• 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.

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Hmmm, maybe that's why she won't show her cards, even to the devolved administrations.

If you're both right and she never triggers Article 50

ayne.gif
 

Dougald

Member
Yes I hope May is playing poker and wants to remain but bluffing about leaving and just as we about to fuck ourselves up she goes , psych we staying bitches

I think believing the government has enough competence to have any sort of master plan with a hidden agenda is wishful thinking, unfortunately
 

El Topo

Member
I mean, given the situation the UK is in, it's understandable they're going to great length to at least build up *some* kind of bluff for the negotiations. I wouldn't take all they're saying at face value.

She's being so rigid on her stance, but with so little detail, and seemingly zero willingness to even acknowledge the issues of hard Brexit, that I believe that is a plausible scenario.

They're not going to ignore a majority decision of the people.
 

nekkid

It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
I mean, given the situation the UK is in, it's understandable they're going to great length to at least build up *some* kind of bluff for the negotiations. I wouldn't take all they're saying at face value.

You don't say!

They're not going to ignore a majority decision of the people.

Why do people think that we need to leave to acknowledge those people or do something about their concerns?
 

jufonuk

not tag worthy
I think believing the government has enough competence to have any sort of master plan with a hidden agenda is wishful thinking, unfortunately
Operation mincemeat dear boy

That or we hold out for ages until the EU try and force us out and naturally the people of the UK get all up in arms about it and tell them to sod it we are staying up yours

Honestly I wouldn't put it past the papers or the government to actually rally against being forced to leave a thing they were thinking about leaving.

Part of me thinks the UK made a deal to do this with the EU to show others not to leave. On the Whole the UK is a bit eccentric really.
 
I for one, am going to miss things looking pretty good. UKIP were not good people, but the EU parliament will surely miss them.

In all seriousness though, the UK deal in the EU is really a work of art, between grandfather clauses and permanent opt-outs. Pretty much everything but the kitchen sink (the four freedoms) was conceded. It's really quite an extraordinary shame if a soft Brexit happens. A facesaving measure for none of the representation and given every EU nation will have to agree to the trade deal....I think the concessions of the past would be dialed back.

Sitting on Article 50 would be the perfect troll move and the most patriotically British thing I can imagine. Scotland won't leave the UK, EU leaders will be annoyed for years but won't be able to do anything, and the great deal built up over the decades will remain.

The vote to leave screwed with that for a generation at least. The UK managed to get what it had over the threat of leaving, "Give us something to take back home", etc. etc.

What the vote showed is that there's nothing to take back home that will ever be enough. And now that people have actually faced Britain leaving, it's no longer (rightly or wrongly) the boogie man it used to be, guess for many people in the EU it's turned into no biggie, might even be for the best for the EU.

Always being 2 years from invoking Article 50 will eventually get dealt with, one way or another.
 

-Plasma Reus-

Service guarantees member status
I think May is clever and doing this because she wants to win next election. She wants parliament and remain voices to shout and do whatever they can to stop brexit from going ahead fully, but wants to hold THEM responsible for undermining brexit. Come next election, she can say that she tried but everyone running against her was against brexit. Of course brexit voters wouldn't have felt the negative effects of brexit, as brexit didn't happen/a soft brexit happened by this point, and they'll vote for her again.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
The vote to leave screwed with that for a generation at least. The UK managed to get what it had over the threat of leaving, "Give us something to take back home", etc. etc.

What the vote showed is that there's nothing to take back home that will ever be enough. And now that people have actually faced Britain leaving, it's no longer (rightly or wrongly) the boogie man it used to be, guess for many people in the EU it's turned into no biggie, might even be for the best for the EU.

Always being 2 years from invoking Article 50 will eventually get dealt with, one way or another.

It's okay though, the opt-outs and grandfather clauses are hugely significant. They shouldn't be possible to remove and a hard exit if the EU went back on those rights would be accepted by a majority at any time.

France or Germany would block any extreme measures, I think. Any legislation that tries to force expulsion for countries playing by the rules wouldn't work.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I do think Brexit will happen though.

Hard Brexit:
-economy badly damaged
-The SNP in Scotland
-Northern Ireland's economy and border
+full sovereignty restored
+Only way to actually leave

Soft Brexit
+One big happy group of nations (the UK)
-UKIP will rise again
-entirely nominal
-English nationalism may rise
-need approval from every single EU country for any trade deal. Will probably end up with a worse deal (concessions-wise) than before
-must agree to the four freedoms

Neither choice is good. Furthermore, I can see the EU turning a soft Brexit into a hard Brexit just by one country refusing to agree to any deal despite pretty much nothing changing. Watch someone demand Schengen or something.
 

Tuffty

Member
This Christmas is going to pass like nothing happened. If we had 22℅ price hikes across the country this winter, the country would quickly change its tune.

I've seen plenty of comments saying that the prices going up is a short term price to pay for long term prosperity. But how much time is short term? When do they think they will start to be better off? It makes no sense, but don't think that there aren't a contingent of Leave voters who would be ok with prices going up if it means they're out of the EU or there's a chance of less foreigners getting in.

Leave voters be like:

giphy.gif
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I've seen plenty of comments saying that the prices going up is a short term price to pay for long term prosperity. But how much time is short term? When do they think they will start to be better off? It makes no sense, but don't think that there aren't a contingent of Leave voters who would be ok with prices going up if it means they're out of the EU or there's a chance of less foreigners getting in.

To be fair, it would be guaranteed, not a chance.
 
Yeah, people are scared but you know the government could actually say something positive, we have borders, they can't just walk across and get in, our Border agency has the best funding and manpower to catch anyone coming here illegally. Don't fear it.

Leaving the EU doesn't make that queue disappear or the numbers coming in less.

It won't work. The fact the Jungle existed is damn PROOF of British border control, and what's the message? 'WAAA WE LET EVERYONE IN'. Schrodinger's immigrant, type 6...
 

liquidtmd

Banned
Neither choice is good. Furthermore, I can see the EU turning a soft Brexit into a hard Brexit just by one country refusing to agree to any deal despite pretty much nothing changing. Watch someone demand Schengen or something.

Literally this is inevitable.

Getting 27 Countries to agree the sky is blue at the moment is difficult. All countries will hold out unless it works in benefit to them. Soft Brexit will become Hard Brexit by default because a consensus simply will not be reached.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
Hmmm, maybe that's why she won't show her cards, even to the devolved administrations.

If you're both right and she never triggers Article 50

ayne.gif

The first thing Nicola Sturgeon did after leaving number 10 yesterday was go to the media cameras. There is absolutely no way whatsoever, if May gave details plans to he or anyone outside the Brexit cabinet really, that the info would be leaked pretty fast.

I think however we are slowly getting a picture of what the negotiation strategy is. Interesting as well that the Swedish finance minister gave an interview yesterday saying that Britain shouldn't be punished in the negotiations, I think s the dust continues to settle we will hear more messages like that.
 

Moosichu

Member
The first thing Nicola Sturgeon did after leaving number 10 yesterday was go to the media cameras. There is absolutely no way whatsoever, if May gave details plans to he or anyone outside the Brexit cabinet really, that the info would be leaked pretty fast.

I think however we are slowly getting a picture of what the negotiation strategy is. Interesting as well that the Swedish finance minister gave an interview yesterday saying that Britain shouldn't be punished in the negotiations, I think s the dust continues to settle we will hear more messages like that.

I don't think the UK will get 'punished' per say, but the realistic economic consequences will damage our country severely.

In the same way, if someone threatens to remove their arm, you want them not to, but they do it anyway. The pain they feel afterwards isn't punishment, it's simply the result of removing your arm.
 
I've seen plenty of comments saying that the prices going up is a short term price to pay for long term prosperity. But how much time is short term? When do they think they will start to be better off? It makes no sense, but don't think that there aren't a contingent of Leave voters who would be ok with prices going up if it means they're out of the EU or there's a chance of less foreigners getting in.

Leave voters be like:

giphy.gif

Well I don't think it's fair to say that it makes no sense - one of the criticisms of the Eurozone is that it robs individual countries of having individual control over their monetary policy, where less developed countries (or at least those who saw the greatest levels of asset inflation during the boom times - Greece, Spain, Ireland etc) might want a "weaker" Euro to boost their exports where as more developed countries want to keep it stronger to make imports cheaper (which obviously works out very well for Germany, being both a highly developed economy and one that exports a lot, whose currency is weaker than it'd be independently, but strong enough to keep foreign imports relatively cheap).

So for those who want to see British exports grow and see a potentially weaker pound as a route to reindustrialisation in parts of the country that were made effectively obsolete in the expansion of globalisation that ramped up in the 80's, it makes does make sense. In fact, it's almost monetary dogma (devalue currency during a downturn to make domestic production more competitive for your people and your exports more competitive abroad). Whether it will work in the UK is another matter, since most of the industrialisation that still exists in the west relies heavily on foreign imports (unlike, say, making something in China where they have large volumes of domestic steel production). But given how much of our economy is reliant on services, most of which don't require much in the way of imports, I don't think it's fair to say that it makes "no" sense. It's just... questionable.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
I think however we are slowly getting a picture of what the negotiation strategy is. Interesting as well that the Swedish finance minister gave an interview yesterday saying that Britain shouldn't be punished in the negotiations, I think s the dust continues to settle we will hear more messages like that.

Indeed, 'punish' is such an antagonistic word. Not receiving the benefit of being in the EU should not equate to 'punishing' (though many UK Brexiters will deliberately misinterpret the two) and behind the scenes I would hope that many EU Leaders candidly realise being outwardly aggressive in negotiations could be counter productive in many ways down the road for them and the EU project at large in light of the far right movements across the continent coupled with the proverbial Jenga tower of where the UKs economic dealings with the EU starts and ends.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
Literally this is inevitable.

Getting 27 Countries to agree the sky is blue at the moment is difficult. All countries will hold out unless it works in benefit to them. Soft Brexit will become Hard Brexit by default because a consensus simply will not be reached.

I dunno, there seems to be some thought that a UK-EU deal would be qualified majority rather than needing a unanimous vote.
 
I think May is clever and doing this because she wants to win next election. She wants parliament and remain voices to shout and do whatever they can to stop brexit from going ahead fully, but wants to hold THEM responsible for undermining brexit. Come next election, she can say that she tried but everyone running against her was against brexit. Of course brexit voters wouldn't have felt the negative effects of brexit, as brexit didn't happen/a soft brexit happened by this point, and they'll vote for her again.

Oh that's undoubtedly an aspect in this. Right now, her position as Prime Minister is only legally based in one thing - that her fellow MPs voted her as head of the party. It never went to the wider member base, and neither was she voted for in a General Election. While of course that's not legally required, its certainly a de facto presumption for legitimacy. Without that, May only has one other possible source of legitimacy right now: the referendum result. So long as she pins herself to that, she can claim she has the backing of over 50% of the voters in a referendum with one of the highest turnouts in UK politics since the 1990s, with no first past the post shenanigans that translate a plurality into a majority.

In more general political news, Heathrow expansion got approval from the government today.

Edit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37760187
 

Maledict

Member
Every single prime ministers position is legally due to one thing - being voted in by their fellow MPs. No prime minister has ever been chosen by the electorate. I have never cast a a single ballot for David Cameron, tony Blair or anyone else - indeed, I've never have the option to do so.

I get what you mean, but 'legally' really isn't the right word here I think.
 

-Plasma Reus-

Service guarantees member status
I dunno, there seems to be some thought that a UK-EU deal would be qualified majority rather than needing a unanimous vote.
As far as I am aware all 27 members will have to agree.

Not all EU trade deals need to be approved by individual member states, but bigger ones do. If the UK were to agree a wide-ranging deal, including provisions on things like services, transport or investor protection, it would need to be ratified by every member state.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37755668?client=ms-android-oneplus
 
Every single prime ministers position is legally due to one thing - being voted in by their fellow MPs. No prime minister has ever been chosen by the electorate. I have never cast a a single ballot for David Cameron, tony Blair or anyone else - indeed, I've never have the option to do so.

I get what you mean, but 'legally' really isn't the right word here I think.

I meant in the sense that there is a clear set of rules that provide basis for her position, so maybe it isn't the right word, but it came to mind. By contrast, the EU referendum has not even the slightest technical connection to why she is in the position, but it is almost certainly going to be the de facto foundation of it and her greater(?) Prime Ministerial career.

Admittedly one irony in me using the word legally there is that the whole position of 'Prime Minister' was not at all legal for the better part of two centuries.
 

Nicktendo86

Member

Yep that's for wide ranging deals, I don't think the UK will go for that. More likely to go for a smaller deal which has a better chance of getting voted through,

Who knows though.

-Plasma Reus- said:
I think May is clever and doing this because she wants to win next election. She wants parliament and remain voices to shout and do whatever they can to stop brexit from going ahead fully, but wants to hold THEM responsible for undermining brexit. Come next election, she can say that she tried but everyone running against her was against brexit. Of course brexit voters wouldn't have felt the negative effects of brexit, as brexit didn't happen/a soft brexit happened by this point, and they'll vote for her again.

I dunno, May campaigned for Remain but he was such a half hearted campaign you have to question how she actually voted. A reluctant remainer was probably the best option in terms of long term leadership hopes but I do genuinely think she has got behind brexit.

Too much has happened/already been done for us not to leave now anyway. Even the leader of the Labour party lords has said they won't block brexit, more and more people are starting to realise there is no going back.
 

-Plasma Reus-

Service guarantees member status
Yep, who knows.
But I would assume any discussion involving the single market and limitation of freedom of movement would automatically qualify as wide ranging.
 
The first thing Nicola Sturgeon did after leaving number 10 yesterday was go to the media cameras. There is absolutely no way whatsoever, if May gave details plans to he or anyone outside the Brexit cabinet really, that the info would be leaked pretty fast.

I think however we are slowly getting a picture of what the negotiation strategy is. Interesting as well that the Swedish finance minister gave an interview yesterday saying that Britain shouldn't be punished in the negotiations, I think s the dust continues to settle we will hear more messages like that.

The Swedish position isn't a typical one. Sweden doesn't want to punish the UK because they were their closest voting ally within the European Union, and a far stronger voice for those nations with their own currency within the EU. Without the UK, Sweden is fully aware it won't have anywhere near the influence that Germany, France and their allies have.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
The Swedish position isn't a typical one. Sweden doesn't want to punish the UK because they were their closest voting ally within the European Union, and a far stronger voice for those nations with their own currency within the EU. Without the UK, Sweden is fully aware it won't have anywhere near the influence that Germany, France and their allies have.

And again, any future relationship negotiated requires Council unanimity (and also a vote of approval from the European Parliament, which I don't think is mentioned enough...). Sweden can want to help us. So can Ireland. But every single one of these countries holds a veto, which means we're concerned with what Poland thinks, what Slovenia thinks - that is, the deal we get will be the deal that the most opposed country is willing to approve of. It is extremely plausible that will end up being: no deal, and kicked at WTO rates.
 

Dougald

Member
And again, any future relationship negotiated requires Council unanimity (and also a vote of approval from the European Parliament, which I don't think is mentioned enough...). Sweden can want to help us. So can Ireland. But every single one of these countries holds a veto, which means we're concerned with what Poland thinks, what Slovenia thinks - that is, the deal we get will be the deal that the most opposed country is willing to approve of. It is extremely plausible that will end up being: no deal, and kicked at WTO rates.

Ah yes, what the Brexit faithful refer to as "playing hardball"
 

Nicktendo86

Member
And again, any future relationship negotiated requires Council unanimity (and also a vote of approval from the European Parliament, which I don't think is mentioned enough...). Sweden can want to help us. So can Ireland. But every single one of these countries holds a veto, which means we're concerned with what Poland thinks, what Slovenia thinks - that is, the deal we get will be the deal that the most opposed country is willing to approve of. It is extremely plausible that will end up being: no deal, and kicked at WTO rates.

I've read that before but I can't for the life of me think where, have you got a link at all?
 
Zac Goldsmith will be resigning as an MP today over Heathrow.

Given the result in Witney, the Tories should expect to lose the seat - the first bloody nose May will receive as PM. And that's before Article 50 is even triggered!

A lot about the government's stand on Article 50 makes no sense. Declaring that it will be triggered by the end of Q1 of next year is like Nintendo saying that the Switch will be out by then: impressive grandstanding, but somewhat unlikely...

Article 50 SHOULD be declared at the end of next year - that gives the UK two years without French and German election campaigns totally stalling the process, instead of losing six months to deadlock as Germany and France go to the polls.

But May is rightfully very concerned about that - having us leave the EU six months before a General Election (Nov 2017 -> Nov 2019 for negotiations, GE is May 2020) guarantees that the Tories' fortunes in that election will be tightly tied in to what happens immediately after we leave, which is likely to be, at the least, a very uncertain time. Even if the deal is worse, having us leave a few months earlier means we go to the polls a little distance from the immediate aftermath of leaving, which will reduce the issue in most Tory voters' minds.

Nothing sinks or saves a government like foreign policy - the Tories know that full well.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I've read that before but I can't for the life of me think where, have you got a link at all?

From Article 50(2):

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

The withdrawal process is QMV, but is a separate process from negotiating the future relationship the withdrawing Member State will have with the EU (it provides the 'framework' for it, as pointed out in the bolded section). The actual relationship the Member State will have in the future is subject to the same restrictions as any EU relationship negotiations: unanimity (as Canada has just discovered).

What will actually happen is that the withdrawal process and the future relationship process will be negotiated simultaneously, as the parliamentary briefing points out:

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7551/CBP-7551.pdf

but the withdrawal process only requires QMV to be signed off (or to be extended), while the future relationship process requires unanimity. If the UK doesn't have enough EU countries willing to vote for a QMV extension to the withdrawal period (we don't), then we have exactly two years to come up with a deal that every EU member is happy with (and every EFTA members as well if we're looking that way), or we get booted out in hardBrexit by default. It's difficult to see what compromises actually could be achieved - the four freedoms are a red line for both sides, only we're standing on opposite sides of that red line.

At the point article 50 is actually triggered, hardBrexit to WTO rules is basically inevitable. There's no other plausible path.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
A lot about the government's stand on Article 50 makes no sense. Declaring that it will be triggered by the end of Q1 of next year is like Nintendo saying that the Switch will be out by then: impressive grandstanding, but somewhat unlikely...

Article 50 will be triggered by end of Q1 next year, Brexiters realise we have a three hour battery life too late
 
I meant in the sense that there is a clear set of rules that provide basis for her position, so maybe it isn't the right word, but it came to mind. By contrast, the EU referendum has not even the slightest technical connection to why she is in the position, but it is almost certainly going to be the de facto foundation of it and her greater(?) Prime Ministerial career.

Admittedly one irony in me using the word legally there is that the whole position of 'Prime Minister' was not at all legal for the better part of two centuries.

I don't think the distinction is merely a technical one, though. The Prime Minister has always been the person who can command a majority in the commons (except in instances where literally no one can). If you can do that, you can pass any legislation, and that's basically the deciding factor. The method of that person getting where they are is basically irrelevant, really. The Tories could draw a name out of a hat, as long as they all agree on the result. Where it does become questionable is those instances where the executive holds power without the need for parliamentary approval (ie military action, though that's slowly becoming convention to seek parliamentary approval and thus effectively constitutional) of which triggering A50 is one but like you say, she has the referendum result to fall back on there.
 

Detox

Member
Well I don't think it's fair to say that it makes no sense - one of the criticisms of the Eurozone is that it robs individual countries of having individual control over their monetary policy, where less developed countries (or at least those who saw the greatest levels of asset inflation during the boom times - Greece, Spain, Ireland etc) might want a "weaker" Euro to boost their exports where as more developed countries want to keep it stronger to make imports cheaper (which obviously works out very well for Germany, being both a highly developed economy and one that exports a lot, whose currency is weaker than it'd be independently, but strong enough to keep foreign imports relatively cheap).

So for those who want to see British exports grow and see a potentially weaker pound as a route to reindustrialisation in parts of the country that were made effectively obsolete in the expansion of globalisation that ramped up in the 80's, it makes does make sense. In fact, it's almost monetary dogma (devalue currency during a downturn to make domestic production more competitive for your people and your exports more competitive abroad). Whether it will work in the UK is another matter, since most of the industrialisation that still exists in the west relies heavily on foreign imports (unlike, say, making something in China where they have large volumes of domestic steel production). But given how much of our economy is reliant on services, most of which don't require much in the way of imports, I don't think it's fair to say that it makes "no" sense. It's just... questionable.
But the bank of England controls our monetary policy.

Truth be told we have an amazing deal with the EU. We had/ve a ton of influence in the world's largest trading bloc without being part of the single currency.
 
I don't think the distinction is merely a technical one, though. The Prime Minister has always been the person who can command a majority in the commons (except in instances where literally no one can). If you can do that, you can pass any legislation, and that's basically the deciding factor. The method of that person getting where they are is basically irrelevant, really. The Tories could draw a name out of a hat, as long as they all agree on the result. Where it does become questionable is those instances where the executive holds power without the need for parliamentary approval (ie military action, though that's slowly becoming convention to seek parliamentary approval and thus effectively constitutional) of which triggering A50 is one but like you say, she has the referendum result to fall back on there.

Oh, I understand that, but my ultimate point was more on how its seen by her potential voting base. Perception of how systems work matter as much as how they actually do work, and there is a lot of investment in the idea of the public 'voting for' the Prime Minister, even if what they actually do is vote for parties. May's appointment is very much removed from that perception, so she's stuck relying on the next best thing until she can get through to the next General Election.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I don't think the distinction is merely a technical one, though. The Prime Minister has always been the person who can command a majority in the commons (except in instances where literally no one can). If you can do that, you can pass any legislation, and that's basically the deciding factor. The method of that person getting where they are is basically irrelevant, really. The Tories could draw a name out of a hat, as long as they all agree on the result. Where it does become questionable is those instances where the executive holds power without the need for parliamentary approval (ie military action, though that's slowly becoming convention to seek parliamentary approval and thus effectively constitutional) of which triggering A50 is one but like you say, she has the referendum result to fall back on there.

The executive can't trigger war without de facto parliamentary approval - if parliament disapproves, they can trigger a VoNC. It's just most parliamentarians care more about their party staying in office than they do about unwanted wars.
 
But the bank of England controls our monetary policy.

Truth be told we have an amazing deal with the EU. We had/ve a ton of influence in the world's largest trading bloc without being part of the single currency.

No, fortunately I was aware that the Bank of England controls our monetary policy. I was giving an example of how devaluing a currency for longer term gains isn't an idea that exists purely in the mind of swivel-eyed Brexit loons. It's a legitimate response to a problem. The question is really about how appropriate a response it is for the specifics of the UK economy, rather than to disregard it with Simpsons memes.

The executive can't trigger war without de facto parliamentary approval - if parliament disapproves, they can trigger a VoNC. It's just most parliamentarians care more about their party staying in office than they do about unwanted wars.

Right, in the sense that literally everything requires de facto parliamentary approval, from peerage lists to cabinet appointments. Given that war, though, is fairly hard to "walk back" once started, I'd argue it's probably the one trick from the royal prerogative book that's as insulated from a VoNC as can be.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Right, in the sense that literally everything requires de facto parliamentary approval, from peerage lists to cabinet appointments. Given that war, though, is fairly hard to "walk back" once started, I'd argue it's probably the one trick from the royal prerogative book that's as insulated from a VoNC as can be.

I mean, if Theresa May just jumped out the cupboard and shouted "surprise! we're taking Calais back!", maybe, but typically wars are discussed at length in the public sphere before they're committed to. It'd be very unusual for a war to be declared without having be known of long enough for a VoNC to happen.
 
No, fortunately I was aware that the Bank of England controls our monetary policy. I was giving an example of how devaluing a currency for longer term gains isn't an idea that exists purely in the mind of swivel-eyed Brexit loons. It's a legitimate response to a problem. The question is really about how appropriate a response it is for the specifics of the UK economy, rather than to disregard it with Simpsons memes.

I think the point is, that for that to happen Brexit was not a necessary precursor.
 

Joe

Member
Is this strictly a Brexit thread or an all-purpose UK politics thread because I have a question about Heathrow.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
The first thing Nicola Sturgeon did after leaving number 10 yesterday was go to the media cameras. There is absolutely no way whatsoever, if May gave details plans to he or anyone outside the Brexit cabinet really, that the info would be leaked pretty fast.

I think however we are slowly getting a picture of what the negotiation strategy is. Interesting as well that the Swedish finance minister gave an interview yesterday saying that Britain shouldn't be punished in the negotiations, I think s the dust continues to settle we will hear more messages like that.

The Swedish finance minister is aware that according to EU rules Sweden is really supposed to adopt the Euro as only Denmark and the UK negotiated opt-outs. Sweden claims a difference of interpretation but it's not realistic.

Sweden is the closest thing to the UK in the EU in that regard. I suspect their finance minister is sympathetic to the brexit situation and they're also close, close neighbours to Norway, a prominent non-member.

If a country makes Brexit negotiations hell, it won't be Sweden.
 
Guardian: Exclusive: leaked recording shows what Theresa May really thinks about Brexit

Theresa May privately warned that companies would leave the UK if the country voted for Brexit during a secret audience with investment bankers a month before the EU referendum.

A recording of her remarks to Goldman Sachs, leaked to the Guardian, reveals she had numerous concerns about Britain leaving the EU. It contrasts with her nuanced public speeches, which dismayed remain campaigners before the vote in June.

Speaking at the bank in London on 26 May, the then home secretary appeared to go further than her public remarks to explain more clearly the economic benefits of staying in the EU. She told staff it was time the UK took a lead in Europe, and that she hoped voters would look to the future rather than the past.

In an hour-long session before the City bankers, she also worried about the effect of Brexit on the British economy.

“I think the economic arguments are clear,” she said. “I think being part of a 500-million trading bloc is significant for us. I think, as I was saying to you a little earlier, that one of the issues is that a lot of people will invest here in the UK because it is the UK in Europe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom