The Brexit aftermath thread

[Dizzeeyooo]

An amendment was tabled for a second referendum only last week and at no point before. It was voted down by a bigger margin than May's Deal.

Because the main group campaigning for a second referendum wants to wait until it is the "only" option still standing against no deal, so refused to support the motion, which gave the Labour front bench an excuse to not support the motion.

[Dizzeeyooo]

Which was ludicrous then.

Obviously - but we are where we are.

[Northern Goblin]

He's not even a moderator for GenOT.

I also don't have the power to wipe alt accounts of permabans, even if this was S&F. But I digress, Dizzeeyooo and Nymrohd have the right of it, May and Corbyn are playing chicken over Brexit. They're waiting for the other one to make the first move in either revoking or cancelling it, so they can virtue signal that the other party doesn't respect democracy.

It's not about Brexit for either of them, it's their squabble over who gets to be Prime Minister, they just happen to be playing with the future of the country and not seeming to care.

[Crispin]

If you didn't see the outcry, the constant protests, the amount of airtime it dominated over the last three years, but you still quote project fear from the bastards with the bus from three years ago, I'd say the source of your news is *very* slanted to painting a picture that tells you the UK is overwhelmingly pro leave.

I suggest you find a more balanced source, because we've not been quiet at all.

He's probably frustrated "as are many citizens in EU countries" about the inability to get a deal through in the UK parliament. The EU has alot of other issues to focus on; EU countries would much rather spend the time on the economy, security, issues in EU member countries (looking at you Hungary

Right now the UK is honestly like the cat that's scratching the door to come outside, and then doesnt move when the door is opened. It's frustrating to watch, especially when we know what the consequences will be for the UK, while having to listen to some of the delusional MP's being interviewed.


The EU never wanted the UK to leave; I'd rather still see A50 getting revoked in the parliament, which they'd have done a long time ago if they have had any balls; Cameron's idea for a referendum was a move that put him as probably the worst PM for the UK, somehow parliament thinks they need to double down on the stupidity of his mistake. Imo it's between a hard brexit and revoking A50; the latter does not exclude a proper brexit 5 years from now (guesstimate), however a hard brexit now means it'll take forever for the UK to re-enter the EU at some point. I'd honestly not be surprised if this has not been the goal throughout these years, forcing a choice between a hard brexit and revoking A50. A hard brexit is so irresponsible, the consequences for the brits are so far reaching that noone even really knows how it'll go.

In the end, the situation could be so chaotic, that you'll see major demonstrations; while having a parliament who can barely agree on which day it is.

[LeGin Tufnel]

And what all of this illustrates perfectly is that our adversarial, combatitive & deeply-flawed democratic system is not fit for purpose. The UK needs to ditch FPTP, embrace PR and move to consensus-driven political decision-making.

Of course, though, we won't. No-one's talking about it apart from a couple of Lib Dems. The media aren't discussing it in their analysis.

The only way it would happen is if the Tory Leavers buggered off en masse and more centrists from Labour joined TIG.

The worst possible outcome for this country would be No Deal, with the Conservative party intact.

[Flarelaine]

He's probablhy frustrated "as are many citizens in EU countries" about the inability to get a deal through in the UK parliament. The EU has alot of other issues to focus on; EU countries would much rather spend the time on the economy, security, issues in EU member countries (looking at you Hungary

I don't know what you're talking about.

[Skroe]

No i honestly don't find they deserve to be in the bloc in their current state, i'm thinking purely about this in practical way. I want the EU to address certain issues and i don't see that happening with the UK in its current shape and form, i don't even see a change in political landscape and if no brexit happens this is simply more fuel for those in favour a brexit to spread their filth.

Nothing emotional about it.

To me this is personally 10 years down the line, do you really want this UK in the EU? Do you expect those to clean up the London financial sector? Do you expect those to help with the problems surfacing in Hungary and slowly but surely Poland? The last we need is more populists that thrive on misinformation. Do you really think this UK will support better information campaigns of the EU? They gain too much from it.

This is basically what I've been saying for a couple of weeks now, when I say the EU should play hardball with the UK.

The EU, in short, should be no man's second choice.

I hate to point at my own country given the current idiot at the helm, but one of the behaviors that served the US well for over one hundred years until sometime last decade, was that we were understanding and patient and helpful to our friends and people who wanted to be our friends... but if you crossed us or fucked with us, you paid a price for it. A steep one. America could be your best friend, or your worst enemy.

That's basically what the EU should do, in my opinion, to build up it's "cred". It's played nice with the UK up to this point, but it's time to make clear this nonsense they've been engaged in must end in the name of the more vibrant post-Brexit EU.

The message they need to adopt, to put it in an extremely cold was, is "Brexit happened, and little of value was lost".

Also the London Financial Sector is a goddamn threat to Western security and everyone knows it. It's one of the worst clearing houses for Russian, Middle Eastern, African and Chinese corruption money out there, if not the worst, because the UK is dependent on the business its gets. The US has been pressing the British to clean it up for years.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/20...aundered-money

BRITAIN likes to see itself as a leader in the fight against illicit finance and corruption. The government has recently been talking even tougher, as worsening relations with Russia have focused attention on the number of oligarchs who have interests in London. Anyone looking to stash dirty money “should be in no doubt that we will come for them,” warns Ben Wallace, the economic-crime minister.

In fact the record suggests that wrongdoers can sleep easy (see article). The National Crime Agency (NCA) reckons that “many hundreds of billions of pounds” of international money is rinsed through British banks each year, much of it from kleptocrats and their cronies. Almost every big cross-border corruption case in recent years has had a connection to Britain or its palm-fringed overseas territories. British limited-liability partnerships were the vehicle of choice for suspicious clients of Danske Bank, which is embroiled in the laundering of as much as €200bn ($230bn).
Some people in the governing Conservative Party and the City argue that a big clean-up would be harmful just when British finance risks losing its lustre because of Brexit. The more important point is that, in a country which has undergone bail-outs and austerity following the financial crisis of 2008, doing nothing to tackle dirty capital flows could further undermine the legitimacy of capitalism.

Thames and misdemeanours
London is hardly unique. Other financial centres, including New York, Dubai and Singapore, also wash dodgy cash. The more clean money sloshes around, the easier it is to hide the dirty sort. But London has exceptionally enticing attributes. It handles vast cross-border capital flows. It boasts the English language, good schools and, ironically, a respected legal system (which shields tycoons against the arbitrary plunder they suffer at home). Relaxed rules on ownership are geared towards rich foreigners. Armies of lawyers and public-relations firms specialise in rinsing reputations. Tough libel laws help keep prying journalists and NGOs at bay. On top of all this, Britain has its own network of secretive offshore territories, dubbed its “second empire” by anti-corruption campaigners. London is, in short, ideal for money-laundering.

People give all sorts of reasons not to strangle this golden goose. The ancillary industries that depend on all that wealth would suffer. A clampdown risks scaring away legitimate investment, especially if it is seen as targeting entire nationalities: many Russians own London pads through offshore companies for reasons of privacy or legal tax planning. Some fear it would clobber the property market and the pound, just when a Brexit-bound Britain needs all the investment it can get.

But the case for action is stronger. Predictions of severe economic damage from a crackdown are overdone. Russians and Ukrainians hold only 0.2% of total British assets owned by foreigners. Targeting iffy Russian money would reinforce Britain’s efforts to embarrass Vladimir Putin’s intelligence agencies (see article). Providing financial refuge for bent elites fuels corruption in other countries.

The challenge is less to write new laws than to enforce what is on the books—a common malaise in Britain. This month the first “Unexplained Wealth Order”, which requires targets to show the sources of their wealth, survived a legal challenge from the wife of a jailed Azerbaijani banker. The government rightly trumpets reforms launched after David Cameron, a former prime minister, declared that corruption-fighting should be a priority. In 2016 Britain became the first G20 country to launch a public register of companies’ beneficial owners, designed to shed light on the shell companies behind which wrongdoers often hide. But the system relies on self-reporting. Companies House, a government agency, has neither the powers nor the resources to check what is submitted. The supervision of firms that set up other companies is so weak, and the fines for breaches so paltry—typically £1,000-2,000 ($1,310-2,620)—that it makes the British Virgin Islands look robust. Inevitably, therefore, the honest comply and criminals lie.

Worse, law enforcers lack the resources to pursue enough big cases. The NCA’s budget, already stretched, is falling. It has perhaps a few dozen investigators with the skills for complex cases; America and Italy have hundreds. This is not an area where justice comes cheap. On average, a big corruption case takes seven years. Prosecuting agencies need to be able to absorb hefty costs, especially if they lose—and, as oligarchs can afford the best lawyers, that is always a risk. Britain has not taken the lead on a large, cross-border case for years.

Devoting greater resources to corruption cases would go a long way towards fixing things. Some of the extra cash should be used to raise investigators’ salaries, which are far below those of their American peers. Strengthening oversight of shell companies and the firms that set them up would also help, as would money for the verification of ownership information. Some of the funding for this could come from an increase in incorporation fees, which are as little as £12. One piece of new legislation would help: a “failure to prevent” law that makes it easier to prosecute senior managers or companies if they fail to take adequate measures against money-laundering. A similar provision on bribery works well.

The fair mile
The City matters to Britain. It is a big employer (two-thirds of the jobs are outside London). It generates a trade surplus of 3% of GDP and pays roughly a tenth of the country’s taxes. It is a hub for fintech, and Britain’s smaller firms appear to secure financing more easily than their typical European counterparts do (see Schumpeter). The opposition Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn sees things differently. It makes no secret of its deep hostility to finance. If the City does not demonstrate that its markets are clean and honest, it will be giving the next Labour government a freer hand to act—savagely.

Britain’s response to the threat posed by illicit financial flows has so far been more thundering rhetoric than meaningful action. It is time to put that right.

https://www.economist.com/node/21752354

And no, the other center of global finances, New York City, does not act as a corruption processor like that. You can thank in part, post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws like the PATRIOT Act for that.

[Northern Goblin]

There's two reasons MPs are likely not making more of a fuss about it.

1. They're more worried about their seat in an upcoming election than voting with their conscience.

2. They've seen what's happened to multiple MPs lately from a group of far right wingers and don't want to be the next Jo Cox.


The cynic in me thinks it's mostly one, but intimidation is a factor for a handful

[Crispin]

A bit out of topic but since this is the only EU related thread in this Trump dominated forum. I am seriously considering voting for an S&D or ALDE party in the next elections because of Weber playing politics to have an easier way to win the Commission seat and simply suspending Fidesz. They should have been expelled and they should have been expelled over a year ago.

It is definately becoming a more and more pressing issue. Yet Brexit still takes up the far majority of attention

Anyhow, this video sums up Brexit, for some reason brexiteers are proud of it.

[Slant]

A bit out of topic but since this is the only EU related thread in this Trump dominated forum. I am seriously considering voting for an S&D or ALDE party in the next elections because of Weber playing politics to have an easier way to win the Commission seat and simply suspending Fidesz. They should have been expelled and they should have been expelled over a year ago.

Yep, the conservatives are gonna lose some percentage points over that. As they should.

[dribbles]

There's two reasons MPs are likely not making more of a fuss about it.

1. They're more worried about their seat in an upcoming election than voting with their conscience.

2. They've seen what's happened to multiple MPs lately from a group of far right wingers and don't want to be the next Jo Cox.


The cynic in me thinks it's mostly one, but intimidation is a factor for a handful

3. MP's have finally decided to do the honourable thing and represent the views of their constituents.

“in the past week there has been a shift towards No Deal amongst the public”.- Opinium

If Parliament rejects Theresa May’s deal once again as expected, 46% of voters support leaving on WTO terms. That compares to 39% who support delaying Brexit to hold a second referendum, giving No Deal a 7-point lead.

https://www.westmonster.com/public-o...it-poll-finds/

No deal has a 7% lead yippeee...tick tock.

[Flarelaine]

3. MP's have finally decided to do the honourable thing and represent the views of their constituents.

Do you mean like Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose constituency has voted for Remain?

[dribbles]

Do you mean like Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose constituency has voted for Remain?

Where are you getting your information? In the 2016 national referendum his constituency of NE Somerset voted 52.1 leave 47.9 remain. He is carrying out the will of the people he represents. Democracy at its finest in action.

[Slant]

Do you mean like Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose constituency has voted for Remain?

Yes, but... they're his peasants. He doesn't have to listen to them. He's their lord, they listen to him. When he says leave, they leave. It's as simple as that.

[Mayhem]

Also, this is patently wrong.
You can unilaterally abandon a treaty. The issues are:
a) Unilaterally abandoning treaties often means there are penalties
b) Abandoning a treaty means you abandon both rights and responsibilities to the treaty
c) You abandon the entire body of the treaty, not those terms you do not like; likewise you cannot abandon later amendments to a treaty, it is always the treaty as a whole

See, Freedom of Movement is not some separate treaty. The Lisbon Treaty is an amendment to the Maastricht and Rome Treaties. Thus to abandon Lisbon you need to also abandond Maastricht and Rome (as well as Euratom). This is why the EU says that you cannot pick and choose; they are not being facetious or exploitative it is simply a matter of law.

The UK seems to want to roll back time to the EEC. But the EEC no longer exists. The treaties that formed it are amended by later treaties and the members states of the EEC have moved on.

I'm not sure what you're saying with the first part of your post? What is patently wrong, the stuff I wrote or what?

[Fuiking]

So, maybe we will get a Nexit after all.. fucking shit baudet.

[Flarelaine]

Where are you getting your information? In the 2016 national referendum his constituency of NE Somerset voted 52.1 leave 47.9 remain. He is carrying out the will of the people he represents. Democracy at its finest in action.

That neighbourhood sure looks yellow to me.



- - - Updated - - -

So, maybe we will get a Nexit after all.. fucking shit baudet.

Always cracks me up when the zealots against immigration are immigrants themselves.

[JohnBrown1917]

So, maybe we will get a Nexit after all.. fucking shit baudet.

Only 2 parties want to leave, its nowhere near close even.

- - - Updated - - -

Always cracks me up when the zealots against immigration are immigrants themselves.

He was born here, good ol' country grown fascism.


Its Wilders who is 1/2th Indonesian.

- - - Updated - - -

3. MP's have finally decided to do the honourable thing and represent the views of their constituents.

“in the past week there has been a shift towards No Deal amongst the public”.- Opinium

If Parliament rejects Theresa May’s deal once again as expected, 46% of voters support leaving on WTO terms. That compares to 39% who support delaying Brexit to hold a second referendum, giving No Deal a 7-point lead.

https://www.westmonster.com/public-o...it-poll-finds/

No deal has a 7% lead yippeee...tick tock.

When is Scotland leaving?

[Arunu]

So, maybe we will get a Nexit after all.. fucking shit baudet.

It's frightening, an anti scientist,anti EU, covert and sometimes not so covert racist/fascist that managed to gain this much.
Guess i still underestimate just how much swaying power hollow one liners have.

[Kotuthan]

Looks like things are getting ugly. British MPs are advised to travel in groups now.
https://www.politico.eu/article/brit...-brexit-abuse/