[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Holston]

You don't get it. I mean, I'm not surprised... but I'll point it out for the semi-intelligent readers...

It's not a do-over referendum. It's a referendum on a concrete result. What you're glorifying there was a referendum that basically asked "in or out?" without any context, any consequences... any concrete details about what that entails. Fine, so you have the mission to find out the options, you get your options... and then what, who decides which "out" is the right one? May? I mean, she can either crash out or swallow the EU's deal, both are technically "out". She can throw NI under the bus or not, that's part of out. She can go a little out by doing a Norway model. A little more out with a Canada model. Hey, she can just revoke Art. 50, make a statement that the UK would not be taking part in the Commission any longer and for that lack of definition, it would count as an out, too.

I know, I know, you don't care about details and just want to see "your" country burn.. but others might be interested in having a say in which version of out they'd like to be in. Or... if all options are shite (hint: they are), perhaps they would rather stay in...

To be fair to him Brexit during the vote was clearly sold,advertised, and run under the notion it would be a hard exit that would hurt in the short term. I can see the need for needing to work out the details for something that size but I highly doubt anyone except for those in the remain camp believed in a soft exit. There isn't a point to it.

[Kronik85]

Let's run with that, what if remain won 52/48 in the next one? Surely it would have to be best of three and then where do you stop.

Farage said we should keep going on results night. When his banker mates told him that Remain had won he got on stage, conceded defeat then said that this wasn't the end of it.

[Kryctos]

Can I just leave this here...



Seriously, they're lying to themselves. And May is the biggest liar of them all. What's funny is that I realised the way she's shouting in defiance at Corbyn, she's really shouting at the EU. This is the only way she can act defiant, because the EU wouldn't have that kind of childish behaviour in the negotiations. British politics is a joke when you realise that the Scottish MP made more sense than... basically every other dude in the House. And obviously he takes it more serious, too.

holy shit the uk is run by a middlechhool debate club

[Dizzeeyooo]

To be fair to him Brexit during the vote was clearly sold,advertised, and run under the notion it would be a hard exit that would hurt in the short term

what a delightful lie - do feel free to produce a quote of any single prominent leave campaigner advertising brexit in this way

Farage said we should keep going on results night. When his banker mates told him that Remain had won he got on stage, conceded defeat then said that this wasn't the end of it.

not quite - his banker mates had their own private polling information telling them leave had won hours before the result was announced, and Farage got on stage to concede early defeat purely to push the pound higher and increase the $$$ returns for those same people betting on a collapse in the pound once the actual result became public knowledge

[Dhrizzle]

Let's run with that, what if remain won 52/48 in the next one? Surely it would have to be best of three and then where do you stop. No it's a non starter and this talk of another "peoples vote" is a nonsense, who voted in the last one two years ago, squirrels?

Firstly where would we find time for a third referendum, have you forgotten your incessant "tick tocks?" In case you've forgotten the original referendum was a simple in-out vote, it didn't ask if people would want the kind of deal May is proposing or a crash-and-burn hard-Brexit.

[Ryme]

But yeah, i'm full in on Labour if they give me that option, Corbyns problems can be dealt with later down the line, Brexit is a problem now.

As someone who is staunchly anti Corbyn, I fully agree. No matter what, a path away from Brexit is almost certainly worth any reasonable election result. Short and long term weightings and all that.

[Noradin]

Let's run with that, what if remain won 52/48 in the next one? Surely it would have to be best of three and then where do you stop.

Another referendum would be the best out of three already...

[Slant]

Another referendum would be the best out of three already...

Are you throwing a public referendum and Parliament together?

[Deleted]

Are you throwing a public referendum and Parliament together?

Well Dribs keeps bringing up the last GE as another mandate from the public, so I suppose we could throw that one in as a Referendum as well

[Slant]

Well Dribs keeps bringing up the last GE as another mandate from the public, so I suppose we could throw that one in as a Referendum as well

Ah, once more making domestic politics with EU topics... I would disagree with that. But he won't care.

[Noradin]

Are you throwing a public referendum and Parliament together?

No, just all referendums on the matter of staying in the organisation that is now named "the EU", because, if we are throwing those referendums together no matter how different the circumstances, why arbitrarily exclude the first one?

[Noradin]

Well Dribs keeps bringing up the last GE as another mandate from the public, so I suppose we could throw that one in as a Referendum as well

I wouldn't count that one.

[Slant]

This must be a concern for the EU as well. No one wants to say it now because we have hope Brexit might be reversed, but ultimately the EU needs to rewrite the law around Article 50 because if the ECJ does decide it can be revoked on a whim, then it is entirely possible for any country pissed at the EU to start . . . trolling us.

I think at the very least, the invocation of Article 50 should be in to stages. There should be a stage of intent, a negotiation period to figure out basic issues like outstanding obligations to the EU and obligations between member states under the jurisdiction of EU law or statute (so everything we have been doing with the UK till now) then Article 50 is finalized and we can proceed on the exit process and any new deals if so desired.
After all we wasted a year during Brexit with Davis asking for a trade deal (not even offering, the buffon was asking for one) while the EU repeated the single line that no deal can be discussed before everything else is settled. Formalize this procedure so no one can waste our time like the UK did.

I agree. Article 50 should be rewritten, the way the EU has been negotiating this process is sensible and should pretty much just be codified into law with applicable improvements based on this precedent. Some things did not go so well, the time frame can be defined better, questions like you raised should be clearly answered etc. We'd have a pretty solid way of exiting the EU. But, I'd also like to stress, Article 50 is probably just a temporary thing. If the EU continues, at some point we'll have ask ourselves why we even offer a way out. Is it more costly to just keep everyone in by law or is it more costly to have them rip their own economy apart and have the EU suffer for domestic (aka local) politics?

I mean, let's face it. The UK, specifically that asshat Farage and his monkey pet Johnsson, and even Reese-Mogg or whatever the freaks name is, they are affecting us in the rest of Europe. Each and every single one of us will at some point realise "Oh, this is because of Brexit..." even if it's just a minor thing like not being able to buy British crisps at your local supermarket anymore.

And we didn't get a vote in the matter. What gives? So yeah, let's talk about if Art. 50 should even exist at a later stage, when the EU is more integrated... assume a scenario where we have fiscal union.

- - - Updated - - -

A bit of a cheap shot, because one statistic is just as meaningless as another... but since the Brexiteers post these stats all the time from godawful sources like blogshitpages, I'll just leave this here with a snicker...

https://news.sky.com/story/majority-...-poll-11555078

[Ryme]

Encouraging as those polls are, we're wise to remember they have strong sampling biases.

[Slant]

As I said, these statistics and polls are meaningless. But we might as well offset the bias polls the Brexiteers show just to illustrate that polls are not the best gauge for public opinion and certainly not for what's best for the nation.

[Deleted]

anyone know if this is legit

https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1063413867563372544

boris and the waitrose tommy robinson hanging out

[ranzino]

just for any fantasies about renegotiations: nope, not going to happen. what's on the table is the divorce deal. take it or no deal or no brexit at all.
HoC cannot amend it or order May to send brexit secretary (whoever that is now) back to Brussels. ok, they can try to send one, but Barnier will have to deny such motions. the deal is sealed sunday next week (nov 25), when the EU27 have their summit and affirm the deal on their side.

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/st...89837305307136

[Dhrizzle]

This must be a concern for the EU as well. No one wants to say it now because we have hope Brexit might be reversed, but ultimately the EU needs to rewrite the law around Article 50 because if the ECJ does decide it can be revoked on a whim, then it is entirely possible for any country pissed at the EU to start . . . trolling us.

I think at the very least, the invocation of Article 50 should be in to stages. There should be a stage of intent, a negotiation period to figure out basic issues like outstanding obligations to the EU and obligations between member states under the jurisdiction of EU law or statute (so everything we have been doing with the UK till now) then Article 50 is finalized and we can proceed on the exit process and any new deals if so desired.
After all we wasted a year during Brexit with Davis asking for a trade deal (not even offering, the buffon was asking for one) while the EU repeated the single line that no deal can be discussed before everything else is settled. Formalize this procedure so no one can waste our time like the UK did.

Well that's what a sensible country would have done anyway - the EU referendum should have been the beginning of a process that ended with the triggering of Article 50. We needed discussions with the EU as to where their red-lines would be and what sort of deals where a possibility, then a second, binding referendum where people had some idea of the costs and benefits and had several options they had to vote for in order of preference - Remain, BINO, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, no-deal crash. Then Article 50 could be triggered based on this referendum and we would have 2 years to work out the details.

[Pann]

Well that's what a sensible country would have done anyway - the EU referendum should have been the beginning of a process that ended with the triggering of Article 50. We needed discussions with the EU as to where their red-lines would be and what sort of deals where a possibility, then a second, binding referendum where people had some idea of the costs and benefits and had several options they had to vote for in order of preference - Remain, BINO, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, no-deal crash. Then Article 50 could be triggered based on this referendum and we would have 2 years to work out the details.

That's well and good saying that we should have done this or that apart from the fact that EU rules prohibited discussions regarding future relations until A50 had been triggered.

[Ryme]

Just seen the multiple rumours going around that 48 letters of no confidence have been issued. My question, if true, is why bother? I doubt they have the numbers to win the vote and who the hell would step up to steer this sinking ship?