Brexit

Dec 18, 2018
155
162
160
Theresa May is playing the Brits like a fiddle. Her goal is keep Britain in the EU. She has already dragged this out for three years. How long can she delay, delay, delay? It seems like she can do this forever. I guess in 2021 we will still be hearing about endless rounds of extensions and voting.
 
Likes: JimmyJones
Aug 5, 2007
388
17
860
Theresa May is playing the Brits like a fiddle. Her goal is keep Britain in the EU. She has already dragged this out for three years. How long can she delay, delay, delay? It seems like she can do this forever. I guess in 2021 we will still be hearing about endless rounds of extensions and voting.
The only reason a delay is possible is because parliament is still refusing to vote through her deal to leave the EU. And the parts of the party blocking her deal from going through are those that want to try and force the UK to leave without a deal!
 
Mar 14, 2018
89
79
160
The only reason a delay is possible is because parliament is still refusing to vote through her deal to leave the EU. And the parts of the party blocking her deal from going through are those that want to try and force the UK to leave without a deal!
May's deal is, in many ways, very similar to remaining in the EU.

She's managed to manoevre the choice into being 'remain or mostly remain'
 
Likes: hariseldon
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
cheers :) . although... I'm not gonna go so far as to say she is acting in 'good faith' lol.
While we will never know what is said behind closed doors, I do note that the European Council President tweeted:

"During my consultations ahead of #EUCO, I will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its #Brexit strategy and build consensus around it. "

Sure looks like the wheels are in motion for Parliament to reject May's deal / reject no deal, and only get the requested extension if a second referendum is agreed to. If that is what happens, it will be impossible to convince me that the whole negotiation was anything more than a charade designed to fail while giving May cover. Way too convenient of an outcome for someone who was against leaving before the first vote.
 
Likes: hariseldon
Aug 5, 2007
388
17
860
May's deal is, in many ways, very similar to remaining in the EU.


She's managed to manoevre the choice into being 'remain or mostly remain'
It's not really "her deal" in that sense; it's the deal the EU offered her. Right from the beginning she talked about her "red lines" being leaving the customs union and the single market. The whole party was on board with that, especially David Davis, the hardcore Brexiteer who lead the negotiations.

The reason the EU couldn't give the UK that deal is Ireland wouldn't accept a hard border, and are in a position effectively to veto any deal reached. If Northern Ireland wasn't part of the UK, these negotiations would most likely have been done already and we would be leaving the customs union and single market with some kind of free trade deal à la Canada.
 
Last edited:
Aug 5, 2007
388
17
860
Why is the role of the UK in this deal always downplayed? It is pretty much her deal, respectively the deal the UK negotiated with the EU.
It's her deal in the sense that she helped negotiate it, stood behind it and brought to parliament to vote on.

It's the EU's deal in the sense that it was the best the EU was willing to offer, having rejected May's request for a "facilitated customs arrangement" that would allow the UK to make trade deals while remaining in a customs union with the EU.
 

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,436
1,199
350
It's the EU's deal in the sense that it was the best the EU was willing to offer, having rejected May's request for a "facilitated customs arrangement" that would allow the UK to make trade deals while remaining in a customs union with the EU.
Why would the EU feel the need to make any more concessions? The UK wanted to leave, while still having all the benefits of being an EU member. I find it hilarious how many seem to think that solution would fly with the EU?

Considering all the red lines the UK has drawn from the very start of the negotiations, there are really just two (good) options at the moment: no deal Brexit or forget the whole Brexit thing and stay in the EU as core member. What we have on the table instead is taxation without representation.

The bottom line is the deal on the table is pretty much Theresa May's deal, and she stubbornly brings it back to the table time and time again.
 
Likes: Bleys
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
Why would the EU feel the need to make any more concessions? The UK wanted to leave, while still having all the benefits of being an EU member. I find it hilarious how many seem to think that solution would fly with the EU?

Considering all the red lines the UK has drawn from the very start of the negotiations, there are really just two (good) options at the moment: no deal Brexit or forget the whole Brexit thing and stay in the EU as core member. What we have on the table instead is taxation without representation.

The bottom line is the deal on the table is pretty much Theresa May's deal, and she stubbornly brings it back to the table time and time again.
The EU has no reason to make any more concessions at all. With no deal having been rejected, the EU can just sit back and wait for the whole thing to be scrapped.
 
Aug 5, 2007
388
17
860
Why would the EU feel the need to make any more concessions? The UK wanted to leave, while still having all the benefits of being an EU member. I find it hilarious how many seem to think that solution would fly with the EU?

Considering all the red lines the UK has drawn from the very start of the negotiations, there are really just two (good) options at the moment: no deal Brexit or forget the whole Brexit thing and stay in the EU as core member. What we have on the table instead is taxation without representation.

The bottom line is the deal on the table is pretty much Theresa May's deal, and she stubbornly brings it back to the table time and time again.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing. The point about it not being May's deal was in reference to the implication she somehow manufactured the limitations imposed by the EU to force the UK to stay in. When in reality these limitations were imposed by the Brexiteers themselves.
 
Likes: Makariel
Feb 22, 2018
1,731
1,930
325
It's obvious the PM who is 100% opposed to brexit is stalling and self-sabotaging the exit for her masters in Brussels with stupid deal conditions. It grows tiresome and at some point the unelected euro elite will have to come to rude terms with the fact that there will be consequences for their anti-democratic antics.
 
Last edited:
Likes: hariseldon
Aug 22, 2018
2,289
3,156
275
Jesus UK, what the hell happened to you in the past 50 odd years that makes the concept of not being utterly dominated by a foreign power so terrifying? Why did you bother to fight the Nazis if you were just going to let yourselves be dictated by another German Chancellor hellbent on destroying Europe anyway?
We got pussified. Tbh while each side has reasons to be right and reasons to be wrong, they're both reasonable positions to hold, the thing I struggle with is how membership of a trans-national organisation has become such an emotional bond for some people. Like before the referendum nobody was that arsed. It's very very odd.
 
Likes: Makariel
May 4, 2005
12,758
1,435
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
We got pussified. Tbh while each side has reasons to be right and reasons to be wrong, they're both reasonable positions to hold, the thing I struggle with is how membership of a trans-national organisation has become such an emotional bond for some people. Like before the referendum nobody was that arsed. It's very very odd.
The european union has had a great impact on the peaceful way Europe acts nowadays. We have had centuries of war in Europe and never before have European countries been so united and peaceful to each other. While there are certain shady things happening, such as the treatment of Greece in the financial crisis, it is overall a hige step forward in terms of solidarity and peace. If I was a Briton I would be devastated because of the brexit and as a EU citizen, though not a Briton, I am profoundly sad that GB is leaving the EU instead of trying to improve the EU from the inside. Of course, with the Torries (and neoliberal Blair before) at the helm, no improvements can be expected either way, but if e.g. Corbyn becomes prime minister, there could very well be a path to an improvement in social security across the EU as well.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,289
3,156
275
@Yoshi - I don't believe we could improve it, and further I think the Marshall Plan was what secured peace in Europe, far more than the EU. Once countries get rich and start trading with each other they tend to get less interested in fighting each other.

On Corbyn - he has no love for the EU, so I wouldn't bank on too much there. I will just say that I'm disappointed that he's been completely outplayed by a politician of such a poor calibre as May - she's made him look an idiot, which is a shame for me as a socialist, but he's just not up to it. Hell Russell Crowe once owned him pretty badly which is saying something.
 
Likes: Kadayi
Jul 14, 2018
975
769
250
It's obvious the PM who is 100% opposed to brexit is stalling and self-sabotaging the exit for her masters in Brussels with stupid deal conditions. It grows tiresome and at some point the unelected euro elite will have to come to rude terms with the fact that there will be consequences for their anti-democratic antics.
Indeed.
 
May 4, 2005
12,758
1,435
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
@Yoshi - I don't believe we could improve it, and further I think the Marshall Plan was what secured peace in Europe, far more than the EU. Once countries get rich and start trading with each other they tend to get less interested in fighting each other.
Before WW1 most European countries were rich and trading with each other as well.
 
May 30, 2013
2,366
211
350
Corbyn becomes prime minister, there could very well be a path to an improvement in social security across the EU as well.
Corbyn is a not so secret hard brexit supporter, always has been. He is just towing a party line because if he pushed his actual views on brexit (which he actually went around telling people during the referendum) as Labour policy he would have unprecedented Labour revolt.

So... I wouldn't hold your breath. If you want improved social security across Europe the UK needs to go, all we have done for years is veto almost everything in the european parliament that would have benefited the whole.

@YoshiI'm disappointed that he's been completely outplayed by a politician of such a poor calibre as May
See that's the thing she is not a poor politician, she's actually extremely good. Just like when she played Jacob Rees-Mogg like a fucking idiot when she got the 1922 committee chairman to convince him to try and depose her at the wrong time. And shows why she is PM and he's is a nobody backbencher that still thinks he lives in victorian England.

She is an extremely shrewd politician and true student of Margaret Thatcher (for better or worse).
 
Last edited:
Likes: hariseldon
May 4, 2005
12,758
1,435
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Corbyn is a not so secret hard brexit supporter, always has been. He is just towing a party line because if he pushed his actual views on brexit (which he actually went around telling people during the referendum) as Labour policy he would have unprecedented Labour revolt.
I know he is not supportive of the EU, but if Brexit was cancelled, to achieve his goals in social security, it would be instrumental to try to implement policies in that regard on an EU level. Which I would hope he would do if the brexit was cancelled and he became prime minister afterwards.
 
Apr 18, 2018
8,015
13,026
555
USA
dunpachi.com
Before WW1 most European countries were rich and trading with each other as well.
But they were jostling for territories abroad, which is part of what led to war.

The war wasn't due to rich countries trading with one another. It was due to some rich countries saying "no, you can't do Imperialism that way" and ganging up on smaller countries who didn't play nice. Ironically, it was much like the modern EU in all but name. Meanwhile, every country was building up their militaries for 20 years leading up to WW1. Tolstoy famously predicted it ahead of time.
 
May 4, 2005
12,758
1,435
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
But they were jostling for territories abroad, which is part of what led to war.

The war wasn't due to rich countries trading with one another. It was due to some rich countries saying "no, you can't do Imperialism that way" and ganging up on smaller countries who didn't play nice. Ironically, it was much like the modern EU in all but name. Meanwhile, every country was building up their militaries for 20 years leading up to WW1. Tolstoy famously predicted it ahead of time.
I did not want to insinuate that being rich countries that trade with one another was what lead to the war. Just that this does not prevent the war. A formal union with at least a certain level of solidarity inbuilt does though.
 
Likes: Bleys
Aug 22, 2018
2,289
3,156
275
I did not want to insinuate that being rich countries that trade with one another was what lead to the war. Just that this does not prevent the war. A formal union with at least a certain level of solidarity inbuilt does though.
In the modern world - big countries that trade with each other absolutely does prevent war. Go to war with a major supplier or customer and expect your economy to crater.
 
May 4, 2005
12,758
1,435
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
In the modern world - big countries that trade with each other absolutely does prevent war. Go to war with a major supplier or customer and expect your economy to crater.
The world as it is had to take that shape first and the EU played a significant role in that. If the EU were to break up, I fear future developments, over many decades, could look much worse in terms of peace.
 
Likes: Bleys
May 23, 2016
1,632
984
270
The world as it is had to take that shape first and the EU played a significant role in that. If the EU were to break up, I fear future developments, over many decades, could look much worse in terms of peace.
Do you think European countries would go back to their pre-WWII state of constant military action against one another?
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,289
3,156
275
The world as it is had to take that shape first and the EU played a significant role in that. If the EU were to break up, I fear future developments, over many decades, could look much worse in terms of peace.
Again, Marshall Plan. That's what got us to peace. It took us to a point of prosperity, alongside serious war fatigue.
 
Apr 18, 2018
8,015
13,026
555
USA
dunpachi.com
I did not want to insinuate that being rich countries that trade with one another was what lead to the war. Just that this does not prevent the war. A formal union with at least a certain level of solidarity inbuilt does though.
I didn't mean to put those words in your mouth. I think that trade and commerce can keep countries together of course, but as we saw in the case of WW1 and WW2, it has often led to one coalition of countries beating up on another coalition of countries and pushing things to an absolute breaking point in the name of commerce and trade.
 
Mar 14, 2018
89
79
160
We got pussified. Tbh while each side has reasons to be right and reasons to be wrong, they're both reasonable positions to hold, the thing I struggle with is how membership of a trans-national organisation has become such an emotional bond for some people. Like before the referendum nobody was that arsed. It's very very odd.
goddamn man, this.

To me it's a pretty dry subject... but when I said I voted leave everyone acted like I shot their fucking dog
 
Likes: hariseldon
Aug 29, 2018
643
728
235
33
Bartow, Florida, USA
Could you given an example?
What became the USA had, at most, 250 some odd years of culturally independent colonial history before the Civil War, and that alone was enough to literally tear this nation apart before it was forged back together in our bloodiest war. Our local cultural identities are cherished, but our national identity is American.

European nations have millenia of cultural history that can't just be flushed down the toilet in a span of 50 years. Brussels, and by extension Germany, should not be dictating laws and regulations to other obstensibly 'equal' EU members. The EU should have never progressed beyond free trade and mutual defense treaties IMO.
 
Likes: hariseldon
Feb 2, 2009
8,342
1,152
800
The whole premise of the "leave" proposition is that the UK parliament can govern more effectively and representatively without interference from the EU.

Given the never-ending clusterfuck that has been the process to date, how anyone could possibly believe the chuckleheads at Westminster could achieve that goal is beyond me.
 
May 4, 2014
173
60
180
I couldn't vote. If I could have, I would have voted to leave. For very different reasons then everyone else though.

I work in finance, and would be psyched to see a large part of my industry move away from London to mainland Europe. Much higher quality of life, cheaper costs, great lifestyle, better education system, better health care, higher pensions. Sign me up, please!! (I'm not kidding)

Admittedly, finance moving away is certainly not a good thing for the UK as such, so the reason why I love brexit should probably the reason for most people to dread it.
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,101
3,546
710
theconclave.net
The whole premise of the "leave" proposition is that the UK parliament can govern more effectively and representatively without interference from the EU.

Given the never-ending clusterfuck that has been the process to date, how anyone could possibly believe the chuckleheads at Westminster could achieve that goal is beyond me.
Agreed. However, there is an argument for greater local governance even below a national level. The problem of when you have an overview at an international level is it tends to be very generalised whereas most actual problems are inherently granular in nature.
 
Aug 5, 2007
388
17
860
It's obvious the PM who is 100% opposed to brexit is stalling and self-sabotaging the exit for her masters in Brussels with stupid deal conditions. It grows tiresome and at some point the unelected euro elite will have to come to rude terms with the fact that there will be consequences for their anti-democratic antics.
What deal conditions are you referring to?
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,428
295
1,025
In the modern world - big countries that trade with each other absolutely does prevent war. Go to war with a major supplier or customer and expect your economy to crater.
The EU was directly started to facilitate trade as a means to prevent war. In fact, it started out as the European Coal and Steel Commission - i.e. the two most important resources needed to wage war.

The Martial Plan was obviously useful, but the EU has been much more effective long term.
 
Last edited:
Aug 5, 2007
388
17
860
The latest deal. Basically exit from EU while stayed financially obligated without representation.
After leaving the EU, the only financial obligation in the withdrawal agreement is to pay off the £39 billion of existing commitments. Once this is paid, there will be no ongoing obligations. That's because it's a withdrawal agreement, not a trade deal – which would be negotiated during the 21 month transition period.
 
Oct 26, 2018
1,732
1,181
230
I haven't followed Brexit other than knowing May is having trouble finalizing a deal.

But to give me a quick recap of Brexit, am I right?.........

- UK wants out from EU
- Therefore UK gov has to wheel and deal on travel with other countries one by one
- Therefore UK gov has to wheel and deal on trade with other countries one by one

If this is correct, is it really that difficult for UK to keep things humming along? Will EU countries make that big of a stink that if UK leaves, they will purposely make it difficult for UK to keep doing what it's doing?...... (vindictive).

Or will things likely be just as smooth as before and people are overreacting?
 
Aug 5, 2007
388
17
860
The EU isn't trying to sabotage the UK's attempts to make trade deals with other countries. The issue is these trade deals aren't ready and we are heavily reliant on trade with the EU. We need a couple of years at least to make a trade deal with the EU and finalise other arrangements. They will grant this as part of a transition period, if we agree to remain bound to their customs rules until the border situation between Ireland and Northern Ireland is sorted out. However, while we are bound by these rules, we will be unable to implement trade deals with countries outside the EU.
 
Mar 28, 2018
101
83
170
After leaving the EU, the only financial obligation in the withdrawal agreement is to pay off the £39 billion of existing commitments. Once this is paid, there will be no ongoing obligations. That's because it's a withdrawal agreement, not a trade deal – which would be negotiated during the 21 month transition period.
plement trade deals with countries
It should be stated that the Article 50 process has never been implemented before and its process is a thing that is being created as the event moves on. As part of that creation the EU explicitly argued against allowing negotiations on any trade deal while the UK was member of the EU (hence the WA), this is not an explicit requirement of Article 50, but the EU putting pressure on the UK to win the upper hand in future negotiations.

It should also be stated that former "Brexit Secretary" David Davis was fully against this logic and wanted to argue the case for negotiating the Trade deal along side the exit arrangements, it was May who overruled him and accepted the EU's position, her first (deliberate??) mistake of many.