If there is a second referendum ...

adindas

Herzlos wrote: »

Ah, so you're talking about trying to threaten the EU that we'll pull our money / military / intelligence if we don't get a special deal? I can't see any of that working, unless your plan is for us to be completely isolated.

You could also add the option of invading Ireland to be put on the table.

Has the UK put this option in the negotiation table? How could you know this will not be working if you haven't tried it.

History has proven, one of the most efficient way to take control is to use the power. Negotiation is about power.

Filo25

adindas wrote: »

You could also add the option of invading Ireland to be put on the table.

Has the UK put this option in the negotiation table? How could you know this will not be working if you haven't tried it.

History has proven, one of the most efficient way to take control is to use the power. Negotiation is about power.

Not sure if trolling or really stupid.

Herzlos

I was going to say the same thing. I can't even tell if s/he is suggesting a valid negotiating tactic against the EU is to threaten to invade the EU?


Assuming it's a real idea, how would that work? Do you think France, Germany and the rest of NATO would stand back and let us annex Eire? How long do you think we'd survive at war with Europe, considering we'll looking at massive supply issues with a WTO Brexit?

I doubt the US would intervene though, which is something.

andrewf75

chucknorris wrote: »

I definitely want to remain, I think that we should have a second referendum, and if the result is still to leave, then we should take a tough stance and use brinkmanship to drive a hard bargain, and if the EU calls our bluff, we should leave with no deal, but make it clear to them from the very start that we'll do it without hesitation.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the EU in these negotiations. They don’t play games, it’s a bureaucratic organisation that has rules that they won’t budge from. Its not a business deal. The various options are and have always been quite clear, they just want to know what kind of relationship we want and then the details and transition can be agreed. They won’t suddenly concede things because they’re worried we will crash out without a deal.

I can’t believe people still think there is a bargain to be driven. If we don’t want a customs union then Canada is the deal we’re headed for. There will be negotiation, but not over the major points. This talk of a Canada +++ is fantasy. If you start adding +s to Canada then at some point it becomes Norway and the point at which that happens is set in stone not up for bargaining.

Its not “taking a tough stance” that will move things forward, its simply coming up with a realistic proposal, which respects the rules that everyone should know by now!

Malthusian

Funny how Remainers insist that we base our decisions on the assumption that future stock crashes, future recessions and future mass unemployment are an absolute certainty, rather than a projection from a thinktank.

But when it comes to the assumption that the EU will continue to seek "ever closer union", which is not based on a thinktank projection but EU constitutional policy, they claim we should pretend it won't happen until it's too late to do anything about it.

Yes, we can do a France and ignore EU edicts. But we won't. Ever. Sir Humphrey: "When it comes to EU directives, the Germans love them, the French ignore them and the Italians are too chaotic to enforce them. Only the British resent them."

The British voted Leave so that the Government could no longer use "it's an EU directive" as an excuse. Once the UK leaves, everything the UK Government does will be clearly its own responsibility.

Which of course is why the majority of current MPs are crapping themselves.

StevieJ

Herzlos wrote: »

I was going to say the same thing. I can't even tell if s/he is suggesting a valid negotiating tactic against the EU is to threaten to invade the EU?


Assuming it's a real idea, how would that work? Do you think France, Germany and the rest of NATO would stand back and let us annex Eire? How long do you think we'd survive at war with Europe, considering we'll looking at massive supply issues with a WTO Brexit?

I doubt the US would intervene though, which is something.

Unless old Trump fancies us for Airstrip One :eek:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four#/media/File:1984mapoftheworld.png

StevieJ

Malthusian wrote: »

But when it comes to the assumption that the EU will continue to seek "ever closer union", which is not based on a thinktank projection but EU constitutional policy, they claim we should pretend it won't happen until it's too late to do anything about it.

Why would it be too late to do anything about it?

LHW99

None of our current concerns are the fault of the EU. Some of our future ones may be, so why not wait until the future ones become current concerns and decide what to do?

If it is difficult to leave the EU now, I can only assume it will become even more difficult as time passes.

StevieJ

LHW99 wrote: »

If it is difficult to leave the EU now, I can only assume it will become even more difficult as time passes.

It would be a lot easier if there was a reason to do it e.g. being forced to join the Euro.

Filo25

adindas wrote: »

Yes indeed I agree, how stupid those who said trolling as they are too stupid to see that the poster is using a real ID not a newly created ID or fake ID to post.

Fair enough, stupid it is then