National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

Brexit - Deal or No Deal?

  • Deal

    Votes: 51 29.1%
  • No Deal

    Votes: 77 44.0%
  • Call in the Donald

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Call in Noel Edmonds

    Votes: 8 4.6%
  • I don't care anymore

    Votes: 37 21.1%

  • Total voters
    175
But the EU simply cannot give us a 'good deal' i.e. let us pick the bits of the arrangement we want to keep and those we want to get out of (if anyone actually agrees which items fall into which of those camps!). Because if they do, that is the end of the EU - every other country will sooner or later do the same, citing the UK as an example and precedent.

Of course, some of the swivel-eyed loons on the extremes of Brexit would like us to 'just leave' and throw our lot in with other trading partners such as the Trump-led US, the despotic and ambitious Chinese and probably the Saudis as well rather than deal with other Europeans (yes, we are) with whom we as a country and culture have far more in common.
We can’t cherry pick according to the EU, and have our cake and eat it. The EU is not for turning
 
Just wondering how Switzerland cope with having 5 "frictionless" borders and the EU are getting narky about 1 in Ireland??

They pay the EU money and follow EU rules without actually being a member, so unable to wield and influence when it comes to decision making.

"The relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union's single market, without joining as a member state."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland–European_Union_relations
 
For the reasons ZtH has stated! If one gets away with cherry picking, they'll all want to, which means the EU effectively no longer exists.

I wonder why these talks have gone on so long if there is going to be no give and take. May says it’s 95% done and dusted, presumably she means the thorny position relating to Ireland. I don’t know how that 5% will be resolved.
I’m sure the EU would like the situation sorted one way or another so that they can try and resolve the pressing issues inSpain and Greece.
I still think some deal could be done, the risk being that there could be a leadership battle in the Tory ranks, or maybe a general election with an uncertain income, and possibly back to the drawing board.
Currently the financial markets are in turmoil and I’m sure most people just want the government to get on with the task the electorate voted them in to do.
 
Also see now the EU has rejected the Italian budget. They have been overspending for years and it’ll be interesting how the ramifications of that unfold over the coming months.
 
But the EU simply cannot give us a 'good deal' i.e. let us pick the bits of the arrangement we want to keep and those we want to get out of (if anyone actually agrees which items fall into which of those camps!). Because if they do, that is the end of the EU - every other country will sooner or later do the same, citing the UK as an example and precedent.

Of course, some of the swivel-eyed loons on the extremes of Brexit would like us to 'just leave' and throw our lot in with other trading partners such as the Trump-led US, the despotic and ambitious Chinese and probably the Saudis as well rather than deal with other Europeans (yes, we are) with whom we as a country and culture have far more in common.
They could give us a better deal than for example Canada have.
Don't forget that when you say they can't give us a good deal, the worse deal we get the morevislt will adversely affect the EU Countries. So as gas been said it could be very bad news for Spain Greece and Italy.
 
For the reasons ZtH has stated! If one gets away with cherry picking, they'll all want to, which means the EU effectively no longer exists.
Really Pete? Many countries have different deals with the EU. I can't see how a compromise can't be found (Ireland however is clearly a sticking point).
The EU is built on flimsy you rations if the EU doesn't exist due to one Country getting a compromise deal?
 
Just wondering how Switzerland cope with having 5 "frictionless" borders and the EU are getting narky about 1 in Ireland??

Chalk and cheese. Switzerland is in the Schengen area and EFTA. I don't think many Brexiters - including you - would swap places.
 
  • React
Reactions: Ian
Also see now the EU has rejected the Italian budget. They have been overspending for years and it’ll be interesting how the ramifications of that unfold over the coming months.

The EU in this case I think had no choice as Italy had set a budget outside the rules that the country as part of the Euro had agreed to. It certainly will be interesting to see what will happen. I suspect the Italian Populist Govt will carry on with the present budget as I think they will quite enjoy a public spat with the EU.
 
I actually think that the idea of no flights is ridiculous.
The regulations and safety of UK flights Is right up there with anything in the World.
IF there is a difficulty then it will be due to a lack if a pragmatic approach not a safety issue.

Sigh. Nobody is suggesting that air safety is a problem in the UK. That's not what this is about.

The EU can't simply decide to rewrite international aviation rules on a whim whenever it sees fit - and even if it could, it would take time. The "open skies" policy is an international arrangement, not an EU one. It requires the countries at each end to have an air transport agreement. This is taken care of at the moment for flights between countries in the EU as we are automatically part of the European Common Aviation Area. A no-deal Brexit means we are no longer part of the ECAA. The ECAA is a single market for aviation services - yes, a single market, the thing you Brexiters think is so terrible and are all so desperate to be out of?

Perhaps you should have learnt this before you voted? I happily admit that I didn't know much about the above arrangements until I googled it just now. But then again, as a Remainer, I don't have to justify my lack of knowledge: my vote wasn't to throw a massive bag of spanners into a complicated mechanism that I didn't understand. I just knew it worked, so I didn't need to know the details and I left it to the specialists. You don't have that excuse - you (presumably) voted for this.

The world is a big complicated place. Simplistic Brexiter wishful thinking and appeals to pragmatism don't override international law. See also the Irish border, and god knows what else. You called it Project Fear - I thought of it more as Project Don't Press The Bloody Button Unless You Know What It Does.
 
Last edited:
The EU in this case I think had no choice as Italy had set a budget outside the rules that the country as part of the Euro had agreed to. It certainly will be interesting to see what will happen. I suspect the Italian Populist Govt will carry on with the present budget as I think they will quite enjoy a public spat with the EU.
Understandably, Italy's Govt feel like the EU sets budgets but then doesn't help with the self made migrant crisis of one of their biggest pillars of strength. Youth employment there is shocking and doesn't really change. Not being able to devalue the currency really put them on an EU made roller-coaster ride (largely of their own making).

It does highlight the lack of democracy in the EU when so many constituents (UK, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Austria) have had issues but no recourse to change the leaders, etc. More of the technocratic same.
 
Apart from Brexit negotiations and Cameron's negotiations beforehand* what issues did we have with the EU? I'm not talking about leavers issues but where our Govt (of all colours) had problems with the EU.

As for the others apart from being admonished by the EU nothing has yet happened to censure.

I don't think it has anything to do with democracy either unless you mean Hungary which has become, basically, an authoritarian regime. The financial/currency issues are down to them being part of the Euro, the countries agreed to those rules (which arguably don't go far enough so are a halfway house) rather than the EU per se.

Also, the migrant crisis wasn't helped but it wasn't of the EU's making. Merkel maybe should take a major brunt of it but you can't blame the EU for her domestic decision. The EU can't be blamed for Syria's civil war either or the economic woes of large parts of Africa (although in parts they haven't helped). The lack of a joined up approach with the levels of migration the EU can be criticised for but that each country operated differently within Schengen demonstrates each remains sovereign outside of the EU.


*Those issues were more ours as Cameron and previous Govts had recourse to treat EU immigrants differently, ie. such as if they don't have jobs after set period then they can be sent back. Other EU countries use such methods.
 
  • React
Reactions: Ian
Rebates, CAP, immigration, mandatory use the Euro to name but a few.

If you can't elect out a technocrat, there is something undemocratic there - why I support reform of the House of Lords BTW. If the EU followed their own rules on refugees claiming asylum in the first port of call, would it be where we ended up? Nope. How do refugees end up in Northern France? Why did not say Nein to Merkel?
 
Rebates, CAP, immigration, mandatory use the Euro to name but a few.

If you can't elect out a technocrat, there is something undemocratic there - why I support reform of the House of Lords BTW. If the EU followed their own rules on refugees claiming asylum in the first port of call, would it be where we ended up? Nope. How do refugees end up in Northern France? Why did not say Nein to Merkel?

And on the rebates issue, Thatcher won. Immigration, the EU hasn't forced anybody to take a quota, they tried but Govts refused so the Sovereign Govt trumps the EU. Also, again you are attributing a domestic decision by Merkel to the EU which is wrong.

People have ended up in northern France as they have moved across the Schengen area, an arrangement again we chose not to join and the EU had no problems with. So Greece, Italy etc should bear all of the Immigration? None of that changes that the EU didn't cause the migrant crisis.

The Euro wasn't mandatory for us and don't join the club if you don't want to follow the rules. All those countries in the Euro, chose to join the Euro or the EU with democratic decisions.

Where has our Govt gone into dispute over CAP?

Our Govt (democratically elected) along with the others put forward those technocrats and they can remove them. Even then those technocrats have to be voted on for approval (or not) by the democratically elected members of the European Parliament. So there is a democratic process although not a direct one.
 
If you can't elect out a technocrat

I'm always a bit puzzled by this objection - it seems a bit artificial to me. Unless you live in Maidenhead or you're a Tory MP, you can't get rid of Theresa May either, and wherever you live in the UK you have no say who the PM chooses as their cabinet. Democracy is always finite, and there has to be some element of appointment.

And if the EU's higher echelons were decided by one-person-one-vote across the EU, the President of the EU would almost certainly be German in perpetuity, since Germany is the most populous country in the EU - is that actually what you want? If your objection is genuinely about the way the EU is elected, but you can't suggest a better solution, then I suggest it cannot be a genuine reason and is just a reflection or a justification of your antipathy.

Personally (as a minority-party voter whose vote is almost always thrown away, or else has to be deployed tactically against the mainstream candidate I like least) I find it hard to accept that Westminster is any more democratic than the European Parliament (which is determined by PR, so the one place where I can vote with my conscience and still usually be represented).
 
And on the rebates issue, Thatcher won. Immigration, the EU hasn't forced anybody to take a quota, they tried but Govts refused so the Sovereign Govt trumps the EU. Also, again you are attributing a domestic decision by Merkel to the EU which is wrong.

People have ended up in northern France as they have moved across the Schengen area, an arrangement again we chose not to join and the EU had no problems with. So Greece, Italy etc should bear all of the Immigration? None of that changes that the EU didn't cause the migrant crisis.

The Euro wasn't mandatory for us and don't join the club if you don't want to follow the rules. All those countries in the Euro, chose to join the Euro or the EU with democratic decisions.

Where has our Govt gone into dispute over CAP?

Our Govt (democratically elected) along with the others put forward those technocrats and they can remove them. Even then those technocrats have to be voted on for approval (or not) by the democratically elected members of the European Parliament. So there is a democratic process although not a direct one.
The refugees are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country as per the Dublin regulation which covers all EU countries, they are not allowed free reign to choose where they end up. Greece is a safe country is it not? So when Mutti said come in, the EU should have told her it was not within her gift to do that and her domestic decision was a very clear break of their own rules that Germany signed up to. The quotas were a rare time where countries said no to the EU and they backed down.

The EU didn't cause the crisis, but their lack of spine with Merkel made it a lot, lot worse and the impact of it will be felt for many generations. For an organisation peeing it's pants about the NI border, they were remarkably lacking on something as important refugees and economic migrants...

On rebates and CAP, Blair went to the EU more puffed up than DC on 20 bottles of Coke and a kilo of Haribos, and came back with less money and no real reform.
 
I'm always a bit puzzled by this objection - it seems a bit artificial to me. Unless you live in Maidenhead or you're a Tory MP, you can't get rid of Theresa May either, and wherever you live in the UK you have no say who the PM chooses as their cabinet. Democracy is always finite, and there has to be some element of appointment.

And if the EU's higher echelons were decided by one-person-one-vote across the EU, the President of the EU would almost certainly be German in perpetuity, since Germany is the most populous country in the EU - is that actually what you want? If your objection is genuinely about the way the EU is elected, but you can't suggest a better solution, then I suggest it cannot be a genuine reason and is just a reflection or a justification of your antipathy.

Personally (as a minority-party voter whose vote is almost always thrown away, or else has to be deployed tactically against the mainstream candidate I like least) I find it hard to accept that Westminster is any more democratic than the European Parliament (which is determined by PR, so the one place where I can vote with my conscience and still usually be represented).
Its not artificial in the slightest. The UK, as a country, can choose to vote a new Govt in - and we see, if enough people get on a bandwagon, things can change quickly. The EU, citizens cannot do that- nor can we overthrow them. We, as citizens of Europe are unable to engender change on the likes Juncker, Tusk, etc or remove them. We are forced to live with their whims and views and they have no fear of being voted out.

My solution would in some respects be similar to the Electoral College System due to the large mass of land of Europe. Or simply follow the system now, but when voting, be asked to vote on a leader with the votes rolled up - at least a level of accountability. Anything has to be better than little accountability from top to bottom doesn't it? What would you do?

My antipathy is based on seeing a rabid bureaucracy that has no sense of fear about being ever voted out or being accountable for what it does. That is not democracy. It's a technocratic dictatorship that I glad we are leaving.
 
Thanks for engaging.

I think you're overestimating both the power and influence of Juncker, Tusk et al. over the EU, and the power and influence of the EU over the member nations.

I also don't see how an Electoral College solves the issue of Germany being the most populous country in the EU. A directly elected EU leadership would a) probably be German-dominated, unless you rigged the democracy to prevent it; and b) have a more powerful mandate than the mouthpieces they are at the moment - and I don't think many Brexiters would want either.

The idea that my one vote (usually rendered pointless by FPTP) among the Westminster electorate of 50-odd million has real power and my one (PR) vote among 500-odd million in the EU doesn't, seems to me about as worthwhile a comparison as weighing two grains of sand.

What would I do? Frankly, I don't really care. It's fine as it is, with the figureheads appointed (ultimately) by elected representatives of the member countries and a mechanism that makes sure each country is represented at the top tables. I don't see the EU as a "technocratic dictatorship" or a "rabid bureaucracy", but as a rather dull and worthy organisation that does lots of tedious and mostly uncontroversial but necessary things that make life slightly easier for most of us, most of the time, keeps its members from racing each other to the bottom, gives us some clout in a global economy, and lubricates the wheels of the member economies. All of which we'll either lose, or have to replicate at our own expense, when we leave. I just don't see the point.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom