countdown. Also what would the EU have done by refusing to negotiate? They on daily basis would have strengthened the anti EU feeling across Europe, it wasn’t remotely going to play for them, better brexit than a dismantling of the whole, and they would have been struggling along with the UK reasonably gumming up anything and everything they wanted to discuss outside brexit

And I've no idea why you would want to start negotiations without knowing what you wanted to achieve just because of stuff

The EU have no obligation to start negotiating before A50 is triggered. Junker stated that they would refuse to negotiate prior to that, and the EU had every right to take that stance.
Ignoring a referendum result is not ‘stuff’. Scores of MPs have sort to overturn Brexit and have failed to find consensus even once A50 was triggered. What on earth makes you think they would’ve found consensus prior to triggering A50. Even if the UK govt/parliament did find consensus, how would the govt/negotiating team know it was even close to what the EU would agree to? We could’ve wasted months negotiating amongst ourselves (not that I think a decision would ever be made) only for the EU to say that our position was nowhere near anything they’d agree to and then you’re back to square one after months of wasted time.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: If you know what they said why did you say that they would’ve started negs before A50 was triggered when the categorically stated they wouldn’t?
So what should the UK do? Just stand there and both refuse to budge? The EU are used to just taking fairly untenable positions and refusing to budge. Any reading on their previous negotiations will tell you that.
This isn’t a discussion about future talks but this one. It’s a very different discussion from leaving a trading bloc, and more, than it is to form one. As I said I don’t necessarily blame the EU for the stance, other than its not a good way to deal with an ally and net contributor to EU over decades. It’s also very bad faith to setup negotiations to fail at the very outset. Which, according to you, was blindingly obvious to all.

You’ve missed my point on consensus. As can be seen at present, there is no consensus. Just not starting negotiations and allowing that to frustrate the result of a referendum is also untenable.

I didn't say don't start negotiations I said don't trigger the countdown. Also what would the EU have done by refusing to negotiate? They on daily basis would have strengthened the anti EU feeling across Europe, it wasn’t remotely going to play for them, better brexit than a dismantling of the whole, and they would have been struggling along with the UK reasonably gumming up anything and everything they wanted to discuss outside brexit

And I've no idea why you would want to start negotiations without knowing what you wanted to achieve just because of stuff

The EU have no obligation to start negotiating before A50 is triggered. Junker stated that they would refuse to negotiate prior to that, and the EU had every right to take that stance.
Ignoring a referendum result is not ‘stuff’. Scores of MPs have sort to overturn Brexit and have failed to find consensus even once A50 was triggered. What on earth makes you think they would’ve found consensus prior to triggering A50. Even if the UK govt/parliament did find consensus, how would the govt/negotiating team know it was even close to what the EU would agree to? We could’ve wasted months negotiating amongst ourselves (not that I think a decision would ever be made) only for the EU to say that our position was nowhere near anything they’d agree to and then you’re back to square one after months of wasted time.

Is that significangly worse than negotiating with the EU without knowing what we wanted only for parliament to say that the deal was nowhere near anything they'd agree to, and ending up back at square one after years of wasted time? Cause, frankly, that option's not feeling brilliant right now.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I didn't say don't start negotiations I said don't trigger the countdown. Also what would the EU have done by refusing to negotiate? They on daily basis would have strengthened the anti EU feeling across Europe, it wasn’t remotely going to play for them, better brexit than a dismantling of the whole, and they would have been struggling along with the UK reasonably gumming up anything and everything they wanted to discuss outside brexit

And I've no idea why you would want to start negotiations without knowing what you wanted to achieve just because of stuff

The EU have no obligation to start negotiating before A50 is triggered. Junker stated that they would refuse to negotiate prior to that, and the EU had every right to take that stance.
Ignoring a referendum result is not ‘stuff’. Scores of MPs have sort to overturn Brexit and have failed to find consensus even once A50 was triggered. What on earth makes you think they would’ve found consensus prior to triggering A50. Even if the UK govt/parliament did find consensus, how would the govt/negotiating team know it was even close to what the EU would agree to? We could’ve wasted months negotiating amongst ourselves (not that I think a decision would ever be made) only for the EU to say that our position was nowhere near anything they’d agree to and then you’re back to square one after months of wasted time.

Is that significangly worse than negotiating with the EU without knowing what we wanted only for parliament to say that the deal was nowhere near anything they'd agree to, and ending up back at square one after years of wasted time? Cause, frankly, that option's not feeling brilliant right now.

Puja

Yes, we could have had the indicative votes before we started, and .....er.....um.......

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The EU have no obligation to start negotiating before A50 is triggered. Junker stated that they would refuse to negotiate prior to that, and the EU had every right to take that stance.
Ignoring a referendum result is not ‘stuff’. Scores of MPs have sort to overturn Brexit and have failed to find consensus even once A50 was triggered. What on earth makes you think they would’ve found consensus prior to triggering A50. Even if the UK govt/parliament did find consensus, how would the govt/negotiating team know it was even close to what the EU would agree to? We could’ve wasted months negotiating amongst ourselves (not that I think a decision would ever be made) only for the EU to say that our position was nowhere near anything they’d agree to and then you’re back to square one after months of wasted time.

Is that significangly worse than negotiating with the EU without knowing what we wanted only for parliament to say that the deal was nowhere near anything they'd agree to, and ending up back at square one after years of wasted time? Cause, frankly, that option's not feeling brilliant right now.

Puja

Yes, we could have had the indicative votes before we started, and .....er.....um.......

Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
Is that significangly worse than negotiating with the EU without knowing what we wanted only for parliament to say that the deal was nowhere near anything they'd agree to, and ending up back at square one after years of wasted time? Cause, frankly, that option's not feeling brilliant right now.

Puja

Yes, we could have had the indicative votes before we started, and .....er.....um.......

Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja