I think its too late now. Sure the EU will accept the UK return to the fold. However it will be asking for its pound of flesh (ie guarantees that article 50 will never be triggered again + possibly shengen membership)
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I think its too late now. Sure the EU will accept the UK return to the fold. However it will be asking for its pound of flesh (ie guarantees that article 50 will never be triggered again + possibly shengen membership)
We can forget all those nice rebates we had as well, we'll be paying the same as all the other members. I'd think Shengen would most likely still be off the table due to a lack of land borders, the only one we have is effectively open anyway.
Irrespective of any deal offered (and I am pretty sure that the EU will at least expect assurances that article 50 will never be activated again) the UK will come back in a weaker position. It lost every EU friend it once had and a quick U-Turn will make sure it ends up pissing off the US too
I think that what the EU would do under such circumstances would be that the UK will be allowed to crash out of the EU only to join the EEA and then given a guaranteed fast track route back within the EU under new terms which include the euro, shengen and no article 50. On a positive note it might offer Scotland, Wales and co, the unique opportunity to join the EU as independent members IF they leave the UK first.
Last edited:
Why do so few people (I have only really heard Ken Clarke say this in recent months) ever mention that the referendum was explicitly advisory - NOT legally binding?
This whole idea that not leaving would be a travesty of democracy is nonsense.
This whole idea that not leaving would be a travesty of democracy is nonsense.
It may be technically true to say it was advisory but the campaign was conducted on the basis that it was a genuinely binding referendum with real consequences. I think the only feasible way to row back would be on the basis of a second referendum once it becomes clear that the "have cake and eat it" option is off the table. Otherwise, if the June 16 result is simply ignored, the alienated regions that voted out will be tempted by uglier siren voices than UKIP.
I think Referendum 2 is winnable if the vote is lowered to 16, includes Brits in the EU and is accompanied by a strong message that a stay vote would not mean business as usual but would be accompanied by a concerted effort to tackle some of the disillusionment that caused last year's result. Whether there is anyone among the current UK political leadership who has the courage or credibility to do so is quite another matter.
Will of the people
Agreed, it would be politically toxic, but it just strikes me as a point that ought to be made, if only to give Parliament some wiggle room.
As you said a second referendum seems the best route out of this, and I suspect it will have to go that way in the end. I dont know about the practicalities but if it was possible to have a referendum on the final deal, which was by that time out there for all to see, I think it would be winnable, on the basis that the deal I expect us to ultimately be offered will be shit.
Having said that there is also a strong possibility people will react badly to being offered an "unfair" (as it would surely be characterised) deal and vote to leave on principle. The British electorate can usually be relied on to choose the exact opposite of what I think is best, so I wouldnt bet against it happening again in that instance.
As in our last will and testament.
Honestly, I think our current crop of politicians are cowards. Absolutely terrified of the backlash from the electorate, and the right wing papers.
We are crying out for a path forward, and the only way to do that is with a soft Brexit.
We are crying out for a path forward, and the only way to do that is with a soft Brexit.
On your last point, you can be sure that the likes of the Mail and the Sun would present the negotiating position of the EU (and more particularly of the Germans and the French) as a sequel to the Napoleonic era or 1940 with brave little Britain fighting alone for its freedom against continental tyranny. So I agree that there's a risk of rallying around the flag defeating common sense. The onus is on the Remain side to improve its messaging and for prominent EU officials (Junker is a prime culprit) and politicians to try to ignore provocation and avoid inflammatory statements.
I think that the Tory party had been caught into a avalanche of lies that they cannot possibly stop. The Tory government had, in the past, justified every mistake of theirs by pinning it to the EU. When the monster grew big enough to be taken seriously, they made the tactical move of first appeasing it (ie Brexit referendum) only to beat the crap out of it at a later stage. Unfortunately for Cameron and co, the Brexiters saw that as an opportunity to break the ranks and turn this referendum into a Tory power struggle. In a bid to win enough votes not to win the referendum but still humiliate Cameron enough to resign, they delivered all sort of porkies which people believed and voted for.
It turned out that Brexit did win and they found themselves thrown into the deep end of something they didn't plan for and have no idea how to tackle. At this point, if they back down they will be ruined immediately. Considering their age (May and Davies are in their 60s while Boris, Farage and Fox are in their 50s) they will hold to power for as long as possible only to retire gracefully when shite hits fan. Similar to UKIP, the Tory Party will probably implode after that, but they really can't give a damn about that.
I'm not sure the country is governable if we don't leave the EU post a referendum majority voting to leave. As big a mistake as leaving may be staying against the wishes of 52% of voters would be a shit fest. "Final proof we are being controlled by Europe and enslaved against our wishes by the pro EU oligarchy". Someone would arrive to rile up the masses and now they don't have to think about winning votes they already did that, it's about taking to the streets like the fuel protesters and at that point, the whole country collapses into anarchy.
This whole preoccupation with leaving the EU and wrecking what is already a weakish economy, just because a slim majority voted out on a given day, which btw might turn out as 48-52 next time given the change of demographics, is what makes the country ungovernable, as different groups are pulling in different directions when seemingly looking to achieve a similar goal.
A consensus is required which recognises these different factors and Mayhem and the hard Brexiteers are seemingly incapable of building an agreed position between the opposing parties.
A consensus is required which recognises these different factors and Mayhem and the hard Brexiteers are seemingly incapable of building an agreed position between the opposing parties.
Yet people keep voting for them. You reap what you sew.
I can't agree with you more. From my limited experience in politics I learnt how easy and effective it is for politicians to play the blame game. That's was one of the reasons why I left
Having said that, I think the tories took it to an extreme and I don't really rate politicians myself
Because it isn't uncertainty. And the EU benefits from us remaining members. A mechanism through which we could remain members, sustain the status quo but with a pretence of abiding by the previous referendum until a point comes where it's politically convenient/acceptable to determine a sea change from that would be beneficial to all parties.
The overwhelming political desire is for the UK to remain. We don't really want to leave, save for a few political opportunists, one of two of whom are in the cabinet, and the EU don't want us to leave. The only chink in that armour is that presently that's politically inconvenient for the current UK government.The odds of some kind of a fudge designed to keep things as they are until the point comes where it's no longer politically inconvenient to be a proponent of effectively ignoring the referendum has always seemed the most likely outcome.
Yes but the UK can raise the issue again when the EU is weaker then it is now. It also gives a message that any dissident within the EU can just test the waters and then backtracks furiously if things go wrong without suffering any sort of repercussion. That's not good for the Union.
I think that the UK overrates itself a bit too much. Sure its a rich country but its hardly indispensable for the continent. What the EU needs is countries that are truly committed to the project, something that the UK is not. Now I am not saying that if the UK decides to remain in the EU then it will end up with its door shut. All I am saying is that either way, repercussions are inevitable. The UK will probably lose its right to activate article 50 again + it will probably lose some if not all its privileged status (ie the pound, shengen etc). If the UK is truly committed to the EU then it will accept. If not, well, there's always that bald relationship May keep talking about
Last edited:
There's no chance the EU would insist if we stayed we scrapped the pound and signed up to Shengen and insisted for some reason we had less rights in respect of leaving than anyone else. I think you confuse the EU with a WWF villain.
Besides being ridiculous it would be frankly politically illiterate to reach a point where the mutually beneficial status quo could be maintained and then do everything you can to ensure it becomes politically difficult to maintain the mutually beneficial status quo. Staying on the same terms will, in short time, become attractive in public consciousness - currently the only hurdle in its way. Putting that at risk for a pointless, vindictive power grab definitely won't happen.
Besides being ridiculous it would be frankly politically illiterate to reach a point where the mutually beneficial status quo could be maintained and then do everything you can to ensure it becomes politically difficult to maintain the mutually beneficial status quo. Staying on the same terms will, in short time, become attractive in public consciousness - currently the only hurdle in its way. Putting that at risk for a pointless, vindictive power grab definitely won't happen.
What so 'villain' in EU members accepting EU projects that are aimed to make the Union stronger? If someone had to become part of the UK then surely that country would be expected to accept frictionless access to UK citizens + the introduction of the pound. So what's different between the UK and the EU (apart that the latter is a way bigger market)? Also from an EU perspective there's no mutual benefits in accepting the UK withdrawal of article 50 without any repercussions whatsoever. What it does, is setting a precedent for other countries to do the same bravado in a bid of getting a better deal.
All of this will probably be achieved with far more elegance then I stated. The EU will probably refuse the UK's withdrawal of article 50 letter. Instead it will give it a fast track route to the EEA (which would allow the UK access to the single market but no voice in EU matters and a heavy contribution the EU budget). Once in the EEA the UK can re-apply for EU membership with the same terms offered to new members. That means shengen, Euro and possibly a slight modification to the article 50 clause.
There's absolutely zero political will for any of that to happen. Everything every EU leader has ever said on the subject publicly or reported in private indicates that absolutely nothing you've said has any will; political or economic, on the continent at all.
You're just inventing reality based on seemingly absolutely nothing and then determining it the 'probable' outcome.
So you read the steams of EU leaders an politicians suggest that Brexit can (and perhaps should) be reversed and you take from that the fact that not only do they want Brexit not to be reversed, they want the UK to leave and leave on a term that would embolden political opposition in the UK to them leaving completely?
I'm sorry but you're talking absolute nonsense. You might as well claim "Yeah, what'll probably happen is that the EU will insist that Britain becomes Greater France, and they lose their ability to vote and probably have to draw a moustache on the Queen on the money."
This fantasy world you seem to live in really doesn't deserve as much time as I've evidently given it. It just seems so strange that someone evidently reasonably familiar with the issue can reach such a batshit, Alex Jones-level analysis of the situation.
You're just inventing reality based on seemingly absolutely nothing and then determining it the 'probable' outcome.
So you read the steams of EU leaders an politicians suggest that Brexit can (and perhaps should) be reversed and you take from that the fact that not only do they want Brexit not to be reversed, they want the UK to leave and leave on a term that would embolden political opposition in the UK to them leaving completely?
I'm sorry but you're talking absolute nonsense. You might as well claim "Yeah, what'll probably happen is that the EU will insist that Britain becomes Greater France, and they lose their ability to vote and probably have to draw a moustache on the Queen on the money."
This fantasy world you seem to live in really doesn't deserve as much time as I've evidently given it. It just seems so strange that someone evidently reasonably familiar with the issue can reach such a batshit, Alex Jones-level analysis of the situation.
Last edited:
You weren't really paying attention then.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-european-parliament-negotiator-a7790886.html
Mr Verhofstadt said. “But like Alice in Wonderland not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity. That is the door towards Europe.”
-----------------------
If the Tory Party pr even labour backtracks on Brexit then they will lose all the credibility they have. It will also make the EU look like the villain who made it impossible for the UK government to obey the will of the people forcing these same people to change their views. It is therefore within the UK/EU interest that Brexit occurs. However a quick access to the EEA will make the former leave this messy situation with some dignity and will limit any serious financial repercussions on the EU-UK economy (the UK will lose its rebates, but the economy is strong enough to tank that).
Once in the EEA the UK can either decide to remain there (ie unrestricted access to the single market, ie it accepts all EU members rules and obligations but it will have no voice on European matters) or re-apply for EU membership again (ie a return to some of the rebates + a meaningful voice on EU matters). However, note that new members tend to have far less rights then older members. For example Malta who joined the EU in 2004 had to adopt the Euro something that wasn't neccessary for older EU members to do. Romania and Bulgaria had to also accept a temporary restriction on their freedom of movement.
And no one said that the UK won't be allowed the ability to vote. All I am saying is that things won't revert to what they used to be.
There seem to be this idea (even among the Remainers such as Blair) that the EU will bend over backwards if asked nicely. It didn't happen till now and I seriously doubt it will happen in the future. The UK is not as important for the EU as it thinks and EU unity is far important than keeping the UK within the family. The UK has been halting the EU efforts of a closer integration for decades. If it backtracks from Brexit then assurances will be made to make sure that it wont be in a position to hurt the EU again or stop its natural progression to a closer union. As Merkel said, you can't really rely on the UK anymore.
Its all within the UK's court of course. The UK can still insist on the Brexiters bald plan if they want to.
Last edited:
To disagree on just one point, I don't think the future is in the UK's court at all, I think it's very much in the EU's. If they do value their exports more than their principles and offer easy trade via the EEA then the UK will snap their hand off, if they decide to demand too much for the UK to stomach, in terms of the four freedoms, then hard Brexit it will be. More their decision than ours however.
For what it's worth I've always thought the EU will go for principle, and a hard brexit was the most likely result, hence I voted remain, but here we are now, we'll see.
EEA members are given unrestricted access to the single market, in exchange of acceptance of the 4 freedoms, EU law and no voice on European matters. The EU hold the longest part of the stick so I doubt that there will be a revision of rules just to accommodate the UK.
I suspect not, in which case case we have the answer.
Freedom of movement is a big thing for the Tory Party. I wonder if JC thinks in the same way though. With the Tory party being so weak (ie they rely on DUP/Tory remainer MPs who are in favour of soft Brexit), JC might end up in government far earlier then expected.
Fair point. Although JC would lose so much voter support it would amount to a reshaping of British politics he could see power long enough to do a deal.
Ive just finished reading "Adults in the Room" by Varoufakis. Anyone else read it?
Also note that we are basing the argument at the assumption of the uk government having a change of heart regarding brexit
As Mr Barnier said to Boris: “I don’t hear whistling, just the clock ticking.”
Barnier must not have heard of the mighty intellect of our Boris, he swats him off like a fly.
Barnier must not have heard of the mighty intellect of our Boris, he swats him off like a fly.
I think jc is already paving the way to this through his job first strategy eith the eu. His bromance with barnier suggest that they are on the same page. A big chunk of brexiters are either right wing (ie not jc voters) or ancient. They are hardly the vote base to build the future upon
What i think will happen is that jc will push the uk to enter the eaa and then use all tools available to stop eu member citizens from abusing on benefits. That will appease the anti immigrant but not xenophobic faction within his party without crushing the economy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nged-school-toilets-suffered-racist-bullying/
Can't quote because of caf rules.
Can't quote because of caf rules.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...would-swap-free-movement-for-eu-market-access
"But support for a trade-off soars when voters are offered the option of other limitations on free movement that are used by some countries in the single market."
So why did they vote Brexit again?
"But support for a trade-off soars when voters are offered the option of other limitations on free movement that are used by some countries in the single market."
So why did they vote Brexit again?
The same British public who are fine with the same limitations we already had before they voted to feck the British economy. It's an interesting definition of sophistication..
Article 50 author calls for Brexit to be halted with a warning of ‘disastrous consequences’
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...quences’/ar-BBEFXNp?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...quences’/ar-BBEFXNp?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout
Sorry if this has already been post but
Poor kid, not sure what it has it do with Brexit though
"You're under citizens arrest... get ready to die"
It reminds me of Democracy manifest.
Sorry if this has already been post but
"Dale" (or Dr Dale Roberts) is clearly a fecking know-nothing twat for linking this to BREXIT …
However, I do think the post should be moved to The Wire thread. It's the closest I've seen to the streets of Baltimore.
Sorry if this has already been post but
What an absolute cnut, who wears a pink shirt when it's raining?