Brexit Thread

[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.

[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?