Remainers - What do you want? When do you want it?

[optionalrationale]

We had the referendum, we had the legal challenge, we had the Supreme Court ruling, Article 50 has been triggered. The United Kingdom will no longer be part of the European Union.

So my questions to Remainers are
What do you want? When do you want it?

Here's what I want..

I want the negotiations to go well. I want future relations with our neighbours to be cordial. I want a good deal for UK and the EU. I want us to walk away if their demands are unacceptable (and stem from vindictiveness and to deter other members from following our lead). I want the UK to be free to make good trade deals with any country it wants. I want the UK to lead in creating a new model of trade without excessive interference in each partner's social and political arena.

I can just imagine thousands of voters (including the last few who actually fought Nazism unlike you), coming round to your logic and clarity of thinking.

I believe that those who analysed the results found that the people who actually did fight Nazism, voted to Remain. As did my MIL, who didn't serve in the Forces during the War but was working in factories on war work - aircraft and munitions in her case. So I think she counts as having fought Nazism. (Other parents have all passed away.)

MotherofFourDragons
Wallonia's block of the Canadian deal. So a Walloon PM (representing 3.5 million French speaking Belgians) is able to hold his own national parliament and the parliament of all 28 member countries ( representing hundeds of millions of people) to ransom in order to get his vested interested pandered to. In theory the parliament of the German speaking region of Belgium could do exactly the same.

And you call this democracy in action.

...countries of southern Europe have had significant problems of their own, not being able to collect tax and corruption

You would also make a great campaign leader alongside Jimmy Fallon and the LibDims.

Mother,

'The membership of the Euro is a difficult one, and probably with hindsight has not been good for the countries of southern Europe, but they have had significant problems of their own, for example not being able to collect tax and corruption, meaning their economies were not in great shape anyway..'

The above shows the inherent contradictions implicit in a single market without a single language, culture or tax system.

A lot of the world has similar problems to southern Europe but makes adjustments by continuously devaluing their FX and thus keeping their goods and services competitive. Granted, this is at a lower living standard than other countries but it does stabilise employment and GDP while (hopefully) other more meaningful improvements can be made.

On the other hand, aided and abetted by banks like Goldmans, it was somehow thought that entering the Euro at as strong an exchange rate as possible was good for southern Europe (as it meant peoples existing Lire/Peseta savings were worth more in Euro). These countries thus entered the Euro at the least competitive exchange rate possible and have been hobbled ever since. The Euro has been a mechanism to tax Southern Europe and recycle the profits to Germany (in the sales of underpriced cars and industrial goods).

Some will agree that the Euro is fatally flawed but want the European project to continue. Again this is not really possible. Having a single market with countries able to devalue their currencies at will (and use differential tax rates competitively) will merely allow a race to the bottom and fatally undermine Europe's competitiveness with the rest of the world. Europe's understandable reaction to the UK trying to 'have its cake and eat it' is no different to how the EC would work without the Euro; it wouldn't.

I am not sure whether dealing with the eventual inevitable collapse of the Euro (and EU as is) is better from without than within. There is no good choice. I was a reluctant remainer, based on the frictional costs of leaving, rather than a commitment to the idea of the EU (and I did not understand the half of it!). However, we are where we are, and we should try and get the best deal possible, considering the size, power and momentum of our economy. The idea of no trade deal is analogous to MAD. Yes, the EU have more economic nukes than we do, but we have enough to cause devastating damage, too. The US is reluctant to go militarily head-to-head with North Korea, which is far more of a mismatch than us going economically head-to-head with the EU. Clearly there is a chance of misjudged brinkmanship, but I am optimistic a reasonable compromise will be reached.

BTW the parliament of the German speaking portion of Belgium represents 76,000 people. So the popluation equivalent of Cleckheaton could veto all EU trade deals.

Democracy in action. Efficient. Responsive. A perfectly designed institution

optional is also very trigger happy with the assumption of illusions of superiority of former white colonies like Australia and Canada, although admittedly allowing former colony India a look in, as partners to trade with over the less white Eastern European countries like Bulgaria, and North Africa. Since optional has not underpinned it with any actual facts about the nature of trade and trade flows then it sounds awfully like "feelz" ie prejudice and it does not do their cries of victimhood any favours.

As far as ASEAN countries are concerned the main issue is, as it actually is here, illegal immigration, and the subsequent exploitation. The less developed economies like Burma and Lao lose a significant proportion of their young people to Thailand and Singapore, but it is not an issue that will be addressed anytime soon because their economies need that cheap labour.

I have lived in Wallonia and don't think you understand the system of governance there. Belgium is a federation. Although it has a central government, some areas (including economic and industrial policy) fall under the jurisdiction of the regional governments of Flanders and Wallonia.

I also agree with PP who mentioned that it seems leavers will find fault either way. First the problem with the EU is that they are an undemocratic behemoth who can enforce rules on us that our government don't agree with. Then they start arguing that the EU is too cumbersome because decisions have to be approved by too many different governments.

Someone asked why the remain campaign didn't highlight the benefits of the EU as if random MNers could have had any influence over how it was fought, and that's certainly what I didn't get at the time either. But it would have been dismissed as starry-eyed europhilia, wouldn't it? Yes, the EU is flawed. No it isn't as massively corrupt as the British press would have you believe. But a binary referendum campaign can't do nuance or it gets abused as wishy washy.

These arguments about small populations being 'democracy in action' are a bit rich from a country which has the archaic First past the post system - where a handful of voters in key seats can get one party in, which can then hold the country to ransom. Where thousands feel they are unrepresented. As, I hate to say, with the UKIP vote. Farage, not normally one to concern himself with electoral reform, started bleating about the need for PR after the 2015 election. The Tories and Labour would suddenly find themselves converts if it was in their interest to do so.

Sorry not Cleckheaton, but more like a town the size of Tamworth. Tamworth town council represents about the same number of people as the 25 seat parliament of the German speaking portion of Belgium (76,000) people.

So 25 local politicians have the power to delay, obfuscate, stymie international trade deals that have been negotiated on behalf of 508million.

Democracy in action

Who is the Jimmy Fallon you keep referring to, OP?

But optional, are you suggesting the EU should override the systems of governance its member states has in place? Belgium is a relatively "new" country which has a very complex political history, with different regions being ruled by different governments over time. It therefore has a system of governance that allows decision-making at a regional level.

Someone asked why the remain campaign didn't highlight the benefits of the EU as if random MNers could have had any influence over how it was fought, and that's certainly what I didn't get at the time either.

Similarly, I find it bizarre that there are still posters on these boards who hold random MNers responsible for the Leave Campaign.

Larrygrylls
Excellent, excellent post. At least the Reluctant Remainers were honest about he fundamental flaws in the design and foundational principles of the EU and that there is zero appetite or mechanism to fix this - ever.

The Euro is a classic example of the EU overstepping itself in a way that ASEAN wouldn't. Unfortunately, its demise is now a matter of when not if.
The collapse of the Italian banking system will make Greece look like a rounding error. I only hope that we have left before we are asked to bail them out. I'm sure Ireland will be delighted though (now that it is a net contributor and has shown the world how to fix its own banking system without ANY help from the EU).

I'm noticing a trend with the OP's habit of changing names of people and parties in order to disparage them.

Its also hilarious that they criticise the EU for having to work withinn with the democratic processes of its member countries.

One minute the EU is anti democratic and a behemoth forcing countries to do things against their will. The next it is too slow and badly designed because it has to allow member countries to work within their democratic processes.

Make your mind up, it cant be both. Oh but it can cause lots of leave voters want to have their cake and eat it.

"I only hope that we have left before we are asked to bail them out."

Which demonstrates your ignorance of the topic. The UK is exempt from having to bail out Eurozone countries.

Twofingers
Jimmy Fallon is the leader of the Dim Liberal party. The fact that you don't even know this is a sad indictment upon our biased presss.

What?

Danny
Thank heavens for small mercies.... I do recall that the government of Greece got quite a bit from us to reward them for years of corruption, not collecting taxes and not doing basic arithmetic

But then, one Prime Minister, who hasn't won her own mandate, can decide that certain parts of the 2015 Tory Manifesto can be ignored, and what really matters is appeasing the hard right of her own party. Pontificating that 65 million people are behind her, doesn't make it so.

Danny
The executive of the EU is fundamentally undemocratic in the way it operates. The rules of the member states (and sometimes regional assemblies) is also a travesty of democratic principles in that tiny minorities (populations the size of Tamworth) are permitted to hold up progress that might be of benefit to 500 million.

The institution of the EU is fundamentally flawed by design.

Since when has Michael Fallon been a leader of any party? AFAIK he is the only person called Fallon in Politics.

Jimmy Fallon is the leader of the Dim Liberal party. The fact that you don't even know this is a sad indictment upon our biased presss.

Hilarious!

Peregina
If your party wins the next UK general election, you will be able to change all that. Good luck to ya.

So its undemocratic, because it has to work through the democratic processes of member states?

Righhhht..

Optionalrationale seems to have become irrational; almost as though s/he's passed the baton to a caricature of her/himself. An interesting and well argued thread in the main but the OP's more recent comments are surreal.