Britain and Brexit business

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

This sums up a lot of recent Brexit Twitter.

 

[fraurosena]

This is an historic loss for a British government. 

And that's why Jeremy Corbyn has tabled a vote of no confidence, to be voted upon tomorrow.

More info here:

Brexit: Theresa May's deal is voted down in historic Commons defeat

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by fraurosena

[LittleOwl]

BRB going to ASDA to buy all the loaves of bread.. 

[fraurosena]

And so the chaos continues.

 

[Ozlsn]

On 12/12/2018 at 9:05 AM, prayawaythefundie said:

A majority of voters wanted to leave the union. I don‘t believe that many of them have changed their minds. 

I think enough of them have changed their minds now that they've seen what a balls up the government is making of the actual process and how much they were misinformed if not actively lied to during the campaign. It would only take 1,269,502 people to vote the other way - well within the realm of possibility. If you re-held the referendum again today I suspect the result would be different, but who knows how close it would be. 

At the very least I wonder if a 12 month delay is possible - the situation right now looks like it will be a disaster.

(Side note: it always surprises me a bit given how close the result was that there isn't provision and/or an automatic trigger for re-running if it is within a certain threshold, maybe 5-10%? This would give everyone some more debating time and say another 12 months to think things over without effectively splitting the country. Failing that a "double majority" requirement - there must be a majority of the vote AND an overall majority in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and any other bits that I'm not quite sure where they fit. Ok I'm thinking Channel Islands here, but there are probably a couple of other weird ex-colonial oddities that I don't know about - would help reduce some of the split in the community. Water under the bridge now of course!)

[laPapessaGiovanna]

6 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

At the very least I wonder if a 12 month delay is possible - the situation right now looks like it will be a disaster.

Personally I am on the fence about this. I guess it would offer some relief to a very tense debate, but I don't see how it would be resolutive or even really helpful in any way. If two years and a half weren't enough to draw up a shared plan I don't see how some more months of time would help. It would prolong the uncertainty to nobody's benefit.

Also, from a purely EU pow it's a bad idea. Currently it is as if we are still married to a partner that has already filed for divorce two years ago, keeps telling us how much we suck on an everyday basis, whose things are still scattered throughout the house and sleeps in the guests room. They need to make up their minds. Soon.

Also from a political standpoint a delay makes zero sense. We will have the EU elections in May. The Brexit thing must be solved by then, the anti-EU populists are already too strong, another vitriolic campaign over insert-country-name-exit would be very harmful. Also what would the UK do? Would they take part in the elections and re-elect Farage &Co?

Brexit needs to be a pivotal point for the EU, with or without the UK, the choice is up to Britons, it doesn't matter, we need to come out of this with a strengthened and improved EU, for the sake of everyone. And a dragging on Brexit would be of no help at all.

Edited January 17, 2019 by laPapessaGiovanna
Grammar

[prayawaythefundie]

On 1/17/2019 at 5:41 AM, Ozlsn said:

It would only take 1,269,502 people to vote the other way - well within the realm of possibility. If you re-held the referendum again today I suspect the result would be different, but who knows how close it would be. 

I think I‘ve seen some „what if“-prognosis that suggested results about as close as the first time but in reverse, something like 52 % saying they would now vote remain and 48 % saying they would still vote leave. So yes, technically that could stop brexit as it seems there is no margin too close to count.

BUT that would not solve the problem. The country would still be split about this and almost half of the people would feel that their vote was being ignored. That „the powerful“ would just keep having referendums until they get the results they want. It would not help with their EU skepticism (that‘s putting it mildly) at all. 

I agree with @laPapessaGiovanna that the British perspective of it all is one thing but the rest of the EU will have to deal with this as well. Neither dragging out the process of leaving nor going back and forth on leaving will help stabilize the EU as fragile as it already is. 

[Ais]

Not sure if this is the correct thread for this, but it's 1:30 am, everyone else in my house is asleep and I need to share my astonishment at the capacity for idiocy that politicians have achieved lately! If it wasn't so bloody terrifying and maddening it would be hilarious.

The Good Friday Agreement is far from perfect, I'm aware of that. But in the years before it 3,500 people died. Thousands more were physically maimed and the country as a whole suffered ongoing mental trauma to a greater or lesser degree. 

This is not an agreement that came easily. Years and years were poured into it before it was turned over to the electorate to examine and debate. Unlike the Brexit deal, the Good Friday  Agreement was presented to the people of Ireland - North and South as a finished document. People had a chance to read it, debate it and understand it before making a decision. And make a decision they did. The 94% voted Yes in the Republic while 71% voted Yes in the North.

The decision to vote for or against it tore people and families apart. Was voting yes and granting freedom to your loved ones killers a betrayal of their memory or a necessary evil to move forward and spare another family from experiencing your pain? Not to mention the injustice and indignity of having many of those, on both sides, go on to a political career. A career in which they not only lecture the rest of us without a hint of irony but continue to play with our futures like a housecat with its prey.

We have been without a functioning government for more than two years. Our education system is on its knees with parents supplying schools with supplies like toilet paper and propping up budgets with fundraisers. Our most vulnerable children are being isolated from activities due to a lack of funds because there is no government to oversee a budget. Our health system is also on its knees and fighting an ever-increasing mental health crisis. We are in economic crisis, women have no rights over their own body and we still don't have equal marriage for all. All while our politicians engage in a game of one upmanship with each other, claim a wage and expenses, but refuse to work.

A car bomb went off in Derry/Londonderry last night, moments after a group of teenagers walked right beside it. That was our past, no one with any sense wants it for our present or our future. 

As I say, I'm well aware that the Good Friday Agreement is not perfect. But it's what we have. It can not be used a plaything or a bargaining tool by any side, for any reason. There are literally lives depending on it.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Ais
Spelling, grammar and anger are a terrible combination!

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Ozlsn]

On 2/9/2019 at 9:03 PM, AmazonGrace said:

 

There is part of me that finds this utterly hilarious, in a wincing kind of way. I mean... how did that even happen? Who owns that firm?

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

I'm thanking John Oliver for his personal Brexit to the US!  And now he's baaaa-ack for a new season.  Watching the Brexit part of Friday's show, I'm starting to understand what a disaster this is for the UK. One example: in the port of Dover, taking 70 seconds more to screen each semi disembarking from a ferry would quickly back up truck traffic for SIX DAYS. 

Note, YouTube now inserts random ads randomly throughout the video; it's hella annoying.  If you have another platform to watch this, go for it! 

 

[Cartmann99]

10 hours ago, Howl said:

I'm thanking John Oliver for his personal Brexit to the US!  And now he's baaaa-ack for a new season.  Watching the Brexit part of Friday's show, I'm starting to understand what a disaster this is for the UK. One example: in the port of Dover, taking 70 seconds more to screen each semi disembarking from a ferry would quickly back up truck traffic for SIX DAYS. 

Note, YouTube now inserts random ads randomly throughout the video; it's hella annoying.  If you have another platform to watch this, go for it! 

 

I keep hoping that someone will figure out a way to stop this slow motion trainwreck.   

[fraurosena]

9 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

I keep hoping that someone will figure out a way to stop this slow motion trainwreck.   

At this point, only one of two things will happen. They will either rescind their Article 50 proclamation at the very last minute, or they will have a no deal Brexit. Or, maybe a third option... they will do the no deal Brexit thing, regret it almost immediately, and renegotiate rejoining the EU.

Unless they go with option one, it's not looking good for the UK. 

Another game well played by Putin.

[Ozlsn]

Can they actually rescind the Article 50 though? I think at this point they're stuck with option 2. There is not enough time to negotiate anything and they aren't going to get a consensus in Parliament as far as I can see anyway. The jokers who sold the "everything will be the same, but we'll be totally independent" message left a long time ago - why stick around when their main job was done?

As to rejoining... will the EU have them?

[fraurosena]

According to the rules the UK can rescind the Article 50 any time they want before 11 pm on March 29 when they officially leave the EU. It will be have to be done by an act of parliament. 

Here's an article detailing the court of European judges' decision on the matter:

Article 50: Law officer says UK can cancel Brexit

If they do choose to leave, which like @Ozlsn says will likely be a no deal brexit, rejoining is always possible. In fact, the EU would welcome them back, as it is in the best (economic and political) interests of both the EU and the UK for the UK to be part of the EU. However, I think those negotiations will be tough and certain hard non-negotiable requirements will be placed on the UK. It won't be as good a scenario for the UK as it is now while they are still part of the EU, but it will most certainly be better than a brexit, with or without a deal. 

It still amazes me how May has made such a radical about-face on Brexit compared to what she publicly stated in 2016.

Theresa May on Brexit: Then and now 

Quote

Theresa May has said the UK will emerge from Brexit as a "great, global trading nation", becoming "safer, more secure and more prosperous".

But in April - before the EU referendum - the then home secretary gave a speech warning of the implications of a vote to leave the EU. Here's how some of the key quotes compare:

Leaving the single market

April 2016: "So, if we do vote to leave the European Union, we risk bringing the development of the single market to a halt, we risk a loss of investors and businesses to remaining EU member states driven by discriminatory EU policies, and we risk going backwards when it comes to international trade.

"But the big question is whether, in the event of Brexit, we would be able to negotiate a new free trade agreement with the EU and on what terms."

January 2017: "I respect the position taken by European leaders who have been clear about their position, just as I am clear about mine. So an important part of the new strategic partnership we seek with the EU will be the pursuit of the greatest possible access to the single market, on a fully reciprocal basis, through a comprehensive free trade agreement."

April 2016: "The reality is that we do not know on what terms we would win access to the single market. We do know that in a negotiation we would need to make concessions in order to access it, and those concessions could well be about accepting EU regulations, over which we would have no say, making financial contributions, just as we do now, accepting free movement rules, just as we do now, or quite possibly all three combined.

"It is not clear why other EU member states would give Britain a better deal than they themselves enjoy."

January 2017: "If we were excluded from accessing the single market, we would be free to change the basis of Britain's economic model.

"But for the EU, it would mean new barriers to trade with one of the biggest economies in the world. It would jeopardise investments in Britain by EU companies worth more than half a trillion pounds... and I do not believe that the EU's leaders will seriously tell German exporters, French farmers, Spanish fishermen, the young unemployed of the eurozone, and millions of others, that they want to make them poorer, just to punish Britain and make a political point."

International trade deals

April 2016: "It is tempting to look at developing countries' economies, with their high growth rates, and see them as an alternative to trade with Europe. But just look at the reality of our trading relationship with China - with its dumping policies, protective tariffs and industrial-scale industrial espionage. And look at the figures. We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets."

"And while we could certainly negotiate our own trade agreements, there would be no guarantee that they would be on terms as good as those we enjoy now. There would also be a considerable opportunity cost given the need to replace the existing agreements - not least with the EU itself - that we would have torn up as a consequence of our departure."

January 2017: "We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe. Countries including China, Brazil, and the Gulf States have already expressed their interest in striking trade deals with us."

Immigration

April 2016 (responding to a question from the BBC): "What matters is that we have brought about changes in the free movement rules as a result of the negotiation."

January 2017: "As home secretary for six years, I know that you cannot control immigration overall when there is free movement to Britain from Europe."

Not reaching a deal

April 2016: 

"With no agreement, we know that WTO rules would oblige the EU to charge 10% tariffs on UK car exports, in line with the tariffs they impose on Japan and the United States. They would be required to do the same for all other goods upon which they impose tariffs. Not all of these tariffs are as high as 10%, but some are considerably higher."

January 2017: 

"And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise - while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached - I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.

"Because we would still be able to trade with Europe. We would be free to strike trade deals across the world. And we would have the freedom to set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the world's best companies and biggest investors to Britain."

 

[Ozlsn]

7 hours ago, fraurosena said:

It still amazes me how May has made such a radical about-face on Brexit compared to what she publicly stated in 2016.

May is a politician, and I think, a realist. The referendum's been had, this was the choice made, OK, we go forward from here. I suspect 2016 is closer to her private views, but she's now in charge of the Brexit process for better or worse so she'll toe the line as The People Have Spoken and that is her job. Interesting how many of the top pro-Brexit members of her own party left once it became apparent that their rhetorical flourishes during the campaign were in fact bullshit and getting an exit everyone could live with was going to be hard work.

8 hours ago, fraurosena said:

According to the rules the UK can rescind the Article 50 any time they want before 11 pm on March 29 when they officially leave the EU. It will be have to be done by an act of parliament. 

Ah, I knew they could rescind but thought the deadline was much earlier. Mind you the way things are with this Parliament... I suspect it'd get passed at 11.58pm. Or 12.01am March 30th. Interesting times.

[Howl]

Do  US Russia-bot politicians have a finger in this pie? Of course they do! 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

A moment of lightness:  France’s EU minister names her cat ‘Brexit’ because ‘he meows loudly to be let out but won’t go through the door’  Nathalie Loiseau is France’s lead minister in charge of Brexit

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Ozlsn]

I cannot believe how this is going, seriously. How close to the wire can this get?

Although I did enjoy this Soft Border Patrol sketch and "softly, softly catchee donkey" may be my new favourite saying.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

On 3/19/2019 at 12:29 AM, AmazonGrace said:

Love this insane fail AND as a cyclist that does a lot of commuting, I find myself fascinated by the yellow striped bike/pedestrian accommodation on the left of the pic. 

Crazy heavy traffic all over the place, but there's a way for people on foot and bike to navigate it all.