Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

First of all that is demonstrably not quote mining.

Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

I quoted Tusk in context and inferred another meaning making very clear that is what I was doing.

Nope it is out of context - the context was that the UK cannot cherry pick 'pick and mix' in Tusk's words, using Norway and Canada as exemplars. The context was not (as you implied) that the UK and EU starting point negotiations where Canada or Norway. They weren't.

I have heard countless politicians say the EU's opening position was 'Norway type deal or Canada type deal'.

Show me evidence from the EU that their starting point was Norway or Canada.

The reality was that the starting point wasn't anything like that. The starting point was to address 3 key issues:

1. The position of EU citizens in the Uk and vice versa.
2. The 'divorce bill'
3. The position of the border in Ireland, in relation to GF agreement.

No quote you have offered refutes.

https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/uk-eu-deal-not-combination-norway-canada-trade-deal/
EU chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, warned that Britain’s future relationship with the EU will not “combine the benefits of the Norway model (which has full access to the EU single market but accepts free movement of people) with the weak constraints of the Canada model.”

What both quotes I have provided state is that you can't have Norway type deal with a bit of Canada, pick and mix. They were not saying you can't have Norway.

I'm not arguing that to be the case - but you placed the quote in the context of starting point, not of cherry picking. What Tusk was saying was that you cannot cherry pick, not that Norway or Canada were starting points - they weren't.

[jakswan]

So three months old compared to my link which was only two days old.

Your link was not how would people vote on Brexit now but in retrospect do you think it was the right thing.

Don't we? Are you sure about that?

Yes, name one we will compare their worst quotes to Germanys AFD. Don't cry wolf, they have done that in the US, now the wolf is in power and no one is listening.

We feel betrayed because Brexiteers are removing our EU citizen rights without our consent, because Brexit has caused and will continue to cause enormous damage, because we thought we lived in a cosmopolitan welcoming society and it has been revealed to be insular and nasty.

So you are not a democrat then? I was in the EU as a result of previous generation making me a EU citizen, that was fine it was democratic. Norway won't damage UK.

How is it insular and nasty?

You are advocating that having another vote is disenfranchising. The word means "not being allowed to have a vote". You should be able to see why I am having some trouble with your argument.

Oh come off it, the Losers Vote crowd is filled with remainers, it is their only chance of remain winning. They haven't stopped whining since 2016.

Have another vote, EFTA or Free Trade, not Brexit that vote was won by leave and the government sent every citizen a document promising to deliver the result

So you are, at least, agreeing it betrays most Brexiteers.

No I'm a Brexiteer.

[jakswan]

Do you really think that leave would have won had it been clear that the 'landing point' would be EFTA - not a hope.

Yes, imagine the remain campaign less the armageddon, they would have said ....nothing.

[jakswan]

Nope it is out of context -

At no point did I quote Tusk out of context, very sad you have to stoop so low.

the context was that the UK cannot cherry pick 'pick and mix' in Tusk's words, using Norway and Canada as exemplars. The context was not (as you implied) that the UK and EU starting point negotiations where Canada or Norway. They weren't.

Tusk said and I'm quoting in context.

"The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada"

So you can't take parts of Norway and parts of Canada.

It is fair to infer and I'm NOT claiming to quote Tusk because that would be quote mining.

The EU can grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Norway

Its fine for you to challenge my inference, it is unacceptable to accuse me of quote mining.

Show me evidence from the EU that their starting point was Norway or Canada.

Washington Post do for you?
With 14 months to go before the U.K. leaves the bloc and trade talks starting only now, the EU has laid out a binary choice for the U.K.: Be like Norway or Canada.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-k-faces-a-choice-on-brexit-norway-or-canada-1516281144

I'm not arguing that to be the case - but you placed the quote in the context of starting point, not of cherry picking. What Tusk was saying was that you cannot cherry pick, not that Norway or Canada were starting points - they weren't.

As you will see above they were.

Not only do you lose the point but make yourself look a prat whilst doing so.

[ProfessorDavey]

Washington Post do for you?
With 14 months to go before the U.K. leaves the bloc and trade talks starting only now, the EU has laid out a binary choice for the U.K.: Be like Norway or Canada.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-k-faces-a-choice-on-brexit-norway-or-canada-1516281144

Nope - not interested in journalistic interpretations - noting too that this is from Jan 18, way after the negotiations started.

If you want to know the EU's stating position then got to the official EU documents (they are all publicly available). The link is the starting point document on EU position, snappily titled 'Directives for the negotiation of an agreement with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal from the European Union':

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21766/directives-for-the-negotiation-xt21016-ad01re02en17.pdf

Dated May 2017.

Mentions of Norway - zero, zilch, zip
Mentions of Canada - zero, zilch, zip

This sets out the 'so called' first phase of negotiations (yup remember them) where sufficient progress needed to be made before moving on to the second phase (which might include trading arrangements). It focusses on ... guess what:

1. The position of EU citizens in the Uk and vice versa.
2. The 'divorce bill'
3. The position of the border in Ireland, in relation to GF agreement.

That's the starting point - nothing to do with Canada or Norway

[Udayana]

Norwegian politicians reject UK's Norway-plus Brexit plan

...
Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK...

[jakswan]

Nope - not interested in journalistic interpretations - noting too that this is from Jan 18, way after the negotiations started.

If you want to know the EU's stating position then got to the official EU documents (they are all publicly available). The link is the starting point document on EU position, snappily titled 'Directives for the negotiation of an agreement with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal from the European Union':

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21766/directives-for-the-negotiation-xt21016-ad01re02en17.pdf

Dated May 2017.

Mentions of Norway - zero, zilch, zip
Mentions of Canada - zero, zilch, zip

This sets out the 'so called' first phase of negotiations (yup remember them) where sufficient progress needed to be made before moving on to the second phase (which might include trading arrangements). It focusses on ... guess what:

1. The position of EU citizens in the Uk and vice versa.
2. The 'divorce bill'
3. The position of the border in Ireland, in relation to GF agreement.

That's the starting point - nothing to do with Canada or Norway

The timetable for discussions were set by the EU, no trade talks at that time.

Ok let us clarify what we are debating, this is how I think things happened. Not claiming this as fact it is my interpretation...

The EU, with regards to future relationship at some point offered the UK a deal like Norway or Canada and because of May's red lines made it quite clear that those red lines took Norway off the table. That is around the time that Tusk said what he said.

That is why many politicians want that to be the future relationship, because its been offered

You seem to saying its not possible for that to be the future relationship?

My point is that Norway is the least damaging option and the likely outcome.

This isn't a view that is outlandish its the views of many politicians and commentators.

Simon Jenkins good journalist centre left - All Roads lead to Norway.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/07/mps-brexit-norway

Independant piece against Norway but
"My soundings suggest that, at this stage, Norway is inching ahead. It might be too much for May to swallow as it would not end free movement, and so might have to be implemented by a new prime minister."
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-brexit-deal-vote-norwayplus-final-say-peoples-vote-referendum-dodging-question-a8668096.html

Telling no apology over false accusation of quote mining either.

[jakswan]

Norwegian politicians reject UK's Norway-plus Brexit plan

One politician, also in that article:-
'She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Norway would examine a UK application.'

The 'Canada will be a disaster and Norway is not possible' schtick not going to fly.

[jeremyp]

Your link was not how would people vote on Brexit now but in retrospect do you think it was the right thing.

Yes, name one we will compare their worst quotes to Germanys AFD. Don't cry wolf, they have done that in the US, now the wolf is in power and no one is listening.

So you are not a democrat then? I was in the EU as a result of previous generation making me a EU citizen, that was fine it was democratic. Norway won't damage UK.

How is it insular and nasty?

Oh come off it, the Losers Vote crowd is filled with remainers, it is their only chance of remain winning. They haven't stopped whining since 2016.

Have another vote, EFTA or Free Trade, not Brexit that vote was won by leave and the government sent every citizen a document promising to deliver the result

No I'm a Brexiteer.

I wrote a long point by point reply to this but it got clobbered by the captive portal of the wi-fi of the hotel I’m in. I can’t be bothered to do it twice, so here’s a précis of what I said.

My link was to a survey that asked if people think Brexit was a mistake. How do you think somebody would vote today if they think Brexit was a mistake?

Apart from that, you made a couple of fallacious arguments, for example, accusing me I of not being a democrat just because I do not like the result of the second referendum. There was also the laughable suggestion that having a vote is the same as disenfranchisement in spite of them being basically the opposite.

Also the current US president is not far right, or if he is, I can name a number of Torres and DUP MPs as being far right people in Parliament.

Finally, the fact that you are a Brexiteer does not refute the claim that most (I.e. not all of them) Brexiteers would regard Norway as a betrayal.

[jakswan]

My link was to a survey that asked if people think Brexit was a mistake. How do you think somebody would vote today if they think Brexit was a mistake?

This is your argument, i.e. we should have another vote because the will of the people has changed. Not sure I'm convinced by the argument anyway, I think to convince me it would have needed to have changed a lot, it would have to be consistent 60%+ for a few monthes.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-right-or-wrong-were-the-polls/

According to that link in May 2016 it had remain on as high as 55% a month later remain lost, nothing has changed.
 

Apart from that, you made a couple of fallacious arguments, for example, accusing me I of not being a democrat just because I do not like the result of the second referendum.

No, first, I did not accuse you of anything I asked you if you were not a democrat, second, not because you didn't like the result because you felt betrayed.

There was also the laughable suggestion that having a vote is the same as disenfranchisement in spite of them being basically the opposite.

Laugh if you like but it is the reason that many MPs will not go for another referendum, so if you don't win this argument then it ain't happening mate, laughing won't help.

Here is Len McCluskey:-
The Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, has privately told Labour MPs the party should have severe reservations about backing a fresh Brexit referendum, saying voters could see it as a betrayal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/05/unite-leader-warns-labour-against-backing-second-eu-referendum

Also the current US president is not far right, or if he is, I can name a number of Torres and DUP MPs as being far right people in Parliament.

Never said he was far right, Bill Maher admitted this, he laid into Republicans for years, he knows they (liberals) cried wolf.

Don't take it from me here he is:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ul2OuvPOQE

Trump is fascist in waiting.

No UK MP is far right, name one, then we will have a look at their quotes, I'll get quotes from MP's across Europe, we'll see how far right they are.

Finally, the fact that you are a Brexiteer does not refute the claim that most (I.e. not all of them) Brexiteers would regard Norway as a betrayal.

The betrayal on the leave side, is that the Government solemnly promised it was once in a generation, if the establishment conspires to have another vote then a huge amount of the UK will see it as a betrayal. 

[jakswan]

Brexit could mean anything from Norway to pretty well complete isolationism. Surely our sovereign and democratically elected parliament must play a major role in determining which flavour of Brexit we get. And remember parliament is meant to represent all the people, not just the 52% (or much less of the total electorate or population) who voted leave. May seems only to be interested in pandering to a narrow faction of the leave voters (hence one of her own MPs - a Brexiter - resigning yesterday) - that is not right, she must develop a plan for Brexit in the best interests of the whole population.

Norway it is then!

[ProfessorDavey]

The timetable for discussions were set by the EU, no trade talks at that time.

Ok let us clarify what we are debating, this is how I think things happened. Not claiming this as fact it is my interpretation...

The EU, with regards to future relationship at some point offered the UK a deal like Norway or Canada and because of May's red lines made it quite clear that those red lines took Norway off the table. That is around the time that Tusk said what he said.

Sorry Jakswan you are talking rubbish - you are inventing timelines that never existed.

You claimed 'EU's opening position was 'Norway type deal or Canada type deal' - that is simply untrue.

The timeline is as follows:

March 2017 - UK triggers article 50 and EU starts formal negotiations
April 2017 - EU leaders hold summit to agree negotiating strategy
May 2017 - EU publishes the strategy (which I've linked to) - agreement is to focus on 3 key issue (citizens; finance; NI) - only once sufficient progress is made can discussions about trade arrangements start

No offer of Norway type deal or Canada type deal was made, nor would it have been appropriate as the discussions were only about citizens; finance; NI. Neither Norway or Canada could have been contemplated in this context as both clearly fail the NI test.

These stage 1 discussions continue until Dec 2017 when there is agreement that sufficient progress has been made to move onto phase 2, to develop the transitional agreement - at this stage neither Norway or Canada are options (as they don't pass the NI test) and the negotiations lead to the deal agreed by the EU and currently being debated in parliament.

At no point did the EU ever offer Norway or Canada - and certainly these were never the starting point as you claim.

[jeremyp]

This is your argument

No it was a fact. The survey is a fact also, even though there is a margin of error.

i.e. we should have another vote because the will of the people has changed. Not sure I'm convinced by the argument anyway,

What? You are not convinced that a decision decided by the "will of the people" should be changed if the "will of the people" changes? 

I think to convince me it would have needed to have changed a lot, it would have to be consistent 60%+ for a few monthes.

We had a referendum in 1975. We managed to have the second referendum without a consistent 60%+ in favour of leaving.

According to that link in May 2016 it had remain on as high as 55% a month later remain lost, nothing has changed.

Everything has changed. We now know that the Leavers had no clue what to do if they won. We have a much better idea of what a post Brexit Britain would look like, and it isn't pretty.

No, first, I did not accuse you of anything I asked you if you were not a democrat,

Yes but it was one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. The implication was that I either had to suck it up or admit I'm not in favour of democracy. It was a clear accusation.

Laugh if you like but it is the reason that many MPs will not go for another referendum, so if you don't win this argument then it ain't happening mate, laughing won't help.

How many is many. And it doesn't matter how many MPS believe having a vote is disenfranchisement, it's the opposite of disenfranchisement. And if you bring up famous people to support your point, it's merely argument from authority. They would be as wrong as you are.

Here is Len McCluskey:-
The Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, has privately told Labour MPs the party should have severe reservations about backing a fresh Brexit referendum, saying voters could see it as a betrayal.

Ah, so not disenfranchisement, but a betrayal. However, those voters that feel betrayed would be a minority and getting a smaller one with each passing day.

Never said he was far right,

You wrote "they have done that in the US, now the wolf is in power and no one is listening"

That to me says you think Trump is Far Right.

Trump is fascist in waiting.

Oh, you did it again.

No British MP is a fascist, I'll give you that, but policies like curtailing all immigration, dismantling the welfare state and the NHS, reducing workers' rights are generally pretty well out to the right hand end of the spectrum.

The betrayal on the leave side, is that the Government solemnly promised it was once in a generation, if the establishment conspires to have another vote then a huge amount of the UK will see it as a betrayal.

When did the government solemnly promise it was once in a generation?

[jeremyp]

Norway it is then!

Unfortunately, no, at least not while May's government is in power. The Prime Minister cannot accept a Norway deal without the party self destructing, any more than she can stop Brexit altogether. So far she has always chosen to put party before country. The only chance of Norway is if Corbyn gets into power.

[jakswan]

At no point did the EU ever offer Norway or Canada - and certainly these were never the starting point as you claim.

https://www.cer.eu/insights/canada-norway-or-something-between
Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s chief negotiator, says that Britain must choose between ‘Canada’ (something like the EU-Canada free trade agreement, which provides for free trade in goods but covers only a few services), or ‘Norway’ (in the single market – but accepting EU rules, European Court of Justice jurisprudence, free movement and payments to the EU).

Which is why Tusk said "The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada", and it is fair to infer 'The EU can grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Norway'.

With regards to our future relationship everyone frames the debate in terms of 'Norway or Canada' including yourself, mainly because it has been framed that way by the EU.

You even said when pressed you would favour Norway type deal yet now seem to be denying it is even possible.

When I look at the House of Commons not only is Norway type deal possible, I think it is the only possible outcome.

You might disagree which is fine, but claiming its rubbish and throwing silly accusations around just makes you look silly.

[jakswan]

No it was a fact. The survey is a fact also, even though there is a margin of error.
What? You are not convinced that a decision decided by the "will of the people" should be changed if the "will of the people" changes? 

We had a referendum in 1975. We managed to have the second referendum without a consistent 60%+ in favour of leaving.
Everything has changed.

What is your argument?

The will of the people has changed therefore we must have another vote.
Everything has changed so we must have another vote.

I don't agree with either argument, we will have to agree to disagree.

We now know that the Leavers had no clue what to do if they won. We have a much better idea of what a post Brexit Britain would look like, and it isn't pretty.

It would not be up to leavers to decide what to do if they won. The Government said if you vote leave we will leave and Parliament will have to decide what the final arrangement is.

Did you think you were electing someone in the referendum?

Yes but it was one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. The implication was that I either had to suck it up or admit I'm not in favour of democracy. It was a clear accusation.

Well yes, when we have an election and someone gets in that you don't like, if you then feel betrayed then you can't be in favour of democracy can you? It's the democratic system that 'betrayed' you.

How many is many. And it doesn't matter how many MPS believe having a vote is disenfranchisement,

Oh but it does, it matters the most, the only way you get another referendum is if you can get enough MPs to support it.

it's the opposite of disenfranchisement. And if you bring up famous people to support your point, it's merely argument from authority. They would be as wrong as you are. Ah, so not disenfranchisement, but a betrayal. However, those voters that feel betrayed would be a minority and getting a smaller one with each passing day.

Bringing up MPs not famous people is relevant to the chances of their being a Losers Vote.

You wrote "they have done that in the US, now the wolf is in power and no one is listening"

That to me says you think Trump is Far Right.

I clarified that for you.

No British MP is a fascist, I'll give you that, but policies like curtailing all immigration, dismantling the welfare state and the NHS, reducing workers' rights are generally pretty well out to the right hand end of the spectrum.

Did I claim we did not have a right wing government? There is vast difference between far right and normal right-wing politics, which is what I'm warning you against, painting legitimate respectable right-wing positions as far-right means you are crying wolf.

When the wolf actually comes you might find that people ignore your cries.

When did the government solemnly promise it was once in a generation?

In the document they sent to every household.
"A once in a generation decision"
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

[Roses]

What is your argument?

The will of the people has changed therefore we must have another vote.
Everything has changed so we must have another vote.

I don't agree with either argument, we will have to agree to disagree.

It would not be up to leavers to decide what to do if they won. The Government said if you vote leave we will leave and Parliament will have to decide what the final arrangement is.

Did you think you were electing someone in the referendum?

Well yes, when we have an election and someone gets in that you don't like, if you then feel betrayed then you can't be in favour of democracy can you? It's the democratic system that 'betrayed' you.

Oh but it does, it matters the most, the only way you get another referendum is if you can get enough MPs to support it.

Bringing up MPs not famous people is relevant to the chances of their being a Losers Vote.

I clarified that for you.

Did I claim we did not have a right wing government? There is vast difference between far right and normal right-wing politics, which is what I'm warning you against, painting legitimate respectable right-wing positions as far-right means you are crying wolf.

When the wolf actually comes you might find that people ignore your cries.

In the document they sent to every household.
"A once in a generation decision"
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

I wonder if you had voted remain, if you would be against another referendum?

[jakswan]

I wonder if you had voted remain, if you would be against another referendum?

All remainers do not support another vote.

[Sriram]

How many referendums would you have before you can be really sure what the people want? Best of three's perhaps... or five?! 

When more than half have voted one way....if it is reversed....don't you think there will be significant civil unrest and riots?!

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if you had voted remain, if you would be against another referendum?

How on earth would jakswan know what he would do if he wasn't jakswan?

[Nearly Sane]

Saw this elsewhere. With what's happened on Brexit, I feel more sympathetic to Salisbury.


"Whatever happens will be for the worse, & therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible" - Lord Salisbury

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Were it suggested and demonstrated that we would be better off Brexitting and remain had won then I would be all for another referendum.
In fact Johnson suggested two referenda and Farridge suggested a second referendum in the event of Brexit losing.

However very shortly after the referendum Bwexiteers stated that we would not be any worse of and there own prognosis is now that any suffering is worth the price of freedom from a scenario of some fantasy occupation stewed in the minds of gammon who after a lifetime of welfare and easy money have realised their lives are vacuous after all and want to alleviate that with some grand act of supposed patriotic futility.

[Spud]

Presumably the UK's citizens would be able to live and work in the EU if it was a member of EFTA?

[Harrowby Hall]

How many referendums would you have before you can be really sure what the people want? Best of three's perhaps... or five?! 

When more than half have voted one way....if it is reversed....don't you think there will be significant civil unrest and riots?!

But Sriram, this referendum was - legally - only advisory, not binding. In addition, its purpose was to manage the parliamentary Conservative Party.

The United Kingdom has practically no experience of referenda - they are very rare but along comes David Cameron and suddenly we have three of them - one to consider our voting system, another to consider Scottish independence and a third to shut the paleolithic wing of the Tory Party up ... oops ... to determine continued membership of the EU.

Countries which do use referenda for political determination usually insist on supermajorities to determine future action, that is at least half of the entire electorate being required to change constitutional situations. In the Brexit referendum only 37% of the electorate supported a huge constitutional change. Therefore nearly two thirds of the electorate did not support the change.

It is clear that the electorate was poorly prepared for the vote. There was little reliable information available - the most influential information was an inaccurate slogan painted on the side of a bus. Measured information prepared by the Remain camp was dismissed as "Project Fear" - without any consideration or discussion by leave. A number of people appear to have been swayed by the decision of a certain politician to support leave because he judged it useful in his desire to become Prime Minister. The fact that he subsequently displayed himself to be of questionable competence during his relatively brief reign as Foreign Secretary may not have been noticed by his fans.

I doubt that there will be any rioting or disturbance in the event of a "Remain" result in any future poll.

[ProfessorDavey]

Presumably the UK's citizens would be able to live and work in the EU if it was a member of EFTA?

And EU (and other EFTA state) citizens will be able to live and work in the UK, exactly as they do now. In other words no change to freedom of movement. How do you think that is going to go down with the majority of brexiteers.