Brexit is happening and we're doomed. But in a dreamland, I think the only way to stop would be if companies started pulling out now and letting go off workers. Obviously this will not happen right now as everyone would prefer to wait it out and then sack everyone, but can't think of any other way we can avoid it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Brexit | OT3 | A Feast for Crows
- Thread starter theaface
- Start date
like the vast majority of people just dont understand international law and trade (myself included). therefore its no surprise that they have no understanding on the actual implications of brexit.
I love my mum to bits. but she voted leave to get manufacturing job back that either dont pay enough, due to competition which other countries, or dont exist anymore, due to automation.
it was done in good faith and with the best intentions but she doesn't understand that her wishes are impossible.
Thats the harsh truth.
I love my mum to bits. but she voted leave to get manufacturing job back that either dont pay enough, due to competition which other countries, or dont exist anymore, due to automation.
it was done in good faith and with the best intentions but she doesn't understand that her wishes are impossible.
Thats the harsh truth.
Frankfurter
Member
If true, she is crazy, like mentally insane...
She's not crazy. Everything she is doing is rational behaviour if your basic set of assumptions are:
1) Jeremy Corbyn being in power would be so fundamentally disasterous for the country that *any* conservative government would be better.
That's it. Everything follows from that, in a completely rational way. If you believe that Corbyn would be worse than going to WTO, because he would destroy the country more than the economic nuke going off, then doing anything to prevent him taking power is justified. That means you need a united Conservative party - and the only way to have a united Conservative party is to bash europe.
1) Jeremy Corbyn being in power would be so fundamentally disasterous for the country that *any* conservative government would be better.
That's it. Everything follows from that, in a completely rational way. If you believe that Corbyn would be worse than going to WTO, because he would destroy the country more than the economic nuke going off, then doing anything to prevent him taking power is justified. That means you need a united Conservative party - and the only way to have a united Conservative party is to bash europe.
She's on a mission from God, but not an entertaining one like in the Blues Brothers rather a mundane one that I believe she feels is her true calling.
Indeed. Had a Blairite been in charge of the Labour Party, May would have already been kicked out of office. But Corbyn is something else entirely, and it's holding the Conservatives together even in the face of these divisions over Europe.
But to follow this train of thought to its logical terminus, what happens when the hard Brexit approach sees us crash out without a deal, inflation rises, wages fall and a new wave of economic misery descends on us - all while the Conservatives where the ones in charge? Surely that's the surefire way to see Labour into power?
Wouldn't a softer Brexit that avoids economic ruin AND delivers the """will of the people""" at least be sold as some sort of success at the next GE?
I think the original assumption that she's insane feels more apt. She's going full Mad King Aerys, burning down the country in wildfire before she's inevitably usurped.
Stopping Labour getting into power in 5 years is not as much of a priority as stopping labour getting into power next year. That's the risk right now, and why she and the tories are charting this course. If another general election were held after she gets knifed in the back there's a decent chance he could win.
There's also the ultimate trump card, which is the British people voted for this. A lot of people, remainers including, now feel we have to go through this because that was the democratic mandate and therefore the disaster that happens is ultimately our fault.
Also, as others have pointed out, there's no such thing as a soft brexit really. There is absolutely zero chance that the right wing press would accept the notion of the UK being in the EEA or some other equivalent Norwegian deal. Either we basically stay in or we leave. Labour's gone down one path, the tories have gone down the other.
PdotMichael
Banned
This is fact. Once triggered there is only leaving the EU as possible outcome. Not that it would be in the interest of the EU that EU members using article 50 as leverage.
Article 50 can be rescinded before March 2019. Now, I don't think it will be and it's incredibly unlikely, but it absolutely can be. There are plenty of sources that back this up. Article 50, by its very nature, is merely the signalling of intent to leave, not leaving in and of itself.
PdotMichael
Banned
The article 50 is clearly stated in that regard. UK and EU can extend the negation but the outcome is clear.
Juncker (or Verhofstadt, I forget) has already stated that Europe will be willing to call the whole article 50 thing off if Britain wanted to stay.
It ain't gonna happen, and the UK could kiss their sweet rebates and exemptions goodbye, but they have been very clear saying that they would allow it. It's the best possible deal for EU - UK stays, but loses their snowflake status.
Frankfurter
Member
This is assuming that Brexit doesn't cause the kind of (economical, political) damage that leads to a Corbyn government anyway. The only thing May could hope for is that the worst is over until the next GE.
PdotMichael
Banned
He would need to break EU rights for that.
Orniletter
Banned
Nope.
The UK can't unilaterally take it back, but it's reversible if the UK can get the EU 27 on their side (which wouldn't be too hard if the UK really wanted to). It would probably have to go through the ECJ.
He wouldn't. Even the person who actually wrote article 50 said as much. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Yeah, UK can take it back. Also read this from the man who wrote article 50.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/john-kerr-brexit-will-make-britain-a-lot-less-important-on-the-world-stage
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/john-kerr-brexit-will-make-britain-a-lot-less-important-on-the-world-stage
If the UK wants to stay this is 100% gonna be decided by ECJ.
PJV3
Member
People like this really annoy me, the potential for a path to suicide was always obvious, but they still voted for it.
Which, if true, still disproves this:
Article 50 is not explicitly written either way. Even the author of it has gone on record saying he never expected any country would be mad enough to use it. So for now, we have theoretical takes, untested in court. Of those, anybody of note has come out to say that they believe it can be revoked, which is quite different to the above poster's unequivocal assertion that it cannot be.
I do however appreciate that it's largely a moot point, since the UK will never come to their senses anyway.
ReplacementPelican
Member
Yeah but they're not necessarily supposed to. Its why we shouldn't put things like this through the same scrutiny as an X-Factor winner.
Plus, if you tell some dude from just outside of Barnsley that saw an immigrant once and due to confirmation bias believed this to be some sort of invasion the minutiae of international trade law, bank passporting and why this is important when he works for minimum wage in a shit area that sees little-to-no new development when London is already perceived as getting the most attention and he finds out some city boys may lose their jobs - why does he give a shit?
Sure, we could explain these things but it doesn't matter. You're right, people don't care.
Audioboxer
Member
Listening to May talk about Brexit in parliament (BBC News live just now) is like inflicting a form of self-harm on yourself. The UK really is going to come out at the other end in a right mess.
JonnyDBrit
Member
So apparently this may be where the Tories are getting the "We have the technology" rhetoric re: the Irish border.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-41232991
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-41232991
Dodging drones to smuggle goods across the border? Sounds like one of my Shadowrun games. I, for one, welcome our cyberpunk future.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
anonymous_abc
Member
.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't actually think this is true. Article 50 is not at all clear. Leaving is triggered by either the date of entry to force on a withdrawal agreement, or two years after a notification of intent to leave is issued. However, it doesn't specify whether a notification of intent to leave is still valid if the notifier no longer has intent to leave - this is very unclear.
If anything, legal opinion weighs in the opposite direction. Lord Kerr, who drafted the treaty and might be cited as an example of the intent behind it, argues that the notification requires intent to remain valid. Professor Enchelmaier of Oxford's European Law department concurs, as do most legal minds I could cite - it seems to be the majority opinion.
What's more, the EU also abides by the Vienna Convention, which is a sort of ur-international treaty governing what a valid international treaty ought to looks like, which notes that all parties have the right to withdraw from an international agreement (the notification being a form of this) given significant and relevant change of circumstance, which is fairly loose, but 'not wanting to withdraw' would seem both significant and relevant.
Either way, the case would almost certainly be challenged in the courts by whichever side it was decided against, and would end up before the CJEU, but from at least from my layman's perspective, enough experts seem to think they way in favour of revocability that I'd feel somewhat confident in it.
To be fair to the UK, a lot of the issues coming up now are essentially completely uncharted. Article 50 gives absolutely no hints about how the leaving countries contributions to the budget, the legal status of it's citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the leaving country are to be handled, nothing, nada. It's just this
Something literally written as an afterthought.
Well damn, I'd like to amend my original position.
anonymous_abc
Member
.
Last edited:
anonymous_abc
Member
.
Last edited:
Frankfurter
Member
jimbobsmells
Member
My company is moving its European operations to Paris from London.
Muffin1611
Banned
Stop remoaning Layla! There's a job to be done which is about getting the right deal for Great Britain as we exit the European Union and the government are trying to get on with that job. No deal is better than a bad deal but getting no deal would definitely be a bad deal. What the right honourable lady saboteur doesn't understand is that the will of the people cannot be thwarted, questioned or denied. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Hail hydra.
How big is the operation? I've phrased that really awkwardly. Hope you know what I mean.
I like how she's smiling afterwards.
"So we all are going straight into WTO hell but at least I did well with my question."
When I see that the Treasury is preparing for a no deal Brexit, a thought does occur to me that they've barely begun any of the planning for the systems and institutions and bureaucracy that'll need to be in place and not fail on Brexit day, regardless of what deal they come to. Where's the massive expansion in customs, recruiting drives to have the staff needed to deal with the huge upsurge in checks required? Where's the planning for IT systems to deal with the millions of applications from EU citizens in this country? What about the replacements for the myriad of other EU organisations that manage things like chemical regulations to atomic energy?
Basically, at the very minimum Dover should be a massive building site at the moment. There's at worst eighteen months to get everything ready, but so far it looks as if work hasn't even started.
Basically, at the very minimum Dover should be a massive building site at the moment. There's at worst eighteen months to get everything ready, but so far it looks as if work hasn't even started.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
Of course they haven't. Their plan is to sell all those services to their mates in big business therefore privatizing the entire country and taking back control - to sell it.
DarthMasta
Member
Have you considered that for Juncker caring about UK opinion is something he's put on the "Stuff I no longer need to give a shit about" box?