But what deal are we actually talking about? I never understood the clamour to get "no deal" off the table. It simply doesn’t make sense from a negotiation standpoint. I don’t care if you’re in favour of leave or remain, to go into negotiation by telling the the other side you’re not going to do what they most don’t want you to do is at best “bad tactics” (I’d put it much more strongly!) Once "no deal" is removed you are back to May’s “deal” which is not a good deal, but one the EU will feel no need to renegotiate as the UK is not offering/bargaining with anything different. In fact, the EU have repeatedly said that they are not going to renegotiate, so what has changed? Remember that this is also the same deal which has failed to get through parliament three times. There is nothing good going to come out of this.
So in 1975, the referendum result stood and legislation was enacted accordingly because the wishes of 17m odd of the electorate was in line with the wishes of 600 odd in Parliament. And you are saying that in 2016, legislation has not been enacted accordingly, because the wishes of 17m odd of the electorate is NOT in line with the wishes of 600 odd in Parliament. Even though 500 odd of that 600 odd willing invoked legislation that by definition has dealing with the EU on WTO terms as a possible outcome. Your point has been clearly made.
Not so. You can get significant change by : 1. Forcing as close to 100% turnout as possible (mandatory voting) . 2. Putting a "none of the above" (NOTA) on the ballot paper, and in any environ where NOTA is the majority the elected is drawn by ballot for those put in the bag (simple statistics will suffice for who goes in) .
Two options : 1. WTO terms 2. Some agreement, on a spectrum ranging from #1 to intra-EU member terms. Citizen May worked a deal on the #2 spectrum. Parliament rejected it three times of asking. Meanwhile they at least 12 months earlier voted 5:1 in favour of legislation that made #1 a legal outcome. "I never understood the clamour to get "no deal" off the table. It simply doesn’t make sense from a negotiation standpoint. I don’t care if you’re in favour of leave or remain, to go into negotiation by telling the the other side you’re not going to do what they most don’t want you to do is at best “bad tactics” (I’d put it much more strongly!)" You (similarly to any of those who voted leave) , are just too stupid to understand why the above is in fact supremely intelligent strategy. Perhaps like me, that page of your undergrad Game theory course notes never got included in the paperwork you were given.
The problems started when Theresa May activated Article 50 without the slightest idea what she was doing and with not a scintilla of understanding of what was possible from the EU. I think she did that to increase her popularity and profit in a general election less than 3 months later. So, clueless, we entered into a one-way process where the EU told us what they expected. We've never put together a joined up or workable alternative. I suspect because there's little agreement for any one position with everyone imagining a different beast that suits their ideology. That doesn't mean their isn't an acceptable alternative deal to be had but it does indicate that there's little appetite for the hard work and compromise it would require from this country and its politicians. Especially whilst a proportion of them think that No Deal or the threat of No Deal will save them. No Deal's problem is a bit like the nuclear deterrent. You can have it and rattle its sabre but will you ever use it? The problem with using it, is the fall out is terrible and will last for decades and probably **** the country over a treat. The EU know this. If they roll over to this threat, it won't be long until the next country is pulling the same stunt to get some deal or other. Electing Johnson and all of his machinations hasn't seen them flinch at all. They weren't (before Parliament tied his hands) and still aren't (with all of his threats to ignore the law of this country) beating a path to his door to fold their position. There's no indication that they're going to cave in to threats and at this point, are wiling to let the UK go, if we're mad enough to press the button. The unpalatable truth is we'll be a country on our own and the rest of the world will do a lot better than us in coping with the consequences. The threat of No Deal is actually aimed at us and increasing numbers of politicians are willing to forego their nice safe seats to try and prevent the lunatics who are now running the asylum from going for it.
Pretty much spot on. I think they actually started to believe their own rhetoric. ‘They need us more than we need them’, ‘it’ll be the easiest trade deal in history’, etc. One of the things that pissed off the EU officials in the early negotiations was the arrogance of the UK delegation. No doubt driven by their misapprehension as to just what their position actually was. Another, as you’ve alluded to, was the almost complete lack of knowledge as to how the EU worked, it’s constitution, what they would move in and what they would never move on. I suppose the genius, David Davis, summed up the vacuity of the then situation by suggesting that if the EU wouldn’t give us a deal, he would go and negotiate one with Germany bilaterally. As Eric Morecombe used to say, You can’t argue with that!.
David Davis never bothered to acquaint himself with anything resembling facts, what was it he said? 'He didn't have time' Why am I laughing
Any hope of getting anything from the EU were obliterated within the first fifteen minutes of negotiations beginning thanks to parliament's besht mate David Davish agreeing to every single one of the EU's demands without putting up much of a fight, meaning that May's deal was based on the bare minimum that the EU were offering entirety due to the drunk she dispatched to Brussels to negotiate terms for getting a deal ****ing it up in about as much time as it takes me to get a train from Croydon to London Bridge That's where May's threat-based strategy became truly deranged: she appointed the bloke who killed any leverage they could have had (and didn't sack him on the spot when he bollocksed it up) yet kept making threats that not only further weakened her position, but the EU could simply ignore all of it due to Davis conceding everything already
I looked forward to your precis as to why requiring nearly all of the electorate to vote for one/none of "the above" , will not affect the status quo, Especially given that it immediately kills one of the longest lies in political party existence ...
I wonder if "the man in the street" really cares if he is really interested in being in the EU or not? His only interest may be sitting in the sun in Spain or somewhere or taking his family to Blackpool(?)….or worrying about his dart or cribbage team.
Five years ago nobody in this country gave a toss about the Irish backstop Now there's thousands who seethe themselves to sleep every night obsessing over it Thanks, Boris!
7 out of 10 of the "man in the street" "cared" enough to go to a polling booth to make their opinion count either way (when the long-term UK election average is AT BEST 1 out of 2) . Does that answer your question ... ??
