The Brexit aftermath thread

[Huehuecoyotl]

Considering May's absolutely fucktarded job ushering through Brexit, would Europe even accept an Article 50 cancellation at this point? I mean legally, they have to. I'm aware of that. But Brexit being a multi-year British political stunt, with the other 27 countries as a prop for a domestic political fight, clearly has lead to some real bad blood with regards to UK politics, which were once seen as a model of stability and pragmatism.

In short, from a political (but not necessarily legal) perspective, what could Europe ask of the UK to show that, hey guess what, they want to stay after all. The worst thing they could want is to revisit 'Brexit 2.0', 15 years from now.

In 15 years time the political base will be dramatically different. The remains of the older Leave voters would have thinned out, while we would have more and more younger voters joining the pool that consider themselves to be European first, and British second. The tiny winning margin they enjoyed this time, based on falsehoods and cheating, would have utterly gone. There wouldn't be enough money in the whole of Russia to tilt that outcome.

But I would certainly expect some changes to Article 50 to come out of this; the first of which would probably be a "no take-backs". To avoid this shit-storm ever being repeated by anyone.

[Twdft]

, would Europe even accept an Article 50 cancellation at this point? I mean legally, they have to. I'm aware of that.

I seem to remember that cancallation would only be possible if it was indeed with the intent to stay in the EU, not just to get more time to prepare an exit.

[Dhrizzle]

Meanwhile, the people that are so upset about the corrupt banks that you love to talk about:

Like Brexiteers give a shit about corrupt practices in the financial service, they follow equally skeezy hedge-fund managers like JRM and Farage is a city trader which is kinda like a banker who can't do sums.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

In 15 years time the political base will be dramatically different. The remains of the older Leave voters would have thinned out, while we would have more and more younger voters joining the pool that consider themselves to be European first, and British second. The tiny winning margin they enjoyed this time, based on falsehoods and cheating, would have utterly gone. There wouldn't be enough money in the whole of Russia to tilt that outcome.

But I would certainly expect some changes to Article 50 to come out of this; the first of which would probably be a "no take-backs". To avoid this shit-storm ever being repeated by anyone.

What I can imagine being changed is the order in which things are done. For example:

Member State says they want to leave. This triggers two years of negotiations over a withdrawal deal, extendable once by 1 year. After (and only after) the WA has been ratified by both parties, the government of the leaving country formally declares withdrawal, which comes into effect immediately. Then trade deals etc. can be discussed.

[Dhrizzle]

And the Tories replace her with....who exactly? Boris? He would have the support of about 80 of his own party, and that's it. Or maybe one of the more pro-EU Conservative MPs? It might make a BINO more likely, but that's hardly what you're looking for.

Please, give me insight into the workings of your mind. Explain how the Tories changing leader is going to impact the maths of Parliament in the slightest way. Hell, it might tilt them one vote more to Remain, since May was originally in that camp and not being leader any more means she can vote how she likes.

No-deal is dead. May's deal is toast. Nothing harder than May's deal is getting through, because the more you tilt in that direction, the more MPs you lose. It's BINO, cancel article 50 or 2nd referendum. Those are the only choices left. That ticking you can hear is time running out on your dreams, dribbles. Your Brexit is terminally fucked. You just don't seem to want to accept it yet. It will be better for you when you finally do.

You're forgetting the fact we can still end up with a no-deal Brexit through parliamentary incompetence and groups like the ERG betraying the country for their own self interests.

[dribbles]

A general election means extending Brexit beyond the EU elections. A snap election is 6 weeks from dissolution of parliament, and if there isn't a clear winner then it can be weeks after that before a government can gain the confidence of Parliament necessary for the Queen to open Parliament and get a mandate to think about Brexit.

I don't see Brexit happening this year if there is a general election.



For the UK to pass a law preventing an article 50 notice for a certain amount of time?

Well brexiteers have waited for more than a 1000 days for the democratic will of the people to be enacted and the 80%+ of MP's who were elected on a manifesto to honour and deliver it. We can wait another 100, 200 or more days. Some people have been waiting 40 years for this moment. No rush no biggie.

And a Boris Johnson led government with a strong working majority, with a return of Farage back in the EU slinging shit daily would deliver (and be fun to watch) a far better outcome long term. Do you seriously think Corbyn has the minerals to stop that scenario? He has as much hope as the Lib Dems (remember them?) Vince Cable does.

Bring it on I say.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Well brexiteers have waited for more than a 1000 days for the democratic will of the people to be enacted and the 80%+ of MP's who were elected on a manifesto to honour and deliver it. We can wait another 100, 200 or more days. Some people have been waiting 40 years for this moment. No rush no biggie.

And a Boris Johnson led government with a strong working majority, with a return of Farage back in the EU slinging shit daily would deliver (and be fun to watch) a far better outcome long term. Do you seriously think Corbyn has the minerals to stop that scenario? He has as much hope as the Lib Dems (remember them?) Vince Cable does.

Bring it on I say.

The current candidates put forward by the cabinet are Gove and Lidlington. The transitional PM won't be a back-bencher, it will be a senior cabinet minister. If Johnson hadn't quit then he could have had a chance, but he decided to run.

[dribbles]

The current candidates put forward by the cabinet are Gove and Lidlington. The transitional PM won't be a back-bencher, it will be a senior cabinet minister. If Johnson hadn't quit then he could have had a chance, but he decided to run.

And a transitional PM will not finalise any permanent binding agreement with the EU either. So general election, or Tory leadership contest under the temporary PM must occur. Enter one Boris Johnson, backbencher or not.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

And a transitional PM will not finalise any permanent binding agreement with the EU either. So general election, or Tory leadership contest under the temporary PM must occur. Enter one Boris Johnson, backbencher or not.

So that would move the Brexit timetable to some time in 2020. You might need to change the batteries in that clock of yours.

Don't trust Boris. He only started supporting Leave when it became apparent that Cameron's position would become untenable if Leave won. Don't assume that he will keep his word in any promise or speech. He might decide that Remaining sounds better after all. He may even publish his hitherto unreleased Op-Ed backing Remain. He is as opportunistic as they come, and if he smells the political wind moving due Europe he will change his allegiance. He did last time that happened. Back in 2012 he was championing the inclusiveness of Britain, welcoming immigrants of all backgrounds. In 2015 he was full remain. In the first quarter of 2016 he was full remain. He only changed allegiance when he sensed a path to 10 Downing Street.

[Slant]

Is that like a world record for a tweet size or something?

How'd they even Print that. That's genuinely impressive.

That's nothing, you should see what we do in football:



- - - Updated - - -

Considering May's absolutely fucktarded job ushering through Brexit, would Europe even accept an Article 50 cancellation at this point? I mean legally, they have to. I'm aware of that. But Brexit being a multi-year British political stunt, with the other 27 countries as a prop for a domestic political fight, clearly has lead to some real bad blood with regards to UK politics, which were once seen as a model of stability and pragmatism.

In short, from a political (but not necessarily legal) perspective, what could Europe ask of the UK to show that, hey guess what, they want to stay after all. The worst thing they could want is to revisit 'Brexit 2.0', 15 years from now.

The thing about Brexit... it was a once in a generation event. The timing was perfect. Farage lobbied against the EU for 20 years and got nothing to show for it. It was the financial crisis of 2008, a severe austerity frenzy of the British Government (look to Germany for a more moderate, sensible approach), the emergency of internet lobbyism and activism, Greece and the origin of the idea of "we can just... exit the EU? Really?" being planted into people's heads and we must not forget.. the fertile soil for all of this: 40 years of the UK blaming everything on the EU.

All of that... has made the British either indifferent or opposed to the EU as an ideological concept. When you're in a country with a rich history and culture like the UK is, why wouldn't you reject anything that's not clearly better and remain a little longer in your nostalgic dream?

As it turns out, the British have learned about the EU by now. They have learned that they were lied to. Not by Farage and his peasants, they were lied to by everyone. The Government, the media... everyone! See, those are British people waving the EU flag. An ocean of blue. That's something.

So, in light of all of this... of course we'll take them back in. That is the one unconditional thing the EU will always do, no matter how long it takes.

- - - Updated - - -

Like Brexiteers give a shit about corrupt practices in the financial service, they follow equally skeezy hedge-fund managers like JRM and Farage is a city trader which is kinda like a banker who can't do sums.

ikr, it's ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

What I can imagine being changed is the order in which things are done. For example:

Member State says they want to leave. This triggers two years of negotiations over a withdrawal deal, extendable once by 1 year. After (and only after) the WA has been ratified by both parties, the government of the leaving country formally declares withdrawal, which comes into effect immediately. Then trade deals etc. can be discussed.

To be honest, I'd just strike the whole article. The only reason it's in is to make countries less afraid of joining. It's just to calm them down and tell them "if you don't like it, you can leave... so why not try it out?"

Well, yeah... you do that when your product is new and untested. By now, if you join the EU, you better fucking know what you're doing. No backsies, once you're in, you're in. We should learn from the italian Mafia in that respect. They had the right idea. :P

In all seriousness... we know the EU is not a country, but it's more than just an alliance or treaty or multilateral agreement. So, let's look at how countries solve this problem: Right, they don't. They simply don't allow you to leave.

(Yes, Putinistas, I'm talking about civilized, western democracies, not the fake shit you practice in Russia or the communist shit you have practiced in Soviet Russia, so stay the fuck out)

Why should the EU? What's the point? If this shitshow has shown us anything, it's that it's practically impossible to leave even with an article dedicated to it. The EU is actually too successful to fail. Btw, this is the ironic bit where I chuckle about people telling us the EU will crumble. Why? Because it can't. It literally cannot. Everything is so intertwined by now, separating siamese twins with only one brain is a cakewalk compared to exiting the EU.

Take it off the table. If a country really wants to leave, they can simply by physically closing their border, renouncing everything and telling the EU to fuck off. They'll suffer in credibility, but they'll be out and, let's be honest... how much more credibility can you lose than Britain right now?

Edit: If that is not possible, the EU has to find a way to force higher hurdles for shit like this. One way could be to ask member states to write EU membership into the constitution, like Germany did. That way, you'd have A50 protected by each member state's constitutional supermajority requirements (mostly two thirds, I believe). If the UK had a proper constitution, this would have prevented this circus from happening.

Now, that rule won't stop the UK from being silly in the future, see lack of constitution, but I believe most other countries are properly organised and have constitutions. I'd wager most of them have the EU written in already, too. This might be a mere formality, but an elegant solution.

And a country that manages to get a two third majority behind leaving, well we can safely assume they really want to leave and don't dick about the negotiations like the UK did.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...or-viral-photo

One telling image: in a Brussels corridor, the EU takes back control of Brexit
A photo of an ad hoc crisis meeting gives an insight into the efforts made to cope with a floundering British government

A behind-the-scenes of the last summit's main topic. Rather interesting and explains the motivations of the time limits.

[Kallisto]

Saw this and had a chuckle

[Dhrizzle]

To be honest, I'd just strike the whole article. The only reason it's in is to make countries less afraid of joining. It's just to calm them down and tell them "if you don't like it, you can leave... so why not try it out?"

It's not really for that, it was written over fears that a country could regress to a fascist or totalitarian state and no longer be able to fully participate in EU institutions.

[Slant]

It's not really for that, it was written over fears that a country could regress to a fascist or totalitarian state and no longer be able to fully participate in EU institutions.

Huh? How's A50, an article they'd have to voluntarily invoke give the EU more control than they have now? If a country leaves the democratic requirements of the EU, a process is in place to revoke their voting rights in EU institutions. But that has nothing to do with A50. The EU is protected in that regard.

[Dhrizzle]

Huh? How's A50, an article they'd have to voluntarily invoke give the EU more control than they have now? If a country leaves the democratic requirements of the EU, a process is in place to revoke their voting rights in EU institutions. But that has nothing to do with A50. The EU is protected in that regard.

The idea is that a country with its voting rights revoked would invoke A50 and leave, the author never thought it would be used by a fully participating member.

[ranzino]

oooh, UK should grow a pair and stop this silly charade. how much longer ?

[Slant]

The idea is that a country with its voting rights revoked would invoke A50 and leave, the author never thought it would be used by a fully participating member.

Ok, I can see the logic behind that, but I don't see how it was planned that way. It would be more reasonable to add it as an addendum to the voting rights removal process instead of making it its own article.

[Dhrizzle]

Ok, I can see the logic behind that, but I don't see how it was planned that way. It would be more reasonable to add it as an addendum to the voting rights removal process instead of making it its own article.

*shrugs* It came about at a bit of a messy time, originally it was going to be part of the EU constitution before that was scuppered.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Great day, yesterday. What a lot of genuinely lovely people.

The worst prime minister since Eden will shortly have its power supply removed.

Bring on: MV3 not even happening now, May's departure, remainer Lidington installed, indicative votes leading to something half acceptable, the ERG doing their collective nut, the Tories splitting.

Cheery, cheery today. I might even vote Labour in a GE! I'm having second thoughts about my objection to the £250bn national infrastructure investment fund. I think it might even be worth doing assuming it was spent for ecologically sound reasons.

[Xarkan]

The idea is that a country with its voting rights revoked would invoke A50 and leave, the author never thought it would be used by a fully participating member.

A better article there would be one to throw a country out instead of hoping they leave

[dribbles]

Great day, yesterday. What a lot of genuinely lovely people.

The worst prime minister since Eden will shortly have its power supply removed.

Bring on: MV3 not even happening now, May's departure, remainer Lidington installed, indicative votes leading to something half acceptable, the ERG doing their collective nut, the Tories splitting.

Cheery, cheery today. I might even vote Labour in a GE! I'm having second thoughts about my objection to the £250bn national infrastructure investment fund. I think it might even be worth doing assuming it was spent for ecologically sound reasons.

Why was it a great day? Looking at the front pages of todays newspapers nothing much of substance appeared to happen...