Brexit Thread

[Greyblades]

I disagree with his assessment.

[Husar]

I disagree with his assessment.

Well, so far no article 50 has been evoked, what are you waiting for?

[Greyblades]

We're waiting for Theresa May to figure out how to do Brexit without destroying her career. She has 3 years before the consequences of not activating it becomes significant, until then she's free to drag it out and see if she can make the EU blink first and get the negociations to begin while we have the upper hand. She knows that if she can get this to work well she'll secure her position as the best prime minister in 40 years minimum, and if she fails her career's over.

[Brenus]

"while we have the upper hand." Have we?

[I of the Storm]

Doubtful. From your point of view it may seem so, but the rest of the EU "disagrees with that assessment" (Greyblades 2016).

[Greyblades]

I take their disagreement with a grain of salt, there's plenty left over after thier assessment of a sure remain vote fell through.

"while we have the upper hand." Have we?

Who's we?

As long as the EU, for whatever reason, is hollering at us to activate article 50 as soon as possible we hold a small degree of leverage, a chip on the table that isnt reliant on the possibility of the EU members' desire to make money off us being able to overpower Brussel's desire to punish us, though one with an expiration date.

[Pannonian]

Doubtful. From your point of view it may seem so, but the rest of the EU "disagrees with that assessment" (Greyblades 2016).

"If you don't give us what we want then we'll leave."
"You've already left."
"Err...then we'll...err..."

The logic of Brexiters surpasseth understanding.

[Greyblades]

Shouldnt that be: "If you dont give us what we want then we wont leave."?

[Pannonian]

Shouldnt that be: "If you dont give us what we want then we wont leave."

Frankfurt, Paris and other cities will be chipping away at London's financial services while all this is going on. The financial services that is the backbone of Britain's economy. They don't need us to leave pronto, although it would be more convenient. The uncertainty hurts both sides, but it hurts us more as we're the smaller economy. The EU also has the advantage in that investors know the position they will finish with: no common market access without free movement of labour. Whatever happens, investors in the EU will know there will still be a common market with free movement of capital and labour. Investors have no idea what kind of deal the UK will end up with, particularly as the voters were insistent that controlling immigration is the key part of their decision. Even if they don't pull out immediately, I expect investment in the UK to stop pending any future deal, especially if the UK government takes the same view as you do.

[Greyblades]

I do not share your faith in the stability of the EU, I dont think the EU does either.

[Pannonian]

I do not share your faith in the stability of the EU, I dont think the EU does either.

I trust that the EU will be reasonably stable. However, I know that the UK will not be stable.

[I of the Storm]

"If you don't give us what we want then we'll leave."
"You've already left."
"Err...then we'll...err..."

The logic of Brexiters surpasseth understanding.

Brussels' indoctrination made us become feeble-minded, is all.

Shouldnt that be: "If you dont give us what we want then we wont leave."?

Good! I'm glad we could sort this out.

I don't see how May can win this. If she thinks she must drive a hard line on the free movement issue, the market access deal won't live up to expectations in the UK and vice versa.
I can't see any leverage. I see a child that is asked to let go of a toy that it announced to not want it anymore because silly and now only wants to let go of the toy if it can keep it at the same time.

[Beskar]

Is it time to accept that Brexit will not happen?

[Greyblades]

Under May? Maybe, I can wait 3 years.

I don't see how May can win this. If she thinks she must drive a hard line on the free movement issue, the market access deal won't live up to expectations in the UK and vice versa.
I can't see any leverage. I see a child that is asked to let go of a toy that it announced to not want it anymore because silly and now only wants to let go of the toy if it can keep it at the same time.

A matter of perspective I see a child in a playground who has grabbed all the toys and demanding the other children eat a handful of mud every hour if they want to play with the toys.

May has to hold and hope the EU cracks before 2020, whether in patience or reality. Going by the upcoming Deutsche bank bailout, the continuing strain of the southern EU nations, the migrant crisis, the Swiss referendum, the memory of the dutch and Irish referendums and the rather unstable trend the world has been taking recently my money's on the EU getting sufficiently shaken up within two years.

[Brenus]

"Swiss referendum" Swiss is not part of EU. You can add the French referendum. I think you have a point.
Don't know for other countries, but in France there is a feeling of rejection of EU. The continual imposed by EU laws to break all the social net won by workers in the past, the perpetual refusal of democracy and the disdain from EU's "elites" started to make a dent in the "EU dream". EU s not any more symbol of peace, as EU imposes "liberal" economical agenda, even against the will of the voters, people against people, competing for the few jobs that imposed austerity created.
The next crack in EU might by France.
If Merkel doesn't abandon the race to east in order to get cheap labour, if Germany is seen again by the French as hegemonic, it might be heading for big trouble. And unlike UK, France is a pillar of EU.

[Greyblades]

Switzerland is not part of the EU but it is part of the single market and had a referendum a few years ago that voted against the freedom of movement. Obviously the EU hasnt been cooperative.

[Brenus]

"Switzerland is not part of the EU but it is part of the single market and had a referendum a few years ago that voted against the freedom of movement." And they didn't implemented it because in doing so, they didn't follow the EU rules so they would have lost the access to the common market. So, still freedom of movement in Swiss...

[Greyblades]

Yes, thus far they havent been capable of getting the EU to consider one without the other, we'll see how long that lasts.

[Furunculus]

"while we have the upper hand." Have we?

as long as the italian banking system teeters on the brink of oblivion, yes. yes we do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it time to accept that Brexit will not happen?

This is wishful thinking.

"Triggering Article 50 is reversible! Not many people know this. But the UK can formally trigger its Article 50 request and then withdraw the request before Brexit actually takes place, if the country wants to."

I see no evidence of this - here is the text:

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-50.html

There is no provision for withdrawing from negotiations for withdrawal. I suppose you could apply to join under Article 49 whilst negotiating an exit that stipulated you would immediately rejoin the moment you formally left but I see no evidence you can actually cancel withdrawal.

As much as Brexit might be toxic for the sitting government not triggering Brexit would be lethal, there's no way to defend ignoring a Referendum without inflaming the sentiment that voted to leave the "anti-democratic" EU.

A majority voted to leave, unless there is a substantive change, like a war or a financial crash, there's no way out of the trap. Parliament serves the people, and the people have voted to leave. Nowr is it apparent that a vote in Parliament is required to trigger Article 50, only that one is required to ratify the exit agreement.

[Sarmatian]

As much as Brexit might be toxic for the sitting government not triggering Brexit would be lethal, there's no way to defend ignoring a Referendum without inflaming the sentiment that voted to leave the "anti-democratic" EU.

A majority voted to leave, unless there is a substantive change, like a war or a financial crash, there's no way out of the trap. Parliament serves the people, and the people have voted to leave. Nowr is it apparent that a vote in Parliament is required to trigger Article 50, only that one is required to ratify the exit agreement.

People change their minds all the time, and what was once a pressing concern might become a non issue later. The politicians could stall for a few years, under the guise of preparation, or supposedly by trying to get EU to negotiate before Article 50 is triggered, or the old "we need another six months before we make our move otherwise X would happen which would be catastrophic".

By that time the world economy might be picking up, the streams of refugees a thing of the past and suddenly EU is not the big baddie anymore. The current lot of MP's are replaced and new ones point out that the referendum was basically a glorified opinion survey from some years back and new opinion polls show that majority of people now don't want to leave and it would be very undemocratic to vote according to what their constituents wanted several years ago rather then what they want now...

I don't see that scenario as impossible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

People change their minds all the time, and what was once a pressing concern might become a non issue later. The politicians could stall for a few years, under the guise of preparation, or supposedly by trying to get EU to negotiate before Article 50 is triggered, or the old "we need another six months before we make our move otherwise X would happen which would be catastrophic".

By that time the world economy might be picking up, the streams of refugees a thing of the past and suddenly EU is not the big baddie anymore. The current lot of MP's are replaced and new ones point out that the referendum was basically a glorified opinion survey from some years back and new opinion polls show that majority of people now don't want to leave and it would be very undemocratic to vote according to what their constituents wanted several years ago rather then what they want now...

I don't see that scenario as impossible.

It's not impossible, but it's unlikely unless there's a major geopolitical shift before the new year.

HOWEVER, what is rather more likely is that we take the "Norway" deal, agreeing to Freedom of Movement in return for access - the sop we get to molify the British public will be a lower contribution to the EU budget than we make now along with the control over fisheries, farming, home affairs and justice.

But then, see, the article Beskar linked was written by someone who doesn't want to leave and I just described my own ideal outcome, so maybe I'm just engaging in wishful thinking too. I think my scenario is more likely though - because it's leaving without really leaving as opposed to just not leaving.

[Greyblades]

I do not want a Norway deal, because I dont want Freedom of immigration, I'd love to be in the single market but I dont think it worth that caveat.

My reason for leaving was rooted in me wanting to stop seeing homeless people sleeping on the streets, I dont see that ever happening if we keep allowing in more people than we can employ and house.

We let in so many people, half the time with the intent of putting a higher cost local out of work. I know it is our politicians fault that 200,000-300,000 are let in each year, but I cannot ignore that even if we were to vote in politicians that would lower immigration they would stopped from dropping it low enough because of the EU's freedom of movmement rule. That was a problem that led me to a bigger problem; that even if we were to get our act together our attempts to make things better could be overruled by european beauracrats who clearly do not cater to my concerns and over who I have no influence.

The referendum was a ill planned mess but that was the nature of the thing, we werent asked how we'd do it, just if we wanted to. I knew we'd likely never be asked again; the EU wasnt listening and it was clear this was an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug by a politician who wanted to get a no vote while we were uncertain and use it as an excuse to never talk about it again. We didnt have the luxury of waiting for a Churchill or a Pitt to arise who could lead us through the trouble it would cause; indeed this was our only chance to get it done that didnt require putting in a less palatable political party in charge for 5 years.

So I and 17 million other people took it, through hell and high water. I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside.

[Beskar]

Don't worry, we are going into the Single Market with China instead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36877573

[Greyblades]

If ever there was a time for labour to rediscover a desire to defend thier namesake...

[Gilrandir]

My reason for leaving was rooted in me wanting to stop seeing homeless people sleeping on the streets,

That's where the shoe pinches! Now I will know that when I see a hobo in my city I should start a move for Ukrexit... Wait! Ukraine is not in the EU! How there can be homeless people here?

[Greyblades]

Be honest, you and husar didn't read further than the first line, did you?

[Sarmatian]

Be honest, you and husar didn't read further than the first line, did you?

To be honest, people rarely do that when it comes to your posts.

[Greyblades]

Well that explains a lot, I thought you were shit at debating but it turns out you just dont have the attention span for arguments meatier than single sentance jabs.

I explained my thought process that the EU freedom of movment was a major obsticle in reducing the homelessness problem; I get a jackass mockingly suggesting that I think the EU is the sole cause of homelessness.

[Husar]

Be honest, you and husar didn't read further than the first line, did you?

That sentence was in the fourth line, I even went back and checked because I had previously not read your post at all.
I found his reply funny, that's why I thanked it, I don't see thanking a post as purely showing political agreement.
Then again there is some truth to it, the existance of homeless people does not depend on immigration as far as I know.
If you want to drag me into this just because I thanked someone, why don't you start by proving that homelessness increases with immigration or showing the ways in which people can end up homeless and not get out of it? And by prove I mean please provide links about research or explanations, I'll accept almost anything for a start.

Actually, let me start:
http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/homel...f-numbers.html

If you don't have dependent children (known as ‘single homelessness') and you are not deemed to be more vulnerable than other homeless people, you probably won't be entitled to housing.
[...]
Homelessness for both men and women is often caused by an accumulation of events. However, the triggers and experiences of women's homelessness tend to be of a distinct nature.

Young people become homeless for a wide range of reasons but the most common is being asked to leave the family home by their parents.

Whilst the vast majority will not become homeless, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable to homelessness.

http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/und...f-homelessness

The most common reasons people give for losing their accommodation is that a friend or relatives are no longer able to provide support or because of relationship breakdown.

However, there are often a wide number of factors at play. Individuals can arrive at the point of homelessness after a long chain of other life events.

So why does the government not provide them with free housing? Because the economy would break down? Because everyone would want free housing? Because noone wants to pay for the required budget?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-perfect-storm

Why? A £7bn cut in housing benefit, welfare reforms and a huge lack of affordable housing
[...]
The turning point, Sacks-Jones says, was 2010. "That's when all forms of homelessness started to rise; when you got this toxic mix of unemployment, underemployment – people struggling on low incomes – and housing unaffordability, plus benefit reforms effectively breaking the housing safety net that has, until now, been a key part of the welfare state."

Can you name an incentive for people in the real estate business to build more houses if the lack of houses makes their existing ones worth more and increases their profit? And when did the EU force Britain to have benefit reforms? So far I see no real connection between the EU and homelessness. Will the dip in economic power after leaving the EU help on that front?