The Brexit aftermath thread

[Slant]

Laws change over time, that old old one precedes the new one that came into force last monday. Her Majestys government signed the new one too.

We are not asking the EU to break anything or any of its treaties. In fact the serving of Article 50 is a quite lawful and correct method of a member state leaving the EU. The EU itself provides for no other way to go other than perhaps expulsion. We have correctly served article 50 and the ball is still firmly in the EU court.

I am afraid you speaking on a daily basis to a few connected UK chums on the phone is not really representative of the mood within the UK. It has been quite noticable in our mainstream media, who mirror UK opinion rather than form it as some would say, how EU threats have been responded to. This unification and hardening of UK support for the now default soft no deal Brexit is obvious to all except perhaps our lame prime minister. She is getting there though.

If only the EU position was consistent and not complicated by one or two ofthe EU27 hotheads going off in some bizarre Napoleonic way about blocking EU skies etc to the UK perhaps a deal could have been done. Not now, far to late.

And as for Michel Barniers true thoughts, it is good of him to join us here on the forum:-

Laws change over time. That one did not. It has been built into the EU treaties, and they supercede national law. Another decision the Queen of England signed off to. Your law may apply to the UK, and that's fine, since you're on your way out anyway. But as far as the rest of the EU is concerned, this isn't a matter of opinion. And it is a long, long time ago that British law superceded any other law. So, no.

I am speaking to people who actually work for a living and have to deal with the shit you wank off to. It's not representative of the deplorables and low life scum in your country, no, but it is the part of your country that makes the money and sponsors your trash party, Dribs. They are the important people.

The EU has never threatened. But I'm not surprised your coked up media spun it that way. See, when two people negotiate, they put offers on the table. And sometimes those offers get rejected. That's not a threat, that's a rejection. And when we tell you that you won't get a deal by being utter idiots, that's not a threat either, it's a well meant warning that if you continue this way, you will jeopardize what you are trying to achieve.

The EU position has been the only thing that is consistent in these negotiations. I mean, given that the UK never had a position, I guess you could also say it has been the most inconsistent, but that's what you get when there's only one side trying to negotiate.

Nobody is blocking any skies. Not EU member states and certainly not the UK. I don't know why you keep repeating these inane statements. As if you literally dribbling vomit into this topic over and over again is going to make that vomit shine like the truth.

Nothing you said has come true. Not a single thing. You're the world's shittiest predictor. If I wanted to win the lottery, I'd have to make sure that you didn't predict those numbers, because that's how certain you seem to be on the wrong track.

- - - Updated - - -

Basing all of this on the stupid referendum was the worst decision made in this whole process, tbh.

Even the British agree to that. Well, except the crazy ones like Dribs.

[Pann]

The EEA and Customs Union are both compatible with the referendum as we can be part of those and still leave the EU. Moving the Irish border to the North sea is also compatible with the referendum if NI joins the EEA or CU. If NI stays in the EU technically it breaks the referendum as the UK as a whole won't leave, but it does acknowledge that NI voted strongly to remain.

They aren't.

JRM's power comes from the fact the current government is weak and wobbly and a small backbench rebellion could easily topple it.

Looks like we're in agreement that people do care about what JRM wants.

The long answer involves a level of understanding about UK party politics and the way it functions in parliament that I'm not really willing to go in to, but the short answer is that Labour's policy is to stay in the CU and all but 4 Labour MPs (plus 12 Tory rebels) voted to stay in the CU if no deal is reached by the time we leave.

They voted to stay in A customs union not The customs union. This is an important distinction and as yet Labour have been unwilling to divulge what this customs union might entail.

It removes the need for border checks at the EU/UK border so border on the island of Ireland can remain invisible as it is today.

It doesn't.

Yet we still have Theresa May making impossible proposals to the EU to mollify the DUP and Mogg's hardliner faction, both of which could topple the government and lead to either a General Election or Tory leadership contest.

The Tories will still be in power if there is a leadership contest and Labour are not going to push for a GE. And to be quite honest if Theresa May is doing all she can to stop JRM or one of his cohorts becoming PM I think that is worthy of a bit of praise rather than scorn.

I get the impression that your issue is that you simply dislike the Tories.

I shouldn't have to explain this but in UK politics, especially in NI, the party people vote for does not necessarily represent all of their views on every issue. The legislation to keep the border where it is was to mollify the DUP who are needed to keep the weak Conservative government in power. If May wanted to listen to the people of NI they should have a referendum to see what the future relationship between EU/NI and NI/UK should look like.

What? Hang on a sec, you complained that the Tories were ignoring the people of NI and when I point out that this was not true you then complain about the reason why they listened to the people of NI?!?

If the people of NI want a referendum they are free to ask, the thing is they haven't done so nor is there any indication that they plan on doing so. Therefore I am not sure why you would place the blame on May for not listening.

[Slant]

They voted to stay in A customs union not The customs union. This is an important distinction and as yet Labour have been unwilling to divulge what this customs union might entail.

There is only one customs union. The UK is simply not big nor important enough to start creating a second "EU light" just to include the British. What they can ask for is an FTA. And that's what's most likely to actually happen despite all the no deal drivel. And in that FTA, they will get probably a pretty sweet deal. But the UK waved goodbye to unrestricted access to the single market the second they invoked Art. 50, let's be honest here. This whole thing was stillborn from the get go. May knew it. Barnier knew it. Farage certainly knew it, otherwise he wouldn't have fled every responsibility faster than Speedy Gonzalez.

[Pann]

That, in a nutshell, is the issue here. UK solutions are so far not compatible with the pillars of the EU. EU proposal are not compatible with the referendum result.
On the surface, that is the conundrum, and the UK tends to insist that it is, but really, this is apples and oranges.

The four freedoms are closely defined, ratified principles known to everyone.
The referendum result was a narrow, muddy declaration of intent for the vague concept of Brexit, which was not legally binding.

Basing all of this on the stupid referendum was the worst decision made in this whole process, tbh.

That is as far as I can see an accurate take on the situation but I disagree that the issues are apples and oranges.

The Government committed to carrying out whatever was decided by the referendum result, which was if leave won to leave the EU including the SM and CU, the fact that it was not legally binding is a red herring. There is simply no way that the government can go back on its word without causing (possibly irreparable) damage to the fragile trust that UK voters have in the whole political establishment.

Ultimately the EU have to be true to their principles just the UK has to true to the referendum result.

You'll get no disagreement from me that it was stupid to base the UK's EU membership on the referendum.

[Kiri]

That is as far as I can see an accurate take on the situation but I disagree that the issues are apples and oranges.

The Government committed to carrying out whatever was decided by the referendum result, which was if leave won to leave the EU including the SM and CU, the fact that it was not legally binding is a red herring. There is simply no way that the government can go back on its word without causing (possibly irreparable) damage to the fragile trust that UK voters have in the whole political establishment.

Ultimately the EU have to be true to their principles just the UK has to true to the referendum result.

You'll get no disagreement from me that it was stupid to base the UK's EU membership on the referendum.

That's pretty much what I mean. The referendum in and of itself was not legally binding, but the government insisted on it being binding to them. Breaking with the referendum result would cause it damage, but it would be legal. Breaking up the four freedoms is not something that can be done as 'easily', since it would need to be ratified etc, and just violating them without a proper amendment would be illegal. That's what I mean with the apples and oranges.

One is a voluntary obligation, the other a legal one.

[Pann]

That's pretty much what I mean. The referendum in and of itself was not legally binding, but the government insisted on it being binding to them. Breaking with the referendum result would cause it damage, but it would be legal. Breaking up the four freedoms is not something that can be done as 'easily', since it would need to be ratified etc, and just violating them without a proper amendment would be illegal. That's what I mean with the apples and oranges.

One is a voluntary obligation, the other a legal one.

I thought you meant that with the referendum being advisory the government could get away with not honouring the result. Ironically had the government passed the referendum into law the breaches of electoral law by the leave campaign might have invalidated the result. (You really couldn't make this stuff up!)

[Kiri]

I thought you meant that with the referendum being advisory the government could get away with not honouring the result. Ironically had the government passed the referendum into law the breaches of electoral law by the leave campaign might have invalidated the result. (You really couldn't make this stuff up!)

They should have just passed it into law, but apply a two thirds majority rule for it, like for most decisions with truly far-reaching consequences.

[Pann]

They should have just passed it into law, but apply a two thirds majority rule for it, like for most decisions with truly far-reaching consequences.

Yep. They should have done a lot of things... but they didn't. On the up side I imagine that it is quite amusing for the rest of the world looking in on us.

[Kallisto]

Yep. They should have done a lot of things... but they didn't. On the up side I imagine that it is quite amusing for the rest of the world looking in on us.

They should have also allowed those in both british electoral registers to vote. The one Cameron chose was deliberately done in overstating the leave voting group by at least 2%.

[Gibblewink]

I wouldn't call that train-wreck amusing. Morbidly fascinating and frequently baffling and somewhat infuriating at times. Too many people all around will get for hurt to de really funny.

[Pann]

They should have also allowed those in both british electoral registers to vote. The one Cameron chose was deliberately done in overstating the leave voting group by at least 2%.

I don't understand the point you're making. People who were eligible to vote in the referendum were the same as those who are eligible to vote in a GE plus Gibraltar. Why would Cameron deliberately chose a register that supposedly increased the leave vote (and where do these figures come from?) when he campaigned for remain? Why would he handicap his campaign in this manner? Why would he essentially sabotage his own position as PM?

[Slant]

Yep. They should have done a lot of things... but they didn't. On the up side I imagine that it is quite amusing for the rest of the world looking in on us.

At times. But most of the times it's just sad and for us Europeans irritating. A former world power struggling for relevance. I think that could be the book title covering this episode.

[Kallisto]

I don't understand the point you're making. People who were eligible to vote in the referendum were the same as those who are eligible to vote in a GE plus Gibraltar. Why would Cameron deliberately chose a register that supposedly increased the leave vote (and where do these figures come from?) when he campaigned for remain? Why would he handicap his campaign in this manner? Why would he essentially sabotage his own position of PM?

Because Cameron was trying to stave off an attack from the brexit Tories and the potential for UKIP to turn Tory marginals into Labour/Lib Dem areas. His gamble was remain win by a narrow margin. UKIP lose because the answer is given with a slant towards Brexit. His Brexit back benchers no longer have any legs to stand on.

If everyone in the UK that had an interest in this issue had a vote as they are allowed to do when it comes to Local elections as well as General. Keeping it so everyone who was eligable to vote in either. The loss for Brexit would be built on excuses and Cameron would have likely still had to resign. UKIP would have grown and the Tories would likely never win an election for a generation.

[Pann]

Because Cameron was trying to stave off an attack from the brexit Tories and the potential for UKIP to turn Tory marginals into Labour/Lib Dem areas. His gamble was remain win by a narrow margin. UKIP lose because the answer is given with a slant towards Brexit. His Brexit back benchers no longer have any legs to stand on.

If everyone in the UK that had an interest in this issue had a vote as they are allowed to do when it comes to Local elections as well as General. Keeping it so everyone who was eligable to vote in either. The loss for Brexit would be built on excuses and Cameron would have likely still had to resign. UKIP would have grown and the Tories would likely never win an election for a generation.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. There is absolutely nothing wrong with limiting a vote the determines the future of the UK to the same set of people who are eligible to determine the UK's future by GE.

[Kallisto]

This sounds like a conspiracy theory. There is absolutely nothing wrong with limiting a vote the determines the future of the UK to the same set of people who are eligible to determine the UK's future by GE.

There certainly is when there are people living within the UK who will be seriously affected by this and are also eligable to vote in other UK based elections.

[Pann]

There certainly is when there are people living within the UK who will be seriously affected by this and are also eligable to vote in other UK based elections.

There is a big difference between the two French gap year students living in London being able to vote on how many times their bins will be collected in a local elections and being able to determine the future of the country for decades after they've returned home.

EU citizens who intend to live long term in the UK are able to apply British citizenship which would have allowed them to vote in the referendum and GEs.

[Kiri]

Yep. They should have done a lot of things... but they didn't. On the up side I imagine that it is quite amusing for the rest of the world looking in on us.

Not really. Sometimes, there is a laugh of resignation but, you know....despite what people like Dribbles seem to think, I do not believe that most Europeans are constantly plotting how to make things worse for the British. Y'all people, too. I would never wish anyone ill.

[dribbles]

Not really. Sometimes, there is a laugh of resignation but, you know....despite what people like Dribbles seem to think, I do not believe that most Europeans are constantly plotting how to make things worse for the British. Y'all people, too. I would never wish anyone ill.

What dribbles thinks tends to come true. Now who said recently on this forum that no deal means no money from the UK to the EU? Couldn't have been a wise and sensible brexiteer possibly could it? Ah well never mind, no hard feelings eurochums, a guy called Dominic Raab has replaced the old Brexit secretary David Davis after his resignation and tonight guess what he says? Well tah-dah here you go:-

Dominic Raab: Britain will refuse to pay £39 billion divorce bill to Brussels if the EU fails to agree trade deal

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...-divorce-bill/

Now all that remains is to decide what sort of timescale over which that payment is offered, to be reasonable I think it should be on the order of 1 euro a week for the next 39billion weeks. Bwahhahahahaaa

[Dhrizzle]

They aren't.

I think you need to read up on what the referendum covered. It was a simple in/out question that covers anything from a BINO/EEA/Norway deal to maximum Brexit/no deal/oh fuck we're fucked.

Looks like we're in agreement that people do care about what JRM wants.

Sorry if my speech is getting a bit colloquial for someone who doesn't have English as a first language. What I mean is the number of people who are willing to accept the social, economic and logistical problems of no customs union just so JRM and his cronies can get rich on bespoke trade deals is small enough to be insignificant, apart from their chokehold on government of course.

They voted to stay in A customs union not The customs union. This is an important distinction and as yet Labour have been unwilling to divulge what this customs union might entail.

If they were pushing for a bullshit fantasy alternative they would have used a bullshit fantasy name like "customs partnership."

It doesn't.

What obstacles are you worried about if the UK and EU were in a customs union post-Brexit?

The Tories will still be in power if there is a leadership contest and Labour are not going to push for a GE. And to be quite honest if Theresa May is doing all she can to stop JRM or one of his cohorts becoming PM I think that is worthy of a bit of praise rather than scorn.

I'm not quite as confident that the government could survive another leadership contest at this point. That's what gives JRM and co. so much power, the Conservatives are utterly terrified of the idea of Jeremy Corbyn as PM.

I get the impression that your issue is that you simply dislike the Tories.

Growing up working class in 1980's northern England means my dislike for the Tories is quite deep and complex thankyou very much. But with other Conservative PMs and governments you got the impression they were doing what they thought best for their country (even Mrs. Thatcher, God roast her soul.) The trouble with the current bunch is they are putting themselves before the party and the party before the country. They're not just governing in a way I find objectionable, they're fundamentally incapable of governing properly due to the web of minority interests that are needed to glue the week and wobbly structure together. Sadly in its current state I'm not sure our political structure is capable of forming a government that could be effective in the perilously short time we have left.

What? Hang on a sec, you complained that the Tories were ignoring the people of NI and when I point out that this was not true you then complain about the reason why they listened to the people of NI?!?

They aren't listening to "the people of Northern Ireland," they're listening to the DUP because they're needed to barely keep T-May's head above water. The devolved government of NI is currently broken thanks to a scandal involving the DUP and it's difficult to gage how much their elected MP's represent policies the people approve of, and how many are elected because they wear the correct badge in the Protestant/Unionist-Catholic/Republican divide. And let's not even mention Sinn Fein's absence from the UK Parliament.

If the people of NI want a referendum they are free to ask, the thing is they haven't done so nor is there any indication that they plan on doing so. Therefore I am not sure why you would place the blame on May for not listening.

A referendum hasn't even been discussed or offered by the government, instead they rush through a piece of legislation that forbids any sort of division in the Irish sea so they could turn to the EU and say sorry, can't even consider that as it would be illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

The Government committed to carrying out whatever was decided by the referendum result, which was if leave won to leave the EU including the SM and CU, the fact that it was not legally binding is a red herring. There is simply no way that the government can go back on its word without causing (possibly irreparable) damage to the fragile trust that UK voters have in the whole political establishment.

I did you the favour of looking up what the referendum actually ask,



As you can see the referendum specifically asks if the UK should remain a member of the EU or leave the EU.

It doesn't mention the EEA or the Customs Union, the government is completely capable of following the result of the referendum by leaving the EU whilst remaining in the EEA and/or the CU.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't call that train-wreck amusing. Morbidly fascinating and frequently baffling and somewhat infuriating at times. Too many people all around will get for hurt to de really funny.

Apart from the real life consequences I find that Brexit exemplifies some of the best parts of British comedy.

[Huehuecoyotl]

What dribbles thinks tends to come true.

Really? Then who said this?

I always find sport to be a good indicator of a countries competitiveness in both Business and Economics, in fact in all aspects of life.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp1_W6-W8AE3xY4.jpg:small

Quite surprised really that other countries in Europe haven't done better given all the practice they have had at running away from things recently. Meanwhile in yet another sector of life, the UK rises to the top of the global table.

The Brexit boom continues......

Or who was it that said this?

As one of the 17 million halfwits who voted and won the referendum, it has been just a month.

Europe has in history, a reputation of appeasement and being full of surrender monkeys when its very existence is threatened, which is exactly what Brexit does. In just that month on from the referendum, Europe has already offered the UK a ban on free EU movement of peoples/immigration to/from the UK for ten years and yet the UK remaining a member of the single market.

I will tell you that this is not good enough and you will better your offer to keep the UK, even if you have to, as you will and always do, weep about it.

How far do you think Europe will go in begging the UK to stay?

And just who was it that said this?

Meanwhile Australian trade negotiators are in the UK doing trade deals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...t-trade-talks/

And looks like the US-UK trade deal is done already, will the EU ever get one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37594928

Didn't those toothless paper tigers in Brussels say we weren't allowed to do this yet? Oh well, guess they are irrelevant now.

Of course, these were all two years ago, when your brilliant mind knew how it was all going to pan out. So, have you become massively better at this predicting lark in the last two years? Because if your own words are to be believed, you really aren't very good at figuring out what's going to happen.