News1 min ago
Why Can't We All Get On Our Side?
52 Answers
OK remainers you loast the vote, you're upset, I get it I understand. is it too much to ask that we all come together and tackle the enemy across the channel? Stop bickering and sabotaging, brexit is inevitable, either embrace our efforts or join the enemy.
Answers
Progress can only be made if the other side stops playing hardball and starts to negotiate properly, or your own side collapses and bends over backwards to give the other side of the table what it demands. The latter form of "progress" we can well do with avoiding. May should stop giving ground, and make it abundantly clear that a 'no deal' exit is never off the...
08:56 Thu 19th Oct 2017
"Enemy" is an unhelpful term. However in negotiations there are two opposing sides; no matter how much we would like it to be one group all in it together to get the best arrangement. This means there are adversaries, each wanting to look after their own interests at the expense of the other side, and working out what they must give in order to get something back in return.
So there's much to be said regarding supporting the efforts of one's own team. And much to criticise when the other side is being unreasonable, pocketing whatever's offered and then instead of offering something in return, claiming it's insufficient, peanuts, and demanding more gold (or whatever wealth they wish to grab).
So there's much to be said regarding supporting the efforts of one's own team. And much to criticise when the other side is being unreasonable, pocketing whatever's offered and then instead of offering something in return, claiming it's insufficient, peanuts, and demanding more gold (or whatever wealth they wish to grab).
Not really Karl. The smaller one wouldn't be restrained by EU restrictions any longer, plus it has a smaller export to the larger group than the larger group has to them. Also the larger group will need to find ways to hold itself together when a net contributor leaves, so it can't afford to just sling trade.
Everyone on all sides in the UK wants what they think is best for the UK.
If that fact at least could be grasped by all of us then it would help.
The "us and them"/"enemy across the channel" mentality is not a particularly attractive or sensible one if you are seriously trying to recruit opponents of your viewpoint.
If that fact at least could be grasped by all of us then it would help.
The "us and them"/"enemy across the channel" mentality is not a particularly attractive or sensible one if you are seriously trying to recruit opponents of your viewpoint.
O_G, I know that is an often mentioned viewpoint, it is one I simply see as illusory/wishful. If it comes to a breakdown/stand-off regarding negotiations then it seems (to me at least) that, even assuming both will suffer some negatives, the much larger party will be in a far better position to soldier on with its conditions intact (internally and externally) than the smaller one with a a large set of new circumstances (mostly externally except then for knock-on). The former has lost part of its constituency, the latter has cast off a proportionately larger component (trade, co-operation, influence, etc.). To a substantial degree the smaller sets off into the unknown. To assume that the rest of the world is clamouring to work with and assist the UK in getting over the incident is, frankly, nonsense - to establish a new status quo is going to take the UK years if not decades. The EU is still the EU and its status quo will effectively remain unchanged. The UK's original intention, that the UK become not only the kingpin but an indispensable part of the (Common Market) EU never came about and that has meant that losing the UK from a project which the UK never liked (and pointedly opposed) is a lesser loss for it. The risk of a satisfactory agreement not being reached is a greater threat to the UK than it is to the EU - posturing objectives excepted.
“…the problem doesn't lie with Labour....it lies with Mrs May and her useless and dysfunctional Governments inability to make progress.”
As OG’s “Best Answer” elucidates, Mikey, the UK government is not the problem. As most observers note, the intransigence lies solely with the EU. Their refusal to talk about anything other than the three issues they have unilaterally placed at the head of the negotiations before those issues are agreed (on their terms) is the cause of the log jam. The UK has made clear its standpoint on two of those three (EU citizens’ rights and the “divorce” bill) and has made considerable concessions before arriving at that point. The EU refuses to countenance any more progress until we move even more to meet their demands.
The time has come (in fact, I believe it has long since passed) when the government needs to face down this intransigence and simply walk away. To see our politicians continually succumbing to outrageous demands from unelected foreign civil servants is one of the main reasons why many people voted to leave. There is no point in continuing with this charade. The UK should announce that it is leaving the EU in March 2019 and will trade with EU countries on WTO terms. The rest of the issues (such as the ludicrous suggestion that flights between the UK and the EU will cease) will be resolved by pragmatism and common sense on the part of those directly involved. The issues will be solved despite the best efforts of politicians to thwart them. Those two qualities are sadly lacking among the Euromaniacs and it is about time their childish bluff was called.
As OG’s “Best Answer” elucidates, Mikey, the UK government is not the problem. As most observers note, the intransigence lies solely with the EU. Their refusal to talk about anything other than the three issues they have unilaterally placed at the head of the negotiations before those issues are agreed (on their terms) is the cause of the log jam. The UK has made clear its standpoint on two of those three (EU citizens’ rights and the “divorce” bill) and has made considerable concessions before arriving at that point. The EU refuses to countenance any more progress until we move even more to meet their demands.
The time has come (in fact, I believe it has long since passed) when the government needs to face down this intransigence and simply walk away. To see our politicians continually succumbing to outrageous demands from unelected foreign civil servants is one of the main reasons why many people voted to leave. There is no point in continuing with this charade. The UK should announce that it is leaving the EU in March 2019 and will trade with EU countries on WTO terms. The rest of the issues (such as the ludicrous suggestion that flights between the UK and the EU will cease) will be resolved by pragmatism and common sense on the part of those directly involved. The issues will be solved despite the best efforts of politicians to thwart them. Those two qualities are sadly lacking among the Euromaniacs and it is about time their childish bluff was called.
KARL
Both sides are running out of time, but one side (the smaller one, except it doesn't have a realistic self image and is blissfully unaware) has more to worry about over that than the other.
Why then is the Big side so desperately holding out for the ransom money?
Why not let us pay the fee we think is fair and send us packing.
Both sides are running out of time, but one side (the smaller one, except it doesn't have a realistic self image and is blissfully unaware) has more to worry about over that than the other.
Why then is the Big side so desperately holding out for the ransom money?
Why not let us pay the fee we think is fair and send us packing.
//Why then is the Big side so desperately holding out for the ransom money? //
Because they think they can get more, frankly.
They also can't really afford to have the UK be better off by leaving, for obvious reasons.
Like anything though, there's two sides - and the UK is really not helping by being completely unclear about what its goals are besides entirely nebulous soundbites.
Because they think they can get more, frankly.
They also can't really afford to have the UK be better off by leaving, for obvious reasons.
Like anything though, there's two sides - and the UK is really not helping by being completely unclear about what its goals are besides entirely nebulous soundbites.
//and the UK is really not helping by being completely unclear about what its goals are besides entirely nebulous soundbites. //
I see you dont play poker then.
Also I have thi lovely second hand car why dont you tell me how much you will pay me and then I'll tell you how much of the car I will let you have, if any.
I see you dont play poker then.
Also I have thi lovely second hand car why dont you tell me how much you will pay me and then I'll tell you how much of the car I will let you have, if any.
Kromovaracun, perhaps seen from the brexiteers' standpoint the EU is desperate, intransigent, greedy, etc. Seen from the EU's standpoint the UK is perhaps obstreperous, arrogant and self centred, as well as not knowing where it is headed or what it really wants (except that it wants to be more equal than the rest).
To me it seems obvious which one can better afford to stand firm when it comes to a test of wills - the first one to blink is the one that walks off in a huff without anything agreed but with all the hopes/demands from both still hanging in the air. By definition in this case, the one to walk off would be the UK and which one will then be stronger to carry on without the other ? That is when reality crashes onto the stage.
To me it seems obvious which one can better afford to stand firm when it comes to a test of wills - the first one to blink is the one that walks off in a huff without anything agreed but with all the hopes/demands from both still hanging in the air. By definition in this case, the one to walk off would be the UK and which one will then be stronger to carry on without the other ? That is when reality crashes onto the stage.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you told me what "your side" was. Them I'll know if I'm on it or not.
But if, in the broadest terms, it's on the side in favour of the UK doing well, then I'd say I'm already on that side. It's just that I disagree with you what "doing well" means, is all.
Anyone who voted for the UK to remain in the EU may have lost the vote, and have to accept that the UK is on a path to leave the EU, but they don't have to discard the basic principles that led them to vote that way. I wanted to see the UK remain in the EU; now that we aren't, I want the next closest thing, which is certainly not a future in which we treat the EU as an enemy, an adversary, a group of people to be treated with contempt.
But if, in the broadest terms, it's on the side in favour of the UK doing well, then I'd say I'm already on that side. It's just that I disagree with you what "doing well" means, is all.
Anyone who voted for the UK to remain in the EU may have lost the vote, and have to accept that the UK is on a path to leave the EU, but they don't have to discard the basic principles that led them to vote that way. I wanted to see the UK remain in the EU; now that we aren't, I want the next closest thing, which is certainly not a future in which we treat the EU as an enemy, an adversary, a group of people to be treated with contempt.
The appointment of Barnier as a negotiator, a career politician with no experience outside of politics, was the first cynical move of the EU. Add to which he is French for pete's sake, and shows a marked dislike of Britain, (the default position of the French!).
If say, an Italian - a generous, outgoing, happy race - was in his place, it would be soon sorted and everyone could get on with their lives.
If say, an Italian - a generous, outgoing, happy race - was in his place, it would be soon sorted and everyone could get on with their lives.
