Brexit Thread

[Husar]

The referendum has given the government it's marching orders; the MP's promised to follow them and are expected to get moving and if they dont a majority of them will be evicted for those who do, case closed.

If that's so easy, why the need for a referendum?
Could have voted for a Brexit government right away.

You also make Brexit sound like anonymous.

[Greyblades]

If that's so easy, why the need for a referendum?
Could have voted for a Brexit government right away.

Because public support has never been that big for a pro Brexit government. None of the major parties wanted to touch the issue to avoid rocking the boat and the small ones that did were too untrustworthy, I mean 5 years is a long time to put up with a party who's only main attraction is removed the second they get into power, we lucked out with Cameron’s blunder as it let us get it done well before the kind of unrest accumulated to see a ukip givernment, this could have become a lot more messy.

[I of the Storm]

Personally, I'm rather disappointed by the stance the commission is taking. To be precise, by the fact that they apply the maximum possible pressure on UK's govt to declare article 50 by June 28 (which they won't do). I don't see what's to gain by taking this position. You'd think that a) it's a completely internal matter to the UK if or when they will declare their wish to leave the union and b) that it would be more sensible to wait and see what happens for a few days - or better: weeks. I don't get it.

This is probably the wrong place to ask but I do it anyway: Does this decision have to be taken to parliament or not?

[Pannonian]

Personally, I'm rather disappointed by the stance the commission is taking. To be precise, by the fact that they apply the maximum possible pressure on UK's govt to declare article 50 by June 28 (which they won't do). I don't see what's to gain by taking this position. You'd think that a) it's a completely internal matter to the UK if or when they will declare their wish to leave the union and b) that it would be more sensible to wait and see what happens for a few days - or better: weeks. I don't get it.

This is probably the wrong place to ask but I do it anyway: Does this decision have to be taken to parliament or not?

They're probably uncertain what to apply pressure on. The ruling party's leader has resigned and has made sure that his successor will deal with the mess. The main opposition party is falling apart with every hour. The country itself may not be in the same physical shape in a few months' time. Just what bits of the UK will still be within the UK when the time comes to kick its arse?

[I of the Storm]

Ok, then why apply pressure at all? Let them sort out their mess and watch.

"Pleasant it is, when over a great sea the winds trouble the waters, to gaze from shore upon another's tribulation: not because any man's troubles are a delectable joy, but because to perceive from what ills you are free yourself is pleasant. "

No?

[Greyblades]

There are two wills in action here: brussels bureaucrats and european leaders.

Brussels wants Britain out quickly; damage us by forcing us to rush negotiations and get bad deals with the intent of making leaving seem as unpalatable as possible "pour encorager les autres" in an effort to avoid having to reform the European Union to preserve it.

The European leaders on the other hand are trying to preserve a highly valuable customer for European trade and are willing to let the negotiations take thier time and preserve good will with Britain, as far as they're concerned preserving the EU is secondary to thier national interests. The only exception to this is France's Hollande whose national interest is tied to the EU.

[Gilrandir]

And Beskar I dont think the Guardian can be trusted anymore, its reporters were found out for lying and for goodness sakes its a front for George Soros

Soros came on the right side of it - counting his profits again.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/24/georg...it-plunge.html

Can Cameron hang on long enough to give us a third referendum, this time to divorce London and the south east from the rest of the country? That would conclusively solve the problem of London-centrism once and for all.

A new blend: Londependence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7101006.html

Brussels wants Britain out quickly; damage us by forcing us to rush negotiations and get bad deals with the intent of making leaving seem as unpalatable as possible "pour encorager les autres" in an effort to avoid having to reform the European Union to preserve it.

I like it! First they get a divorce decision, and then they hope to live in the same house for an idefinite time, get a share in the spouse's salary (until they get their finances in order) and have sex with him (until some time later). Now I know what siff upper lip is.

[Pannonian]

Consequences of Brexit

Leaders have made clear, before and after the vote, that Britain is not getting access to the single market.

“Out is out,” said Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister, some weeks ago.

“There will certainly be no cherry picking,” confirmed Mr Juncker, saying it will be a "clean" divorce.

More likely is a Canadian-style trade deal, that will set tariffs on imports and exports. That may be fine for German manufacturers. But Britain’s service economy will be cut up like an old car. British graduates are about to learn what it's like to use an Australian-style points system.

Article 50 is designed so that it leaves any state that activates it is a supplicant.

The remaining EU states will negotiate between themselves and deal with the UK as one, just as they would for Albania or Turkey.

If a deal covering trade arrangements isn’t struck once the two-year period expires, Britain is simply released from the EU treaties and left on crippling WTO terms - something the Treasury terms a "severe shock scenario" and which it envisages would likely result in a cut in GDP of six per cent and increase unemployment by 800,000, not including the risks presented by emergency spending cuts, or the "tipping points" presented by the crystallisation of financial stability risks.

It means the government will effectively be forced to take any fait accompli presented at the last minute, or face ruin.

Even then, any further trade deal will require ratification by EU parliaments, meaning Belgian MPs, amongst others, can veto it.

[Husar]

Personally, I'm rather disappointed by the stance the commission is taking. To be precise, by the fact that they apply the maximum possible pressure on UK's govt to declare article 50 by June 28 (which they won't do). I don't see what's to gain by taking this position. You'd think that a) it's a completely internal matter to the UK if or when they will declare their wish to leave the union and b) that it would be more sensible to wait and see what happens for a few days - or better: weeks. I don't get it.

This is probably the wrong place to ask but I do it anyway: Does this decision have to be taken to parliament or not?

The sooner we can rename it to Merkelreich, the better we will all be off.

[AntiDamascus]

I don't see what's to gain by taking this position. You'd think that a) it's a completely internal matter to the UK if or when they will declare their wish to leave the union and b) that it would be more sensible to wait and see what happens for a few days - or better: weeks. I don't get it.

Uh no, no it isn't. You can tell it's not an internal matter when it's.... you know, a union. Breaking a grouping is almost by definition not internal. I'm not sure why it's a shock to you that the people you're leaving maybe kinda sorta don't want to give you a nice way out, since you're hurting them and possibly killing the group in the long run.

[Pannonian]

Uh no, no it isn't. You can tell it's not an internal matter when it's.... you know, a union. Breaking a grouping is almost by definition not internal. I'm not sure why it's a shock to you that the people you're leaving maybe kinda sorta don't want to give you a nice way out, since you're hurting them and possibly killing the group in the long run.

I bet Frag's happy. After egging Brits on to do this, he gets to see how a Nexit would play out, but he doesn't have to pay the price of seeing how it does. Unlike London, which emphatically did not vote Leave. Bad luck London though, as the regioners tell us to suck it up and pay them what the EU will no longer be giving them, and you can't dodge this subsidy because you're physically joined to us so ner.

If there's an independence referendum for the south east, or anything amounting to the same, I would vote for it, to get away from the regions. London is culturally closer to the continent than to Cornwall, Wales and their like. I've been to the continent multiple times. I've never been to Cornwall or Wales, and it wouldn't hurt me if I never go there in my lifetime.

[InsaneApache]

On independence for London, just a couple of thoughts.

Where will you grow your food.

How will you generate enough electricity for the city.

It'd be like Leningrad.

[Pannonian]

On independence for London, just a couple of thoughts.

Where will you grow your food.

How will you generate enough electricity for the city.

It'd be like Leningrad.

London plus neighbouring counties is about as self-sustaining as London plus the rest of England. The south east doesn't need the rest of England.

[Husar]

Where will you grow your food.

How will you generate enough electricity for the city.

http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/question-mark.html

They could also get these things from trade, e.g. by rejoining the EU or leaving the UK before the (rest-)UK leaves the EU.
It just goes to show that the nation state is the best thing ever that consists only of like-minded people, so ideally no more than 5...

[AntiDamascus]

On independence for London, just a couple of thoughts.

Where will you grow your food.

How will you generate enough electricity for the city.

It'd be like Leningrad.

I dunno, I would think they need London more than London needs them. It'll be great really.

Or are we implying that being part of a greater whole, even if it's not perfect and sometimes bothersome, is better than breaking away? Cause that just sounds silly. :D

[I of the Storm]

Uh no, no it isn't. You can tell it's not an internal matter when it's.... you know, a union. Breaking a grouping is almost by definition not internal. I'm not sure why it's a shock to you that the people you're leaving maybe kinda sorta don't want to give you a nice way out, since you're hurting them and possibly killing the group in the long run.

That's not wrong but not correct either. UK's not quite there yet, as art. 50 hasn't been invoked yet. Only when there's an official declaration stating the wish to leave the EU by UK's govt., it becomes a multilateral issue.
Until then, it's strictly internal matter. Formally, we're dealing with a non-binding referendum. In theory the govt. could simply not give a fuck about it (disregarding the political consequences of such an action for the sake of argument).

I'm not leaving anyone btw. Not a UK citizen. I just think this matter should be handled more even-handedly.

[AntiDamascus]

That's not wrong but not correct either. UK's not quite there yet, as art. 50 hasn't been invoked yet. Only when there's an official declaration stating the wish to leave the EU by UK's govt., it becomes a multilateral issue.
Until then, it's strictly internal matter. Formally, we're dealing with a non-binding referendum. In theory the govt. could simply not give a fuck about it (disregarding the political consequences of such an action for the sake of argument).

I'm not leaving anyone btw. Not a UK citizen. I just think this matter should be handled more even-handedly.

You can't honestly expect the nations in the EU to sit on their hands and wait for the special words from the UK about it. Stuff happens after an election in the US but before swearing in because they don't wait until that moment to do stuff. It would be a mess. These nations aren't going to sit there and wait. Even if they change their mind (which I doubt unless it goes way way worse), the UK is going to deal with issues coming back in. You can't announce you're leaving, change your mind and then assume everything will be fine again.

You can't quit your job but not give an exact end date and then get upset when they start replacing you or cutting your access.

[I of the Storm]

You can't honestly expect the nations in the EU to sit on their hands and wait for the special words from the UK about it. Stuff happens after an election in the US but before swearing in because they don't wait until that moment to do stuff. It would be a mess. These nations aren't going to sit there and wait. Even if they change their mind (which I doubt unless it goes way way worse), the UK is going to deal with issues coming back in. You can't announce you're leaving, change your mind and then assume everything will be fine again.

You can't quit your job but not give an exact end date and then get upset when they start replacing you or cutting your access.

I'm quite sure that's not the point I made. I don't expect the EU to do nothing. I do expect them to prepare for all the consequences the brexit may bring. And there are several faits accomplis already. The burned money, UK universities barred from upcoming calls in Horizon2020 etc...
That's not what I was talking about.
What I object to is the "hurry up! Not gone yet!?" rhetoric of some (of the more objectionable) officials in the EU. It hasn't even been a week yet, ffs! If the UK doesn't get it's shit sorted by October, it's still early enough to get upset with them.

But preferring calm and common sense is apparently not en vogue these days anywhere.