Brexit - Art 50 on Mar 29th

[Noradin]

for the important part: even May said it will be up to EU parliament and every parliament abroad ( the sometime stubborn Wallonia included then) to ratify the deal. Dunnno, wheter the ratification is by simple majority or indeed "everybody and grandma" will have to agree.

Both actually :P

[ranzino]

Both actually :P

I found something about on BBC:

Any exit deal must be approved by a "qualified majority" (72% of the remaining 27 EU states, representing 65% of the population) but must also get the backing of MEPs.

Ok, the voice of stubborn Wallonia is off the table then, but still.

[Noradin]

I found something about on BBC:

Any exit deal must be approved by a "qualified majority" (72% of the remaining 27 EU states, representing 65% of the population) but must also get the backing of MEPs.

Ok, the voice of stubborn Wallonia is off the table then, but still.

If I remember correctly there were also parts where every country must approve, and in that case Wallonia could veto Belgiums approval.
(They cannot make Belgium as a whole do something, but they can keep them from doing something. So if it can be vetoed then Wallonia does not get a say, if it need approval they get a veto under certain circumstances.)

[dribbles]

for the important part: even May said it will be up to EU parliament and every parliament abroad ( the sometime stubborn Wallonia included then) to ratify the deal. Dunnno, wheter the ratification is by simple majority or indeed "everybody and grandma" will have to agree.

now the breaking point AFAIK: for ratification the deal will have to be ready for parliament's tables by around oct 2018; it's not a 2 years period and then let them discuss the deal and then let us see. sorry, but 18 months or less is the death line already unless UK wants to hop in hot waters, arguing for a longer period nobody is obliged to grant. And T. May wants a free trade deal by then; well knowing EU does not negotiate such deals in 18 months, more likely 5 years or so.

To me she's heading for a disappointment from first second.

Considering nothing meaningful can be done until after French and then German elections at the end of September, if the Germans take 2 months to form a government like last time, we can't really start negotiations until January 2018 - we have 8 or 9 months at most.

[Slant]

So who has more reason to celebrate. The UK or the EU? Honestly based on most people I know, its people in the EU who are happier about this. Goes back to those old country rivalries and the whole fuck the British attitude.

Nobody has reason to celebreate. It's a desastrous idiocy affecting everyone negatively. The UK got duped by populists and the whole EU is going to pay the price for it.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a joke right?

The Euro is going down the toilet, multiple countries inside the EU are financially crippled and the Pound is going strong... how exactly is Britain the "weaker party" in this?

12 Trillion to 4 trillion GDP comparison says the UK is the weaker party. By a metric fuckton.

- - - Updated - - -

what does this prove?

Nothing.

The UK will be free to trade with every country on the planet as they see fit... who cares what trade deals the EU has in place, it doesnt affect the UK.

The UK will be free to trade with every country on the planet as they see fit. That is correct. And they'll get worse deals than they ever had with the EU. Because the EU has a bit more leverage than the UK. And also, what would the UK trade? They got nothing. All they get is being a money hub. Which is becoming more and more unattractive, the longer we talk about Brexit.

- - - Updated - - -

Which would be positive, since the EU is against anything having anything to do with democracy. You globalists do anything to destroy the world.

You're wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems like May realized that her "hard Brexit" bravado won't really work anymore. Her relatively short Brexit letter is full of soft language, mentioning how the UK wants a "deep and special relationship with the EU" seven times, and how she realizes she won't have the same access to the single market anymore.

The United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.

Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats ...
At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens. Likewise, Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Weakening our cooperation for the prosperity and protection of our citizens would be a costly mistake.

The threat at the end is laughably hollow though. My dad worked his entire life to prevent immigrants/criminals from crossing the channel to the UK (we mostly dumped them in Lille across the French border). Britain threatening Europe that if a prosperous Brexit agreement does not materialize it will have security implications, will bite Britain in the ass as well. It's a hollow, unnecessary and thinly veiled threat.

So, Brexiteers. Will you get that shit into your head now that your own PM said it out loud? No free movement, no access to the single market. Period.

- - - Updated - - -

LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

So traditionally the biggest 4 economies on the planet are the USA, Japan, Germany and the UK... lately China and India have risen up to join them.

Yeah the UK are fukked by themselves right, they have no financial power at all, no history of financial power, no experience with finance...

I repeat, how exactly is the UK 'weaker'???

You're trying to split up an entity (the EU) which can't be split up as far as third parties are concerned. The USA just recently learned that when the German Government sent their secretary for foreign affairs home with the advice "Go to the EU, they are the appropriate authority to adress your trade suggestion to."

So, while you can certainly split up the EU and just talk about Germany and France, because honestly, how else would you even have an argument, as far as the UK is concerned, that silly comparison doesn't compute. Opposed to the UK isn't Germany and France and all the other member states individually. Opposed to the UK is THE EU. Acting as one. Giant. Market.

You can laugh about it, but your negotiators are very well aware of how precarious the UK's position is. And how little they can actually offer to the EU.

[ranzino]

At least May was consequent: no single market deal because 4 freedoms are not her cup of tea. i could applaud her consequence if not for results.

btw.: Angie M. already torpedoed Th. May on her idea of parallel negotiations of trade and divorce. Not going to happen and Mutti Merkel's stance is the same as EU.
Brexit broken on day 1....precious, if true

[Slant]

Ok let me tell you a factual story about EU trade.

The EU has been working on a deal with Australia for over a decade now... but 1 or 2 members of the EU have been blocking that deal. Why?

Because the UK would benefit MASSIVELY from this deal... and some EU countries didnt want that. The UKs historical connections to Australia mean that the UK would have a massive advantage with a trade deal. In fact the UK has massive advantages from the old Empire... something some EU countries have never liked. India is the other country that the EU has continued to block and delay any trade deals.

But hey dont trust me... google it.

Apparently, the Australian FTA wasn't even in the negotiaton stage, but is entering it soonish.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...24-gs9o6f.html

This journalist from Reuters thinks Australia's best option is still the FTA with the EU, simply because of the UK's assumed reduced access to the single market and the EU's trade power.

http://theconversation.com/post-brex...-with-eu-61676

This reporter says Australia is not interested in any trade agreement with the UK until the situation post-Brexit is clear. That's 2 years minimum, folks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7380696.html

The EU actually has a trade agreement with Australia already. Had it since 2008. Who blocked what from whom just to spite the UK? That's a shitton of bullcrap you're hauling around there...

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/cou...ies/australia/

And so on and so forth. So I googled it, and nothing you said is true. How about that? I'd fake being surprised, but at this point nobody would believe me anymore...

- - - Updated - - -

Not so much, IMHO. It is in the EU's best interest to show that leaving the Union comes with an high price, one that not every country can afford - Italy, for instance, cannot afford to leave the EU - albeit a fair one. Otherwise they would just stir more anti-European feelings and rhetoric, which would lead to more countries questioning whether to stay in the EU and generally destabilize the union.

Thing is, we won't know for a decade or so if Brexit was actually beneficial to the UK or not and by then the political landscape in France, Germany, Italy, etc. might have changed. We don't know how the EU will look like in ten years or so and we don't know whether the UK leaving will ultimately help to strengthen the union or not - remember it is an important economical and financial partner, but has always been incredibly critic of the EU and not particularly willingly to join in the first place.

Currently, the EU really has no interest in negotiating Brexit in bad faith - and that's just from a political standpoint, without taking into account the economical and financial aspects of it.

People need to stop talking like that. Leaving the EU doesn't "come at a price". You don't "pay a fee" to get out. What actually happens is called "economic realities". If you're in a saving's club and you cash out and leave the club, guess what, you're not going to save in that club anymore. Do you go around saying "I paid 1000 Euros, because that's what I would've made if I had stayed in the club for 10 more years... but I wanted to go, so they made me pay it."

Wtf?

No offense, I'm not attacking your post. I'm just using it to illustrate the error in thinking people are doing. The EU isn't out to "punish" the EU or "demand payment" or "restitutions". What they're doing is far simpler than that. Look out for the EU's interest for future trades and make sure current obligations from both sides are met so we can part in an orderly fashion instead of having a mudslinging contest over who owed whom more. Seriously, has nobody ever witnessed a divorce before?

- - - Updated - - -

WHich has a sum value of ZERO.

Because the EU doesnt trade with ANYONE... each individual member of the EU does the trade.

Therefore the total value of EU members means jack shit.

You might as well say Africa has stronger economic power than the UK. By your logic thats true.

Just assuming you were right.. which you're not. If every country was trading individually... why the fuck did the UK want to go out again? I mean, I get it, you don't have the first clue about the EU but still want to be right, but jesus... you're making up shit as you go along and wonder why nobody agrees with you?

And actually, Africa and other regions are copying the EU's ideas of regional free trade agreements. The world is catching on to the idea. While the UK and the US are the only ones thinking isolationism is good, the rest of the world is banding together and scrambling to find suitable trading partners.

Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ade_agreements



- - - Updated - - -

I like Andrew Neil and think he talks a lot of sense but I don't believe that the EU not allowing cherry-picking is the same as "picking a fight". It goes without saying that the EU can't hand the UK an easy ticket - it's ridiculous to think they would. I'm not sure what wider context he was discussing this in.

On a different point: the idea that the UK would leave with no deal, if it was rejected by either the EU or its own parliament goes beyond reckless stupidity and enters a new realm of insanity.

It's not about easy or hard tickets. The EU considers those four pillars legally and absolutely inseperable. There is no negotiating on that. Period.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah - the opening exchanges felt too scripted. I like him when he gets vocal about stuff and interjects. And in fairness to May she was bound to be a bit nervy given what she's done today.

But I'm still not sure that her 'red lines' aren't there just for show and might be moveable... you have to wonder about what is bluff and what is real.

She has no red lines. The only lines that are clear are the ones the EU drew into the sand. Whatever May babbles in your national Parliament is meant for domestic attention. You will never hear what the UK actually offers until you see the final treaty and wonder "wtf just happened?"

[Teleros]

Seems like May realized that her "hard Brexit" bravado won't really work anymore

Which is why she's backed off from leaving the Single Market.

Oh wait.

Because, just to be clear, "hard Brexit" = "no single market". "Soft Brexit" = "not in EU, but still in single market etc".

Her relatively short Brexit letter is full of soft language

Because it's a PR thing for people like you and me is why. "We're leaving but we still want to be friends" sounds nice to normal people but will hardly matter when the diplomats are haggling over wine tariffs for the next two years .

mentioning how the UK wants a "deep and special relationship with the EU"

Because the UK *does* want a deep and special relationship with the EU.

Specifically, we want to continue the last five hundred years of British foreign policy, and drive a giant stake deep into the heart of any over-mighty state on continental Europe. Think of it like Van Helsing's deep and special relationship with Dracula .

PS - Once that's done, we'll be delighted to work closely with the free, independent and sovereign nations of Europe. Even the French.

Britain threatening Europe that if a prosperous Brexit agreement does not materialize it will have security implications, will bite Britain in the ass as well. It's a hollow, unnecessary and thinly veiled threat.

It's also entirely accurate. The UK is one of the biggest spenders on defence in Europe, is one of only two nuclear powers in the EU, is joined at the hip to the US intelligence and military machines in a way that none of the other EU nations are... yeah, a bad break-up absolutely could have big ramifications for security in the EU. I also think it's absolutely right for Mrs May to use this as a negotiating tool - not necessarily because it's moral or immoral, but because that's just the way realpolitik works.

[ranzino]

May may have red lines, but she is not the only one at the table and her teams is watched on every step of the process by parliament. EU will deliver a formal letter of response soon, but then it's up to April summit.

Fair guess: her letter was more nicer than expected, but still not nice enough. Sorry UK, you will not walk away from EU without some scars, self inflicted or not.

[Deleted]

We are taking back control. We are going to have a United Kingdom consisting of Wales and England. The other countries will love trading with us. Our weakened position means they can all exploit us. It will be great. The largest trading block in the world, the EU, said it would put its 27 member states interests first. America's Secretary of State for Business said it would be a great oppotunity to steal British buisness. Australia said its a great oppotunity to open new relations with Ireland so that they can have access to the single market. Great. Control.

[Slant]

Which is why she's backed off from leaving the Single Market.

Oh wait.

Because, just to be clear, "hard Brexit" = "no single market". "Soft Brexit" = "not in EU, but still in single market etc".

Because it's a PR thing for people like you and me is why. "We're leaving but we still want to be friends" sounds nice to normal people but will hardly matter when the diplomats are haggling over wine tariffs for the next two years .

Because the UK *does* want a deep and special relationship with the EU.

Specifically, we want to continue the last five hundred years of British foreign policy, and drive a giant stake deep into the heart of any over-mighty state on continental Europe. Think of it like Van Helsing's deep and special relationship with Dracula .

PS - Once that's done, we'll be delighted to work closely with the free, independent and sovereign nations of Europe. Even the French.

It's also entirely accurate. The UK is one of the biggest spenders on defence in Europe, is one of only two nuclear powers in the EU, is joined at the hip to the US intelligence and military machines in a way that none of the other EU nations are... yeah, a bad break-up absolutely could have big ramifications for security in the EU. I also think it's absolutely right for Mrs May to use this as a negotiating tool - not necessarily because it's moral or immoral, but because that's just the way realpolitik works.

Actually, soft Brexit is anything that was properly negotiated. A hard Brexit is the default separation of the UK and the EU, that is, instant loss of validity of EU legislation within the UK, whether or not the UK has replacement legislation in place. So, basically... a soft Brexit is negotiated, a hard Brexit is not and the EU would just close the door and call it a day.

The fun bit is that in the case of a hard Brexit, Britain would automatically leave all 43 trade agreements the EU negotiated over the years. The current plan of Liam Knox is to just copy all those trade agreements and replace any reference to "the EU" with "the UK". Again I ask, if the EU was so bad for the UK, why do that? Why the fuck do you leave if you just want to copy what the EU did in the first place? :P Additionally, this plan assumes that every trade partner of the EU is willing to offer the UK the same conditions. That's not going to happen as the example with Australia shows. Third countries are well aware of the situation and will seek this moment to take advantage of Britain.

Btw, the EU has about 17k regulations working for trade stuff in the UK. They would have to replace those. How many regulations does London pass per year? 2k? :P

Oh that border between Ireland and Northern Ireland? 177,000 lorries cross that border. Per day. Hard Brexit? Oops, that border is now an actual border with inspections and passport stamping and shit. Good luck with those traffic jams...

And if you lot don't bury those Empire dreams soonish, you'll be surprised just how little a fuck the rest of the world gives about your Empire.

[Alakallanar]

Because the UK *does* want a deep and special relationship with the EU.

Specifically, we want to continue the last five hundred years of British foreign policy, and drive a giant stake deep into the heart of any over-mighty state on continental Europe. Think of it like Van Helsing's deep and special relationship with Dracula .

Yes Minister was really a great show.

Oh that border between Ireland and Northern Ireland? 177,000 lorries cross that border. Per day. Hard Brexit? Oops, that border is now an actual border with inspections and passport stamping and shit. Good luck with those traffic jams...

Traffic jams would be the least of their problems. An open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement.

So they would be legally required to have border controls on a border they are legally not allowed to have border controls...

[xenogear3]

I have great respect to UK government.

Popular Votes mean nothing in most, if not all, countries.

UK is a TRUE democracy country.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Edit.... actually just don't have the time or patience to argue,

[Slant]

I have great respect to UK government.

Popular Votes mean nothing in most, if not all, countries.

UK is a TRUE democracy country.

And there's a good reason for that.

[Teleros]

Actually, soft Brexit is anything that was properly negotiated. A hard Brexit is the default separation of the UK and the EU, that is, instant loss of validity of EU legislation within the UK, whether or not the UK has replacement legislation in place. So, basically... a soft Brexit is negotiated, a hard Brexit is not and the EU would just close the door and call it a day.

That's not what the rest of the planet was calling a soft/hard Brexit back when the Remoaners were just realising they'd lost...

The fun bit is that in the case of a hard Brexit, Britain would automatically leave all 43 trade agreements the EU negotiated over the years. The current plan of Liam Knox is to just copy all those trade agreements and replace any reference to "the EU" with "the UK". Again I ask, if the EU was so bad for the UK, why do that? Why the fuck do you leave if you just want to copy what the EU did in the first place?

1. The EU is not, and never has been, all bad.

2. If copy/pasting those trade agreements is a benefit for the UK, then it makes sense to do so, at least for the interim. Later it can be replaced by an agreement better tailored to the UK economy if the government thinks it worthwhile to do so.

Additionally, this plan assumes that every trade partner of the EU is willing to offer the UK the same conditions. That's not going to happen as the example with Australia shows. Third countries are well aware of the situation and will seek this moment to take advantage of Britain.

If you mean Australia talking to Ireland, what's that got to do with the UK? Sure, the Aussies want single market access, but that doesn't mean they won't also want a good relationship with us poms. It's not an either/or situation.

Btw, the EU has about 17k regulations working for trade stuff in the UK. They would have to replace those. How many regulations does London pass per year? 2k? :P

1. Who said anything about replace? Maybe we more laissez-faire types think we can do just fine without 17k regulations.
2. Copy-paste time.

Oh that border between Ireland and Northern Ireland? 177,000 lorries cross that border. Per day. Hard Brexit? Oops, that border is now an actual border with inspections and passport stamping and shit. Good luck with those traffic jams...

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why Northern Ireland voted to Remain (mostly, obviously). The border there will be an issue, no question, and it might even nudge Northern Ireland into quitting the UK (dunno how likely that is, but I've seen some say it's a possibility). No idea how it'll be resolved, except that the UK can't allow a back door for Merkel's "refugees".

And if you lot don't bury those Empire dreams soonish, you'll be surprised just how little a fuck the rest of the world gives about your Empire.

Where do you get this empire thing from?

[Slant]

Traffic jams would be the least of their problems. An open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement.

So they would be legally required to have border controls on a border they are legally not allowed to have border controls...

I've had a brief look over the Wikipedia page, but they don't go into details. So I'll take your word on it and that is indeed quite the dilemma. Well, for the British anyway. Personally, I don't see why NI shouldn't merge into Ireland. :P

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what the rest of the planet was calling a soft/hard Brexit back when the Remoaners were just realising they'd lost...

1. The EU is not, and never has been, all bad.

2. If copy/pasting those trade agreements is a benefit for the UK, then it makes sense to do so, at least for the interim. Later it can be replaced by an agreement better tailored to the UK economy if the government thinks it worthwhile to do so.

If you mean Australia talking to Ireland, what's that got to do with the UK? Sure, the Aussies want single market access, but that doesn't mean they won't also want a good relationship with us poms. It's not an either/or situation.

1. Who said anything about replace? Maybe we more laissez-faire types think we can do just fine without 17k regulations.
2. Copy-paste time.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why Northern Ireland voted to Remain (mostly, obviously). The border there will be an issue, no question, and it might even nudge Northern Ireland into quitting the UK (dunno how likely that is, but I've seen some say it's a possibility). No idea how it'll be resolved, except that the UK can't allow a back door for Merkel's "refugees".

Where do you get this empire thing from?

That's most definitely what the rest of the world talked about. I know that it's not what the UK talked about. But the UK also promised Brexiters that they would get access to the single market while being able to restrict freedom of movement. In that sense, they were just about as creditable as the German beer party that literally went into an election campaign promising free beer for everyone. Difference is... Germans apparently can spot a joke and still make a serious election decision. That's why you don't see the beer party ruling Germany today.

Copy/Pasting trade agreements may be beneficial for the UK. But you're forgetting that the UK doesn't decide which kind of trade agreement it has alone. The other side has something to say about it, too. You do realise that literally no country will just take the UK adopting EU's trade agreements without renegotiating those terms, right? Heck, not even the EU would ever get the same trade agreements again, considering that the political landscapes on the planet are constantly in flux.

The only reason why the world wants good relations with the UK is access to the single market. If they can get that through Ireland, the UK has been officially replaced and its value/importance drops like a ton of bricks. The major reason why the UK is in its advantageous position is because they can cut the red tape, being half in and half out of the EU. Now they want to go out completely and will receive a lot of red tape from the EU as a result of how the EU deals with third countries that don't have a trade agreement. So the first and main goal of the UK will be to cut down on red tape. No access to the single market, however, is the exact opposite.

"Laissez faire" doesn't go well in legislation.

A back door for Merkel's "refugees"? First, why the quotes? Second... the UK took around 4k of those refugees. While Germany took 1.5 million or so. Are you fucking shitting me? What the fuck are you worried about? You contribute fuck all to the European project anyway. Who told you that you need protection from something that doesn't affect you either way?

And I get the Empire thing from all the posts that I read on here. You guys are suffering from serious delusions of grandeur while ignoring that the rest of the world apparently seems to live in another reality than you do.

[Tinch]

The UK will be free to trade with every country on the planet as they see fit. That is correct. And they'll get worse deals than they ever had with the EU. Because the EU has a bit more leverage than the UK. And also, what would the UK trade? They got nothing. All they get is being a money hub. Which is becoming more and more unattractive, the longer we talk about Brexit.

We're around the 10th largest export economy in the world, just under half of those exports go to the rest of the EU and that number has been consistently declining. You try to make it sound a lot worse than it is.

So, Brexiteers. Will you get that shit into your head now that your own PM said it out loud? No free movement, no access to the single market. Period.

No membership of the single market, access is a completely different thing.

So, while you can certainly split up the EU and just talk about Germany and France, because honestly, how else would you even have an argument, as far as the UK is concerned, that silly comparison doesn't compute. Opposed to the UK isn't Germany and France and all the other member states individually. Opposed to the UK is THE EU. Acting as one. Giant. Market.

You can laugh about it, but your negotiators are very well aware of how precarious the UK's position is. And how little they can actually offer to the EU.

Both sides are in a precarious position, which is why the talk of no deals and either side just walking away is silly. Yes the UK would be more adversely affected by a bad deal being 1 nation vs. 27, but the EU stands to lose greatly if it wants to play it that way too.

[Slant]

We're around the 10th largest export economy in the world, just under half of those exports go to the rest of the EU and that number has been consistently declining. You try to make it sound a lot worse than it is.

No membership of the single market, access is a completely different thing.

Both sides are in a precarious position, which is why the talk of no deals and either side just walking away is silly. Yes the UK would be more adversely affected by a bad deal being 1 nation vs. 27, but the EU stands to lose greatly if it wants to play it that way too.

See, guys, this is what I mean. I keep basically quoting the letter from May herself and somehow Farage and Johnson shat into UK people's heads so hard, they still don't know what the fuss is about. No, it's not about membership, it's about access to the single market. So what are you on about?

And I'm not making it sound worse than it is, I'm telling you that you were lied to during the campaign. They promised rainbow shitting flying ponies to you and you will not get them. Ever. You were duped.

The EU doesn't "want to play" it at all. They will play it, because that's what the EU does. But the UK needs to come to terms very quickly about what it is they are about to do. And they'll have to stop dreaming up conditions and scenarios that are not realistic. The EU doesn't do unrealistic dream castle negotiating. And unlike the UK, the EU has actually simulated and exercised a possible hard Brexit without any negotiations. Just to see what would happen.

[Tinch]

The fun bit is that in the case of a hard Brexit, Britain would automatically leave all 43 trade agreements the EU negotiated over the years. The current plan of Liam Knox is to just copy all those trade agreements and replace any reference to "the EU" with "the UK". Again I ask, if the EU was so bad for the UK, why do that? Why the fuck do you leave if you just want to copy what the EU did in the first place? :P Additionally, this plan assumes that every trade partner of the EU is willing to offer the UK the same conditions. That's not going to happen as the example with Australia shows. Third countries are well aware of the situation and will seek this moment to take advantage of Britain.

Because then it an agreement based purely on economical terms. If the EU was simply a comprehensive free trade area, then its doubtful there would have been a Brexit at all. What most people object to is the political union that comes with the EU.

Btw, the EU has about 17k regulations working for trade stuff in the UK. They would have to replace those. How many regulations does London pass per year? 2k? :P

Its already been established that EU law will simply be recognised in UK law in its entirety initially, which will be followed by a long process of repealing/amending any regulation the UK decides it doesn't want to have.

Oh that border between Ireland and Northern Ireland? 177,000 lorries cross that border. Per day. Hard Brexit? Oops, that border is now an actual border with inspections and passport stamping and shit. Good luck with those traffic jams...

Next to 0% chance of that happening. Both sides have already made it clear that they have no intention of jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement.

And if you lot don't bury those Empire dreams soonish, you'll be surprised just how little a fuck the rest of the world gives about your Empire.

I don't think I've seen a single person from the leave side talk about re-establishing the empire or anything remotely like it, its just a straw man argument.