• 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.

The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Camp Freddie

Member
Dorsal Axe said:
Andrea Leadsom is Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Click to expand...

Ha! Ha!
Enjoy running the department that depends on EU funding more than any other!

Unfortunately, this directly affects my sector of work - so hopefully she'll fail miserably and be kicked permanently to the backbenches before anyone has time to say Article 50.
My contacts in DEFRA are absolutely shitting it right now. Just abject panic over how on earth they can function when all the EU rules and systems are removed. I imagine it's like a scene from the Thick of It (mostly the sweary bits with Malcom and 'the fucker').

For agriculture, pulling out of the EU is about as dramatic as pulling out of 'petrol' would be for the transport industry.
Re-writing the entire legislative and regulatory systems in 2 years? Inconceivable!
In my area, simply commenting on EU regulatory decisions within the deadlines was barely achievable with DEFRA's manpower.

I think a lot of people forget that the EU money that we don't directly get back is actually used for stuff that the UK finds useful. It's not like that net contribution all goes on subsidising infrastructure in poorer countries. It pays for the outsourcing of a huge amount of bureaucracy, that we lack the resources to do ourselves.

The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT3| - May you live in interesting times!
 
M

Maledict

Member
inoperativ said:
The most sensible thing to do from an economic point of view IMHO would be to hold an independence referendum ASAP, if it is a Yes vote then Scotland prepares to leave the UK as the UK leaves the EU and begins negotiating with the EU as an independent nation in advance. The UK would be kept out of those negotiations and would be out of the EU by the time there are actual proposals to decide on. There's also been some talk in Brussels of keeping Scotland in a kind-of EU membership waiting area which would allow Scotland to keep most of the benefits throughout the process since it already complies with all the rules and regulations since the negotiations might take a while, but obviously we are in uncharted territory there.
Click to expand...

Westminster isn't going to grant another independence referendum, and without that unfortunately Scotland has no choice but to go down with the ship. Any referedum without westminsters agreement isn't legally binding, and the EU isn't going to recognise a unilateral declaration of statehood. Russian might to cause trouble but no/one else would.

It's going to piss off the Scots massively, and store up trouble in the long run, but unless an actual armed rebellion starts it's very hard to see how Scotland can force another referendum from Westminster. Possibly if we were looking at a labour minority government that needed SNP votes?
 
G

gerg

Member
inoperativ said:
The most sensible thing to do from an economic point of view IMHO would be to hold an independence referendum ASAP, if it is a Yes vote then Scotland prepares to leave the UK as the UK leaves the EU and begins negotiating with the EU as an independent nation in advance. The UK would be kept out of those negotiations and would be out of the EU by the time there are actual proposals to decide on. There's also been some talk in Brussels of keeping Scotland in a kind-of EU membership waiting area which would allow Scotland to keep most of the benefits throughout the process since it already complies with all the rules and regulations since the negotiations might take a while, but obviously we are in uncharted territory there.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the basis under which the UK would not be entitled to sit on the negotiations with Scotland given that, until Article 50's completion, it is still a member of the EU (however begrudgingly that may be felt by both parties in the Brexit process); similarly, why would Scotland be allowed to conduct informal ascension agreements when Britain is (if only in theory, as Hammond has suggested) denied informal Brexit discussions?
 
PJV3

PJV3

Member
Camp Freddie said:
Ha! Ha!
Enjoy running the department that depends on EU funding more than any other!

Unfortunately, this directly affects my sector of work - so hopefully she'll fail miserably and be kicked permanently to the backbenches before anyone has time to say Article 50.
My contacts in DEFRA are absolutely shitting it right now. Just abject panic over how on earth they can function when all the EU rules and systems are removed. I imagine it's like a scene from the Thick of It (mostly the sweary bits with Malcom and 'the fucker').

For agriculture, pulling out of the EU is about as dramatic as pulling out of 'petrol' would be for the transport industry.
Re-writing the entire legislative and regulatory systems in 2 years? Inconceivable!
In my area, simply commenting on EU regulatory decisions within the deadlines was barely achievable with DEFRA's manpower.

I think a lot of people forget that the EU money that we don't directly get back is actually used for stuff that the UK finds useful. It's not like that net contribution all goes on subsidising infrastructure in poorer countries. It pays for the outsourcing of a huge amount of bureaucracy, that we lack the resources to do ourselves.

The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT3| - May you live in interesting times!
Click to expand...


I thought the 'plan' was to move whole blocks of legislation at a time with amendments where necessary .

I don't know if that's legal or possible to do properly within the time limit.
 
Goldrusher

Goldrusher

Member
ruttyboy said:
It seems to be missing lots of red just north of France.
Click to expand...

Belgium?

http://www.politico.eu/article/bori...-go-to-british-museum-than-to-all-of-belgium/

“We had more visitors to the British Museum alone than came to the whole of Belgium,” Johnson said in response to questions from the public at his final People’s Question Time before London’s mayoral elections in May.

“And I say that as a huge fan by the way of Belgium and a lover of Belgium and a lover of Brussels of course, which is where I’ve lived for many, many years and a city I admire very much,” Johnson said. He added that his love for Brussels should “not be confused with institutions that are located in that city.”
Click to expand...
 
T

The Friendly Monster

Member
gerg said:
I don't understand the basis under which the UK would not be entitled to sit on the negotiations with Scotland given that, until Article 50's completion, it is still a member of the EU (however begrudgingly that may be felt by both parties in the Brexit process); similarly, why would Scotland be allowed to conduct informal ascension agreements when Britain is (if only in theory, as Hammond has suggested) denied informal Brexit discussions?
Click to expand...
Actually my understanding is that once article 50 is invoked the UK won't be represented in the European Council.

the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
Click to expand...

The UK has no European Commisioners after Jonathan Hill's resignation.
 
I

inoperativ

Member
Maledict said:
Westminster isn't going to grant another independence referendum, and without that unfortunately Scotland has no choice but to go down with the ship. Any referedum without westminsters agreement isn't legally binding, and the EU isn't going to recognise a unilateral declaration of statehood. Russian might to cause trouble but no/one else would.

It's going to piss off the Scots massively, and store up trouble in the long run, but unless an actual armed rebellion starts it's very hard to see how Scotland can force another referendum from Westminster. Possibly if we were looking at a labour minority government that needed SNP votes?
Click to expand...

The UK government can be stupid, but it's not stupid enough to force a unilateral declaration while it's trying its best to negotiate an amicable exit itself. The SNP has a clear mandate for it and making the negotiations even more chaotic is not in anyone's interest. Public opinion in all northern European EU countries is very supportive of an independent Scotland in the EU and that is ultimately what determines the approach their leaders will take. See it as a concession in the brexit negotiations from the UK's side, if you will.

gerg said:
I don't understand the basis under which the UK would not be entitled to sit on the negotiations with Scotland given that, until Article 50's completion, it is still a member of the EU (however begrudgingly that may be felt by both parties in the Brexit process); similarly, why would Scotland be allowed to conduct informal ascension agreements when Britain is (if only in theory, as Hammond has suggested) denied informal Brexit discussions?
Click to expand...

Informal discussions are diplomatic, not legal, so anything goes... The reason for no informal talks before A50 is that the EU wants to get on with this ASAP and reduce uncertainty by having a hard deadline for the UK leaving, which they get by forcing A50 to be triggered. Scotland joining the EU would be a big PR move and even if the Scottish economy takes a really brutal hit we would still likely be net contributors (or at most a minor recipient like Ireland), so from northern Europe's perspective it would be a win-win and hence it makes sense to make it as easy as possible.
 
M

Monty Mole

Member
Scotland must remember that whilst 1.6m there voted to remain, 13.2m in England also voted to remain. So there are more than 8 times as many of us in England feeling shitty about this whole situation as there is in Scotland, we do feel your pain but we don't have any sympathy.
TimmmV said:
Leadsom praying away the rising sea levels is going to be pretty fun to watch

*cries*
Click to expand...
another-mass.jpg
 
PJV3

PJV3

Member
Monty Mole said:
Scotland must remember that whilst 1.6m there voted to remain, 13.2m in England also voted to remain. So there are more than 8 times as many of us in England feeling shitty about this whole situation as there is in Scotland, we do feel your pain but we don't have any sympathy.
Click to expand...


At least they should get federation status and a chance to stay in the EU that way. This isn't the 19th century, I can't see how it's possible long term to fuck them over.
 
I

inoperativ

Member
Monty Mole said:
Scotland must remember that whilst 1.6m there voted to remain, 13.2m in England also voted to remain. So there are more than 8 times as many of us in England feeling shitty about this whole situation as there is in Scotland, we do feel your pain but we don't have any sympathy.
Click to expand...

You don't need sympathy, you need to accept political realities and think about what's best for yourself. You are about to begin the mother of all diplomatic negotiations where the other part holds most cards but for the moment is looking for an amicable solution. You really don't want to make yourself look like an abusive husband right now.
 
G

gerg

Member
The Friendly Monster said:
Actually my understanding is that once article 50 is invoked the UK won't be represented in the European Council.



The UK has no European Commisioners after Jonathan Hill's resignation.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that refer only to discussions regarding the seceding state, not other seceding states? I believe this was brought up by some analysts immediately following the Brexit result; one of the reasons the exit process is so difficult is to try to avoid the (even more) difficult circumstance of having to deal with two seceding countries at once!

inoperativ said:
Informal discussions are diplomatic, not legal, so anything goes... The reason for no informal talks before A50 is that the EU wants to get on with this ASAP and reduce uncertainty by having a hard deadline for the UK leaving, which they get by forcing A50 to be triggered. Scotland joining the EU would be a big PR move and even if the Scottish economy takes a really brutal hit we would still likely be net contributors (or at most a minor recipient like Ireland), so from northern Europe's perspective it would be a win-win and hence it makes sense to make it as easy as possible.
Click to expand...

I know that Juncker is not the be-all and end-all in regards to the EU, but my question is how he can maintain his supposedly principled stance in the face of such apparent double standards. But, perhaps the about-face he's already performed this week is a sign of a more lenient attitude to Brexit from here on out.
 
M

Maledict

Member
inoperativ said:
The UK government can be stupid, but it's not stupid enough to force a unilateral declaration while it's trying its best to negotiate an amicable exit itself. The SNP has a clear mandate for it and making the negotiations even more chaotic is not in anyone's interest. Public opinion in all northern European EU countries is very supportive of an independent Scotland in the EU and that is ultimately what determines the approach their leaders will take. See it as a concession in the brexit negotiations from the UK's side, if you will.



Informal discussions are diplomatic, not legal, so anything goes... The reason for no informal talks before A50 is that the EU wants to get on with this ASAP and reduce uncertainty by having a hard deadline for the UK leaving, which they get by forcing A50 to be triggered. Scotland joining the EU would be a big PR move and even if the Scottish economy takes a really brutal hit we would still likely be net contributors (or at most a minor recipient like Ireland), so from northern Europe's perspective it would be a win-win and hence it makes sense to make it as easy as possible.
Click to expand...

Um, that's not how it would work. Any unilateral declaration from Scotland would see it completely isolated on the world stage - regardless of sympathies. It would also absolutely guarantee a veto on membership from Spain and potentially France. No-one is going to interfere in an internal constitutional matter for the Uk. Regardless of sympathies, no-one is going to touch that landmine with a fifty foot barge pole whilst Brexit is happening or even after.

Even if you argue the SNP has a clear mandate (which it absolutely doesn't), it's still not enough reason - Catalonia votes in independence governments but Madrid won't grant them a legally binding referendum for independence and they are stuck with it.

I'm in favour of Scotland getting independence after this shameful fiasco, but realistically the options for doing so are extremely slim before Brexit happens. It also doesn't help that the initial polling doesn't show a massive swing towards independence, which I presume is why Nicola rowed back the referendum talk fairly early on. Rumour was the SNP wanted a clear 60 / 40 margin for several years before the went for another referendum, and we aren't there yet at all.
 
B

Burai

shitonmychest57
hodgy100 said:
depends. Why would it be a good thing? we should be incentivising green energy.
Click to expand...

The current road tax pricing structure was designed to get people out of inefficient cars and into efficient replacements or onto public transport.

Meanwhile, the efficient diesel vehicles are nowhere near as efficient as advertised and the government, local and national, have starved public transport of funding outside of city centres meaning people have no choice but to own a car.

Once again we're in a situation where the policy means well but has been completely undermined by a lack of investment in public services. The number of cars is rising and the kids buying £500 shitheaps on Gumtree aren't going to be spending tens of thousands on electric vehicles so they can save £300 a year on road tax.

The environmental benefits of high road tax are just not coming to pass. Motorists are getting shafted for a non-existent greater good.

That said, I don't agree that the road tax should come down. We have to pay for highway maintenance somehow.
 
A

Arksy

Member
The EU won't do any talks with Scotland as the country as a whole is leaving because it would violate some pretty basic tenets of Westphalian Sovereignty. They will only deal with Scotland after it has become an independent state. I hate to burst any bubbles but until Scotland is given the power to enter into treaties there's not much hope of staying in the EU and the UK at the same time.
 
T

The Friendly Monster

Member
gerg said:
Doesn't that refer only to discussions regarding the seceding state, not other seceding states? I believe this was brought up by some analysts immediately following the Brexit result; one of the reasons the exit process is so difficult is to try to avoid the (even more) difficult circumstance of having to deal with two seceding countries at once!
Click to expand...
Ah you could be right. The seceding country can still veto legislation then? (edit: it seems the council could revoke the UK's voting right under TEU Article 2?)
 
I

inoperativ

Member
Maledict said:
Um, that's not how it would work. Any unilateral declaration from Scotland would see it completely isolated on the world stage - regardless of sympathies. It would also absolutely guarantee a veto on membership from Spain and potentially France. No-one is going to interfere in an internal constitutional matter for the Uk. Regardless of sympathies, no-one is going to touch that landmine with a fifty foot barge pole whilst Brexit is happening or even after.

Even if you argue the SNP has a clear mandate (which it absolutely doesn't), it's still not enough reason - Catalonia votes in independence governments but Madrid won't grant them a legally binding referendum for independence and they are stuck with it.

I'm in favour of Scotland getting independence after this shameful fiasco, but realistically the options for doing so are extremely slim before Brexit happens. It also doesn't help that the initial polling doesn't show a massive swing towards independence, which I presume is why Nicola rowed back the referendum talk fairly early on. Rumour was the SNP wanted a clear 60 / 40 margin for several years before the went for another referendum, and we aren't there yet at all.
Click to expand...

Sure, no one wants an unilateral declaration, which is why it won't happen. Doesn't mean that the possibility won't play a role in the decisions taken. Think of it as a nuclear option.

A manifesto pledge followed by an absolute majority is just as much of a mandate as a legally non-binding referendum.

I suspect Sturgeon favours a federalisation of the UK over another referendum regardless of polling, it would be the smoothest solution and avoid more uncertainty.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Arksy said:
So it's ok for France and Germany to disrespect the UK but not the other way around? Seems like a pretty big double standard to me.
Click to expand...

Well, no. If someone insults you to your face and you call them rather rude for it, the disrespect has only really gone one way.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Arksy said:
Calling someone a monster goes a bit further than that...don't you think?
Click to expand...

That's British media trying to stir things up. ungeheuerlich is in this context something like "outrageous" or "egregious".

Both of which are rather apt descriptions.
 
T

The Friendly Monster

Member
Arksy said:
Not trying to be, I don't think any of it is really acceptable.....
Click to expand...
To you:

Steinmeier said:
“People [in the UK] are experiencing a rude awakening after irresponsible politicians first lured the country into Brexit and then, once the decision was made, decided to bolt from responsibility, and instead go off and play cricket. To be honest, I find this outrageous. It’s not just bitter for Great Britain. It’s also bitter for the EU.”
Click to expand...

== disrespecting the UK?
 
A

Arksy

Member
YoungFa said:
Also nobody called him a monster...
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, the German foreign minister called his behaviour monstrous, or "ungeheuerlich"..I have no idea what the correct translation might be.

Crab said:
That's British media trying to stir things up. ungeheuerlich is in this context something like "outrageous" or "egregious".

Both of which are rather apt descriptions.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
B

BigAl1992

Member
Arksy said:
Not trying to be, I don't think any of it is really acceptable.....
Click to expand...

He has a history of insulting groups, countries or individuals even. There are days when sometimes you have to swallow the medicine you dish out, I know I'd expect it. It's not nice, true, but people can and will react like that to people who insult them, that's not something that can be curbed 100% of the time.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Crab said:
That's British media trying to stir things up. ungeheuerlich is in this context something like "outrageous" or "egregious".

Both of which are rather apt descriptions.
Click to expand...

The article literally says it could be translated 'monstrous' or 'outrageous.' I don't think that is too unreasonable of them!
 
Z

Zaph

Member
Also, we're the laughing stock of the world with the amount of self-inflicted damage we've just done.

So we better get a thicker skin because the jokes and insults won't stop there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Big Business and Government: Grand conspiracy or ramblings of a mad man?
3
2K
Soodanim replied
  • Locked
[Brexit] chief who created £350m NHS lie on bus admits leaving EU could be 'an error'
4 5 6 7 8
382
62K
DeviantBoi replied
  • Locked
The UK votes to leave the European Union
391 392 393 394 395
20K
2M
Funky Papa replied
Brexit | OT3 | A Feast for Crows
44 45 46 47 48
2K
304K
Ravensmash replied
UK business leaders to call for indefinite delay to single market exit
2
73
13K
-Plasma Reus- replied
Top Bottom