Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Rejected > General Election > Brexit wins vast majority > Hard Brexit

Or more likely a general election where the economic consequences are apparent results in a soft or anti Brexit government.

A lot of people seem to forget the voters that swung the referendum do not usually concern themselves with voting, so that narrow 52-48 majority might disappear, even without accounting for the change in demographics.
 
And still it won't sink in, once article 50 is presented it doesn't matter whether we later have an anti-Brexit government or not - we will already and inevitably be on the road Out.

Xeno has a point, technically parliament could hold a vote of no confidence over any agreement (despite the meaningless fixed-term act) and leave us with a very hard Brexit, but as the whole objective of May's negotiation will be to gain something better than that then such an outcome wouldn't really make sense, although I don't deny it as a possibility.
 
From all the texts available one of his questions is easy to answer, there is no terms for Brexit from the EU standpoint; when you leave, you leave and then you negotiate for new deals and treaties but the second part has nothing to do with Brexit.
In theory there is no deal that leads to Brexit, it's Brexit that eventually leads to deals.

I don't know if it's clear.
I got as far as 'Should Parliament control the terms on which we Brexit?'.

It just won't sink in will it JPR, the terms will only be negotiated after article 50, and not by parliament, but by the government.
Whatever the government manages to agree, that is what we will be stuck with, the voter's say is over, parliament's say is over, like it or lump it we're in the hands of Theresa May now. Best of luck to all of us.
You guys need to let the various EU legal and constitutional experts of the land - currently debating so fiercely amongst themselves whether Article 50 is reversible - know that this topic is longer worth pursuing as you have found the answer then.
 
Or more likely a general election where the economic consequences are apparent results in a soft or anti Brexit government.

A lot of people seem to forget the voters that swung the referendum do not usually concern themselves with voting, so that narrow 52-48 majority might disappear, even without accounting for the change in demographics.
There's a study somewhere though saying that a good percentage of people would accept an economic catastrophe if that meant getting rid of the brown people full control over immigration.

I think there's a good deal more mileage in all these challenges, and coupled with Parliament heavily leaning Remain there will be a concerted spin process designed to make a soft Brexit more palatable. May doesn't want to be the PM who led us out of Europe into economic disaster, despite her posturing.
 
There may never be a deal, that's what no-one knows, this has been one of my strongest arguments all along, lemmings off a cliff

For me, your strongest argument was you not exercising your right to vote in the referendum, and then coming in this thread banging on about leave voters being "lemmings" etc.

If you have so much to say, why didn't you vote? After all, there are thousands like you who couldn't be bothered to vote because they moved abroad and didn't vote because they thought it won't affect them.

And you sit there, spouting your opinions about something you had a small chance to change, yet did nothing.

You have a lot to say in this thread, but, actions speak louder than words and you chose to do nothing when the votes mattered. Hence, your opinion is somewhat irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
 
You guys need to let the various EU legal and constitutional experts of the land - currently debating so fiercely amongst themselves whether Article 50 is reversible - know that this topic is longer worth pursuing as you have found the answer then.

Why that tone, did I disrespect or insult you? And what I wrote comes from various EU constitutional experts and it also happens to be the opinion of the Royal court of justice.
 
For me, your strongest argument was you not exercising your right to vote in the referendum, and then coming in this thread banging on about leave voters being "lemmings" etc.

If you have so much to say, why didn't you vote? After all, there are thousands like you who couldn't be bothered to vote because they moved abroad and didn't vote because they thought it won't affect them.

And you sit there, spouting your opinions about something you had a small chance to change, yet did nothing.

You have a lot to say in this thread, but, actions speak louder than words and you chose to do nothing when the votes mattered. Hence, your opinion is somewhat irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

I didn't vote because I don't live there any more and never will.
That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on something - because people comment on all kinds of things even just on this site that they are not directly connected to or affected by - I see free speech is another constraint to be imposed by the Leave brigade.

My strongest argument is not about whether I voted or not, it's about the UK doing the most idiotic thing possible in the last 80 years.

If you don't want to read my comments, don't, but you won't shut me up.
 
Last edited:
You have some pretty strong opinions, but you really have no clue at all mate. You seem to think that borders and passport checks will somehow deter terrorists or other suitably motivated and financed people from coming in or out. They won't. While I don't agree hard borders will solve immigration, I can at least understand why you might have a valid argument it would. But unless you mean a Berlin Wall style curtain surrounding the entire UK, with every person checked to the nth degree (and how much would that cost?) borders and passport checks do not stop people bypassing them, which terrorists undoubtedly will.

Honestly, not even that would prevent it. In my profession I work with the German border control from time to time and know a few of their officer quite well. I talked about this topic with an very experienced veteran officer, who served in the three big stages of border control ("iron curtain", pre Schengen borders, post Schengen borders). On my question if harsher control could have prevented what happened in Berlin, he simply answered: "If a terorrist wants to enter a country, he will get in."

Open borders do influence certain crimes like for example car theft in border region, but in terms of terrorism it basically makes no difference.

The terrorists nearly always have help from inside the country and the globalisation has made communication and organisation inbetween them way easier than in the past. If they face full border control they either prepare for it or circumvent it.

The only way to significantly lower the likelihood would be full fledged surveillance everywhere (basically a police state), which would not only be problematic in terms of individual rights but also unrealistic according to the beforementioned officer. The necessary manpower to pull it of in a country of the size of Germany would be immense.

Ironically, according to him, the current surprise controls are even more effective than the standartised controls pre Schengen as the open borders can tend to make them more careless than they otherwise would have been.
 
Our world-view changes every few years. You may fall in love, you may find a job you can't refuse, ... the possibilities are endless...

("our opinions" means mine, yours, anyone's...)

I've just retired so no job is going to tempt me, I've been married to a French lady for a very long time, my kids and grandkids live in France and it took me over 30 years to be able to live in the country I wanted to live in since I was a teenager. Never does mean never in my case.
 
"So we just make it a bit easier for them by not checking anything, see that guy over there with the bomb making equipment? he's not going to kill anyone, honest"

Every country can check whoever they want, the EU can't though.
 
"So we just make it a bit easier for them by not checking anything, see that guy over there with the bomb making equipment? he's not going to kill anyone, honest"
Maybe devoting our finite resources on the bomb making equipment and the communication lines of terrorist organisations rather than delaying, demeaning and dehumanising all travelers would be a better approach. When was the last time the 1 hour + immigration debacle at Heathrow stopped a terrorist? When was the last time it partially inspired one?
 
"So we just make it a bit easier for them by not checking anything, see that guy over there with the bomb making equipment? he's not going to kill anyone, honest"

Nice way to twist the words of someone who can be considered an expert of the field. It is also simply false that there are no checks at all.

It is even more hilarious, when I know that the border control and state police of Germany (a country with many different open borders) has one of the best track records when it comes to preventing direct terror acts (e.g. bomb threats) and is seen as exemplary by other countries. The problem in Berlin was that it was a truck that was used as deadly weapon, not a bomb or something obvious like that.

How do you want to prevent that? Search every truck driving through the country? That is simply not possible.
 
Nice way to twist the words of someone who can be considered an expert of the field. It is also simply false that there are no checks at all.

It is even more hilarious, when I know that the border control and state police of Germany (a country with many different open borders) has one of the best track records when it comes to preventing direct terror acts (e.g. bomb threats) and is seen as exemplary by other countries. The problem in Berlin was that it was a truck that was used as deadly weapon, not a bomb or something obvious like that.

How do you want to prevent that? Search every truck driving through the country? That is simply not possible.
feck nose but my point isnt that

He travelled unchecked through multiple countries with open borders, stopping only to buy a payg sim card in nijmegen. The dutch are horrified by this but thats ok, principles and all that
 
Nice way to twist the words of someone who can be considered an expert of the field. It is also simply false that there are no checks at all.

It is even more hilarious, when I know that the border control and state police of Germany (a country with many different open borders) has one of the best track records when it comes to preventing direct terror acts (e.g. bomb threats) and is seen as exemplary by other countries. The problem in Berlin was that it was a truck that was used as deadly weapon, not a bomb or something obvious like that.

How do you want to prevent that? Search every truck driving through the country? That is simply not possible.
I thought i read the total opposite about German security forces the other day. Will check that
 
feck nose but my point isnt that

He travelled unchecked through multiple countries with open borders, stopping only to buy a payg sim card in nijmegen. The dutch are horrified by this but thats ok, principles and all that

But what's your point, exactly? The dutch are horrified that their police didn't do a job that they are entitled to do?
 
Maybe devoting our finite resources on the bomb making equipment and the communication lines of terrorist organisations rather than delaying, demeaning and dehumanising all travelers would be a better approach. When was the last time the 1 hour + immigration debacle at Heathrow stopped a terrorist? When was the last time it partially inspired one?

No one has ever burgled my house, i should be easily alright if i leave all the doors open tonight
 
I thought i read the total opposite about German security forces the other day. Will check that

You are free to do so, but then again there is also been written a lot of rubbish these days. If the state police (and I mean specially this branch of the police) would be as poor as it is presented sometimes, Germany as poster child for Western liberalism, key member of NATO (participant in the Afghanistan war) and second strongest economy of the Western world would have been critically hit a long time before Berlin. There are also more threats prevented as the ones making it to the public like the bomb threats at Frankfurt´s center station and the football stadium in Hanover.

My profession (I´m part of a team that manages embassies throughout Europe) puts me in contact with many different national polices and Germany´s is the frontrunner in many different projects and enjoys a very good reputation within Interpol.
 
Good job we are apparently sick of experts... because it sounds like we are fecked post brexshit



Brexit and population increase 'to change UK radically' by 2030

Life in the UK will undergo "radical" change in the 2020s due to Brexit, population changes and jobs being taken by robots, a think tank has predicted.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said there would be a Brexit "aftershock" and that the UK's exit from the EU would be "the firing gun on a decade of disruption".

It identified wide-ranging factors that would "reshape how we live and work".

The government has promised to "forge a new role" for the UK in the world.

In its report, the IPPR, a centre-left think tank, said Brexit would be one of the major "disruptive forces" in the years ahead, saying the vote had delivered a "profound shock" to the UK's political and economic order which was likely to set the country on a path of permanently lower growth and living standards.

It also anticipated a "demographic tipping point" with a population boom and the number of people aged 65 and over predicted to rise by a third by the end of the next decade.

The report said this would impose new strains on the state with the funding gap for adult social care expected to hit £13bn by 2030-31.

This would lead to an increase in the UK's deficit - the gap between income and spending - it said.

'Different landscape'
The IPPR also said two-thirds of current jobs - 15 million - were at risk from "exponential" improvements in new technologies such as artificial intelligence systems.

"Politics, economics and power structures will be profoundly disrupted, and with it social relations," it said.

The report said while this would not end "work as we know it", it would make jobs less secure and more freelance.


Politicians would have to shape who benefits from the changes and who loses out, it said.

The report also predicted a transformation in how energy is produced and consumed by 2030, which would be driven by climate change, as well as a "changing economic world order", with power to "accelerate eastward".

"Brexit is the firing gun on a decade of disruption," the report said.

"Even as what we do and how we work changes, the UK is likely to remain trapped in a low growth, low interest rate decade driven by demographic shifts, productivity trends, weak investment, weak labour power, high levels of debt, and the headwinds of a slowing global economy.

"Without reform, our political and social system will struggle to build a more democratic, healthy society in the decades ahead, even as Brexit accelerates us towards a radically different institutional landscape."

Labour and the Liberal Democrats both saw the report as an indictment of what they called the government's "hard Brexit strategy", which is taken to mean forfeiting single market access in order to gain control over immigration.

But the government reiterated its commitment to making a success of Brexit and saying the UK was forecast to be the fastest-growing major advanced economy.

"While there may be challenges ahead, we approach them from a position of strength," a spokesman added.



o.gif
 
I didn't vote because I don't live there any more and never will.
That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on something - because people comment on all kinds of things even just on this site that they are not directly connected to or affected by - I see free speech is another constraint to be imposed by the Leave brigade.

My strongest argument is not about whether I voted or not, it's about the UK doing the most idiotic thing possible in the last 80 years.

If you don't want to read my comments, don't, but you won't shut me up.

I didn't say you can't have an opinion, just that to me personally, your opinion is somewhat irrelevant because you chose no to vote.

Approximately 13 million people eligible to vote in the referendum didn't bother for whatever reason. That is more than enough to sway the result to remain. And you were one of those people. So, in a round about way, you helped the UK do the most (in your words) "idiotic thing possible in the last 80 years" and now sit there complaining about it.

Living in France, you actually may not be immune from the fallout of Brexit in the long term so I am really surprised that you didn't bother voting.

As for your comments, they are part of a thread so I can't avoid reading them.
 
I didn't say you can't have an opinion, just that to me personally, your opinion is somewhat irrelevant because you chose no to vote.

Approximately 13 million people eligible to vote in the referendum didn't bother for whatever reason. That is more than enough to sway the result to remain. And you were one of those people. So, in a round about way, you helped the UK do the most (in your words) "idiotic thing possible in the last 80 years" and now sit there complaining about it.

Living in France, you actually may not be immune from the fallout of Brexit in the long term so I am really surprised that you didn't bother voting.

As for your comments, they are part of a thread so I can't avoid reading them.

I'm not complaining about it, it will probably be more advantageous to me with the UK out of the EU, the further the pound drops the better - all I'm saying it is a stupid thing to do. The same as if Chelsea signed Theresa May as their goalkeeper, it's not going to affect me very much but it would still be a ridiculous decision.

Additionally, there are many people in this thread who did not or could not vote, but their opinions are of equal value as anyone else's whether you agree or disagree with them. With information people can learn but some people just don't want to know.

I was posting in the referendum forum long before the referendum itself and people like me were accused of scaremongering, nothing has changed my opinion whatsoever of what is likely to happen, if anything it may well be worse. But British people who voted Leave have decided that's what they want , let them live with the consequences. They are the people responsible for what is likely to be a complete fiasco.

Any comments in this thread are post the referendum so it's too late unless the UK don't actually go through with leaving.
 
Why that tone, did I disrespect or insult you? And what I wrote comes from various EU constitutional experts and it also happens to be the opinion of the Royal court of justice.
Bare in mind I was also responding to @712 and his "they just don't get it" enlightened tone.

Everything I read seems to suggest the matter is far from clear cut (http://nowweknow.co.uk/is-triggering-article-50-reversible/), hence why someone is prepared to put big money in taking the matter to court. The Royal Court of Justice have not ruled on this matter.
 
Bare in mind I was also responding to @712 and his "they just don't get it" enlightened tone.

Everything I read seems to suggest the matter is far from clear cut (http://nowweknow.co.uk/is-triggering-article-50-reversible/), hence why someone is prepared to put big money in taking the matter to court. The Royal Court of Justice have not ruled on this matter.

Like I said a good month ago, you believe me or not but there is a sentence that tells you everything you need to know, it's the third paragraph of the article 50.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

That part clearly tells you that the absence of agreement still leads to the withdrawal. The wording of that paragraph also tells you that the European Council is in charge, they can extend the negotiation period with the approval of the withdrawing country and you can imagine that they also could decide to scrap everything and allow the withdrawing country to stay if he changed his mind but they also can decide to not allow it.

Basically the article 50 tells you that the actual withdrawing is its notification and its reception by the European council.

Also like mentioned earlier the UK don't have the power to lengthen the negotiation process unilaterally and it's not mentioned that a country can unilaterally withdraw his withdrawing, so it is very weird to see respectable judges and professors ignore the spirit of a text, now I'm sure that they noticed that their argument works the other way around, nothing says that the EU Council has to accept the u-turn and ignore the notification who is after all the only thing required to withdraw.
 
Like I said a good month ago, you believe me or not but there is a sentence that tells you everything you need to know, it's the third paragraph of the article 50.



That part clearly tells you that the absence of agreement still leads to the withdrawal. The wording of that paragraph also tells you that the European Council is in charge, they can extend the negotiation period with the approval of the withdrawing country and you can imagine that they also could decide to scrap everything and allow the withdrawing country to stay if he changed his mind but they also can decide to not allow it.

Basically the article 50 tells you that the actual withdrawing is its notification and its reception by the European council.

Also like mentioned earlier the UK don't have the power to lengthen the negotiation process unilaterally and it's not mentioned that a country can unilaterally withdraw his withdrawing, so it is very weird to see respectable judges and professors ignore the spirit of a text, now I'm sure that they noticed that their argument works the other way around, nothing says that the EU Council has to accept the u-turn and ignore the notification who is after all the only thing required to withdraw.
So what?

Where specifically in the text does it say "a country may not withdraw its article 50 notification after it has given it"?

Even the person who wrote it says it is reversible
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628