• 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.

SteveWD40

Member
The danger is that if the Government fails to invoke Article 50 we end up with Prime Minister Farage. If 35% of the country are hard line Leavers and none of the traditional parties are ready to follow the referendum result those voters are going to be energised to vote for UKIP.

Never. 70% of leave voters are not hardline racist xenophobes. They fell for a line, were protest voting or just didn't believe the experts.

That % is a total guess by the way, but I know several leave voters who were just protest voting and only one who is cunty enough to vote UKIP.
 
You know we are one of the biggest markets for EU goods, so why exactly would conclude that we are 'fucked'? Being out of the EU doesn't make us any less of a market for the likes or Germany, France etc. In whose interest exactly is it to 'fuck' us?

I know it's convenient to envisage that the EU like some spurned lover intends to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave, but the financial and economic reality is, it just isn't in their interest to alienate the UK.
This is true but the only way around the situation that I can see, is changing the EU law which prevents negotiations prior to a full exit. And realistically, is that going to happen? if there's no way to sidestep this then there's no way UK will invoke the article. Not a chance.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
You know we are one of the biggest markets for EU goods, so why exactly would conclude that we are 'fucked'? Being out of the EU doesn't make us any less of a market for the likes or Germany, France etc. In whose interest exactly is it to 'fuck' us?

I know it's convenient to envisage that the EU like some spurned lover intends to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave, but the financial and economic reality is, it just isn't in their interest to alienate the UK.

You can be a big market all you up the second we leave we'll be on WTO terms so will be subject to all kinds of tariffs and restrictions selling into Europe. It will make many types of business way less attractive and EU customers may well take their business elsewhere.

One of our biggest benefits was being inside Europe. Why would Nissan continue to invest in car manufacturing in the UK if Europe is going to charge them similar import tariffs to what they charge for imports directly from Japan? They'll all just move to another country inside Europe. And I'd put money on at least one of the countries providing tax incentives to do so.
 

Maledict

Member
Indeed, failure to follow through in a timely fashion would be the death-knell for the conservative party, as is any of this talk of a second referendum. The electorate simply isn't going to buy it.

No it wouldn't. UKIP didn't manage to get a single seat last time around other than Carswells, and even though they would increase that number you still aren't looking at more than 10'to 15 tops. Heck, labour would be the biggest beneficiary as it would split the vote.

Also I love this talk that you confidently know the will of the electorate. Half the electorate already don't want the result, and the shift to 'regrets decision' was larger for remain. Keep this mess up for much longer and we won't need a second referendum, parliament will just block it.

(People are definitely overestimating the backlash from this once some time has passed. Redoing referendums isn't exactly uncommon in Europe...). Right now everyone sane is playing for time and space.
 

RedShift

Member
Indeed, failure to follow through in a timely fashion would be the death-knell for the conservative party, as is any of this talk of a second referendum. The electorate simply isn't going to buy it.

Their best bet is probably "The Boris Strategy", aka make it someone else's problem:
- Wait for Labour to get rid of Corbyn
- Call General Election
- Hope to god a Labour/SNP/LibDem Coalition takes power
- Let them deal with this shit

They get out of committing economic suicide and they get to blast Labour for being undemocratic.
 

Hasney

Member
Never. 70% of leave voters are not hardline racist xenophobes. They fell for a line, were protest voting or just didn't believe the experts.

That % is a total guess by the way, but I know several leave voters who were just protest voting and only one who is cunty enough to vote UKIP.

If immagration was the biggest issue of the referendum for leave voters (which appears to be the case), why wouldn't those people look to UKIP?

But as mentioned earlier, it would only be certain areas. They'd probably pick up more MPs, but nowhere near enoughb to have any real effect.
 

chadskin

Member
Trade in goods is easy enough under the WTO (after all the average tariff is just 3.5%) but it's trade in services which is the killer (due to a number reasons not least the sheer amount of services including financial which are excluded from the standard deal). If there's a default to WTO rules then the UK is most at risk because so much more of their external trade is in services.

Technically, the UK wouldn't default to WTO rules either because once the UK exits the EU, it would first have to apply to become a member of the WTO. Takes about six months to a year last I heard.

"There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.

so what are people doing for the first two years? this doesn't make any sense.

See Faddy's explanation:
Leaving is easier for the UK than most other countries. If for example the Netherlands left there would be issues with embassies, currency, central bank that are more complex than the UK faces.

The two years are supposed to be used to replace EU institutions and mechanisms with your own. Like development funds, agriculture subsidy, science grants, fishing quotas, passport re-issues, re-writing of laws. The UK will need to sort all those things in the 2 years so UK citizens are not left in the lurch.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
She makes it very clear in the end that it will obviously have negative effects for everyone, but she says firmly 'yes, but the vote was very clear'.
Essentially, she knows it's damaging to the EU too, but it's far more damaging to the UK. And she's all but saying 'you made your bed, now lie in it'.

Maybe it's positioning? She doesn't want to press the button but hey, the population voted for it and we'll all suffer together. What's that? You don't want to suffer? But there was a vote. Well I guess we could have another, or a general election

Just clutching at straws really..
 
Never. 70% of leave voters are not hardline racist xenophobes. They fell for a line, were protest voting or just didn't believe the experts.

That % is a total guess by the way, but I know several leave voters who were just protest voting and only one who is cunty enough to vote UKIP.

In my experience, everyone I know who voted to Leave did so to 'get rid of those job stealing immigrants'.
Both our experiences are anecdotal however, and don't really mean anything, but 70 percent seems way too high.
 

Jasup

Member
This was posted on the previous thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=208488582&postcount=16212
Or direct link to the pdf: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Accessible.pdf

It's the government report on the process of whitdrawing from the European Union.

Quote from the executive summary
2.9 It is therefore probable that it would take an extended period to negotiate first
our exit from the EU, secondly our future arrangements with the EU, and thirdly our
trade deals with countries outside of the EU, on any terms that would be acceptable to
the UK. In short, a vote to leave the EU would be the start, not the end, of a process. It
could lead to up to a decade or more of uncertainty.

The report does mention this a bit earlier though:
2.15 Article 50 does not specify how much the withdrawal agreement itself should say
about the future relationship between the EU and the departing Member State. Any sort of
detailed relationship would have to be put in a separate agreement that would have to be
negotiated alongside the withdrawal agreement using the detailed processes set out in the
EU Treaties. Article 50 does not specify whether these negotiations should be simultaneous or
consecutive. This would be a matter for negotiation
.

Interesting
 

Faddy

Banned
Trade in goods is easy enough under the WTO (after all the average tariff is just 3.5%) but it's trade in services which is the killer (due to a number reasons not least the sheer amount of services including financial which are excluded from the standard deal). If there's a default to WTO rules then the UK is most at risk because so much more of their external trade is in services.

And Services are a mobile business, they aren't like a chemical plant or steel mill where their is bespoke infrastructure. The Services infrastructure is office buildings, computers, internet connections and skilled workers. The first 3 can be found anywhere, and the skilled workers are already International and Economically Mobile so moving to a different city isn't a big issue.
 

-Plasma Reus-

Service guarantees member status
"There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.

so what are people doing for the first two years? this doesn't make any sense.

It looks like the first negotiation is the terms of exit. Then when you exit, you can have a negotiation about the kind of relationship you want to have with the EU.
The problem is that exiting itself takes a while. But once you have exited, negotiating a trade deal similar to the Canadian one, for example, will also take years.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
In my experience, everyone I know who voted to Leave did so to 'get rid of those job stealing immigrants'.
Both our experiences are anecdotal however, and don't really mean anything, but 70 percent seems way too high.

Silly really. Most European migrants come here for work. Unemployment is low enough that it doesn't suggest our jobs are being stolen - more that there are jobs the British don't want.

Non-EU migrants are a different ballgame but then that shouldn't affect the EU discussion at all.

I just can't understand why so many think there are millions of Eastern Europeans literally stealing our babies and a shadowy group in Brussels sitting over a protractor calculating banana angles
 

le-seb

Member
It looks like the political and economical consequences of this Brexit have been more substantively discussed by media in France (and probably in other EU countries) than in the UK itself. It's just crazy. :£

I don't think it's been discussed here already, but I've come across an interesting paper:
Professor Brendan O'Leary: Could there be a multi-national post-Brexit compromise?
I'm not sure how this could work exactly, but I find it pretty interesting that Scotland and NI may have a special treatment, and not leave the EU at all.
 
This was posted on the previous thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=208488582&postcount=16212
Or direct link to the pdf: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Accessible.pdf

It's the government report on the process of whitdrawing from the European Union.

Quote from the executive summary


The report does mention this a bit earlier though:


Interesting
So that contradicts this Newsnight interview. So which is correct? Talk about uncertainty, this is uncertainty on a whole new level.
It looks like the political and economical consequences of this Brexit have been more substantively discussed by media in France (and probably in other EU countries) than in the UK itself. It's just crazy. :£

I don't think it's been discussed here already, but I've come across an interesting paper:
Professor Brendan O'Leary: Could there be a multi-national post-Brexit compromise?
I'm not sure how this could work exactly, but I find it pretty interesting that Scotland and NI may have a special treatment, and not leave the EU at all.
It was made clear to Sturgeon yesterday that they would negotiate with UK as a whole only. NI business is almost non-existent outside of utilities and civil service.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
No it wouldn't. UKIP didn't manage to get a single seat last time around other than Carswells, and even though they would increase that number you still aren't looking at more than 10'to 15 tops. Heck, labour would be the biggest beneficiary as it would split the vote.

Also I love this talk that you confidently know the will of the electorate. Half the electorate already don't want the result, and the shift to 'regrets decision' was larger for remain. Keep this mess up for much longer and we won't need a second referendum, parliament will just block it.

(People are definitely overestimating the backlash from this once some time has passed. Redoing referendums isn't exactly uncommon in Europe...). Right now everyone sane is playing for time and space.

I hear you and agree but...time and space for what? A few months I understand but with May saying 'not till next year', and now it becoming mooted that negotiations cannot start until the end of A50 time, then....time becomes meaningless unless it's to frame a 2nd Referendum.

If the latest news is true, its not even like they need to get trade negotiators ASAP. The end of a two year window would give at least (realistically) six months - a year to assemble a teams and a year prep time before it kicks off.

I pray there is a way out.
 

Pandy

Member
Never. 70% of leave voters are not hardline racist xenophobes. They fell for a line, were protest voting or just didn't believe the experts.

That % is a total guess by the way, but I know several leave voters who were just protest voting and only one who is cunty enough to vote UKIP.

The only percentage I've seen was that 7% or so of Leave voters regretted their vote (versus 4% of Remain voters). I'm not going to bother finding the source, because that was quite an early poll and I'm sure the results will be different by now, but it's still a long way to get from 7% to a majority of Leave voters being unhappy with their vote.

"There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.

so what are people doing for the first two years? this doesn't make any sense.
Unfortunately it makes perfect sense. How are they supposed to negotiate the trade deal before they negotiate the exit to know how everything stands to begin with? It would be an impossible job for the trade negotiators, or make the exit negotiations last for a decade or more.
 

kmag

Member
You know we are one of the biggest markets for EU goods, so why exactly would conclude that we are 'fucked'? Being out of the EU doesn't make us any less of a market for the likes or Germany, France etc. In whose interest exactly is it to 'fuck' us?

I know it's convenient to envisage that the EU like some spurned lover intends to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave, but the financial and economic reality is, it just isn't in their interest to alienate the UK.

3.5% tariffs on average for goods under GATT. Exporters (both in the UK and the EU) can live with that. Service exports under GATS are a mess of exemptions, restrictions wildly varying timescales and a cludge of legal messes as a 2012 Parliament research paper (funny enough about the economic benefits of being in the EU)

Restrictions on services trade

Without further negotiation, the UK’s trade in services with the EU would be governed by the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Under this agreement, EU Member States (and other parties to the agreement) have chosen which sectors they are prepared to liberalise, and the time scale over which they wish to do so. As with trade in goods, GATS also operates on the principle of non-discrimination, meaning broadly that outside of preferential agreements, restrictions on market access must be applied uniformly across all countries.

Barriers to services trade are usually in the form of non-tariff barriers, such as domestic laws and regulations, also known as ‘behind the border’ measures. In general, services markets are more highly regulated than the market for goods. Often, regulation is intended to meet social objectives, or to correct failures in supply, rather than directly to restrict foreign suppliers, but the effect on market access for foreign companies can in some cases be highly restrictive. EU Member States retain considerable national discretion over services regulation and supervision. Just as a fully level playing field in services trade does not exist within the EU, so exporters from outside the EU face different levels of market access in individual Member States. However, the level of market access would generally be far more limited for UK exporters under a GATS arrangement than it is currently for a number of reasons.17 16 European Commission, Anti-dumping and anti-safeguard statistics covering the first eight months of 2013 17 See, for instance, Centre for European Policy Studies (2013)

Access barriers to services markets

• many restrictions that are forbidden within the EU remain applicable to firms outside
the EU because Member States have made no commitments under the GATS
schedules in those areas

• the EU (unlike the GATS) has pursued the harmonisation of regulation and
supervision in several large services sectors, thereby taking away the justification of
Member States to insist on national regulation in this respect

• the right of commercial establishment is guaranteed under EU treaties, significantly
facilitating trade in services provided via the commercial presence of a foreign firm

• similarly, the free movement of labour facilitates trade in those services provided
through the presence of people in the territory of another economy

• EU competition policy prevents, to an extent, barriers to services trade arising from
incumbent firms benefitting from excessive market power

• the Treaty rights with respect to free movement of services, freedom of
establishment, and free movement of labour are enforced supranationally by the
Court of Justice of the European Union, underpinned by extensive case law on
services exchange. Under GATS, an independent panel can be appointed to settle
and enforce disputes, but there is no presumed right of market access; the job of the
panel is merely to assess whether the barrier in question non-discriminatory.

As well as affecting cross-border trade in services, these restrictions could also have
implications for UK companies providing services through a commercial presence (effectively outward direct investment) in other Member States.18 The EU treaties require that a service provider from one Member State be legally free to establish in another, while continuing to regulated by the authorities of its home country. A UK company that provides services through establishments in other Member States may find, if Britain is no longer a member of the EU, that it has to comply with the requirements of a foreign regulatory authority
 

Hasney

Member
This was posted on the previous thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=208488582&postcount=16212
Or direct link to the pdf: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Accessible.pdf

It's the government report on the process of whitdrawing from the European Union.

Quote from the executive summary


The report does mention this a bit earlier though:


Interesting

That's our governments interpretation, that's the only thing really. It wasn't discussed with the EU beforehand.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
It looks like the political and economical consequences of this Brexit have been more substantively discussed by media in France (and probably in other EU countries) than in the UK itself. It's just crazy. :£

I don't think it's been discussed here already, but I've come across an interesting paper:
Professor Brendan O'Leary: Could there be a multi-national post-Brexit compromise?
I'm not sure how this could work exactly, but I find it pretty interesting that Scotland and NI may have a special treatment, and not leave the EU at all.

Well that doesn't sound possible. Surely Scotland can't negotiate with the EU unless it is a separate country?
 
Silly really. Most European migrants come here for work. Unemployment is low enough that it doesn't suggest our jobs are being stolen - more that there are jobs the British don't want.

Non-EU migrants are a different ballgame but then that shouldn't affect the EU discussion at all.

I just can't understand why so many think there are millions of Eastern Europeans literally stealing our babies and a shadowy group in Brussels sitting over a protractor calculating banana angles

Plenty of people's whole worldview is based on shitty tabloid rags and interacting with other people similar to them. It's all complete nonsense, but if it's in The Sun/Daily Mail/whatever else, it must be true!

Not that it excuses anything, mind.
 

Lego Boss

Member
So that contradicts this Newsnight interview. So which is correct? Talk about uncertainty, this is uncertainty on a whole new level.

Unknown unknown?

Unprecedented. Even our NATO of EU civil servants don't know.

OK, joke's over, it's been a week, everyone's laughed at England, can we go back to normal now?
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
That's our governments interpretation, that's the only thing really. It wasn't discussed with the EU beforehand.

So it's up for negotiation, but there isn't any negotiation until article 50 is triggered. So you have to pull the trigger before finding out if there is a bullet in the chamber.

The government report does mention up to a decade to get all this done.
 

norinrad

Member
"There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.

so what are people doing for the first two years? this doesn't make any sense.

Hate crimes will only increase, basically all none English and English with foreign partners and their kids are all targets. The country is ruined and divided for years to come. Not only that this will affect the world economy and the weaker economies are going to be hit hard.
 
Unknown unknown?

Unprecedented. Even our NATO of EU civil servants don't know.

OK, joke's over, it's been a week, everyone's laughed at England, can we go back to normal now?

This is the new normal.

Well that doesn't sound possible. Surely Scotland can't negotiate with the EU unless it is a separate country?

I think Scotland leaving first is a prerequisite, at least as far as I can gather from her visit to the EU.
 
France mentioned negotiating during that period yesterday. Nobody knew you couldn't.

It's not written anywhere that you can't. The trade commissioner only provides advice. The scope of the 'relationship framework' in art. 50 should be a decision by the European Council, not the commission.

So the commissioner is probably right about what the EU's position will be, but it's essentially all being made up as we go along.

Likewise, we can't negotiate deals with others until we leave. However, we can do informal talks. However again, trade talk plans will be very vague until our potential partner knows what our single market access is likely to be.

The big question will be non-tariff barriers. WTO tariffs won't kill us but trade barriers will. Especially if we start ripping up that EU 'red tape' in our legal system.
 
Trade in goods is easy enough under the WTO (after all the average tariff is just 3.5%) but it's trade in services which is the killer (due to a number reasons not least the sheer amount of services including financial which are excluded from the standard deal). If there's a default to WTO rules then the UK is most at risk because so much more of their external trade is in services.

Exactly, EU countries will be fine. We will continue to but their goods with fairly minor wto tariffs. It is the UK, whose biggest expert is services who will be royally fucked.
 
It's not written anywhere that you can't. The trade commissioner only provides advice. The scope of the 'relationship framework' in art. 50 should be a decision by the European Council, not the commission.

So the commissioner is probably right about what the EU's position will be, but it's essentially all being made up as we go along.

Likewise, we can't negotiate deals with others until we leave. However, we can do informal talks. However again, trade talk plans will be very vague until our potential partner knows what our single market access is likely to be.

The big question will be non-tariff barriers. WTO tariffs won't kill us but trade barriers will. Especially if we start ripping up that EU 'red tape' in our legal system.

Still, it begs the question as to why the fuck none of this was properly discussed and disclosed by both sides during the campaign.
 

Joni

Member
It almost looks like Article 50 was written to destroy any country stupid enough to withdraw.

How will we buy their goods if everyone's unemployed?
You'll sell pieces of land. Scotland, Northern Ireland will be sold to Ireland. Gibraltar to Spain. Falklands to France for the lolz.
 

kmag

Member
It's not written anywhere that you can't. The trade commissioner only provides advice. The scope of the 'relationship framework' in art. 50 should be a decision by the European Council, not the commission.

So the commissioner is probably right about what the EU's position will be, but it's essentially all being made up as we go along.

Likewise, we can't negotiate deals with others until we leave. However, we can do informal talks. However again, trade talk plans will be very vague until our potential partner knows what our single market access is likely to be.

The big question will be non-tariff barriers. WTO tariffs won't kill us but trade barriers will. Especially if we start ripping up that EU 'red tape' in our legal system.

That's the main thing with trade in services under GATS, you have operate under the legal frameworks and protections of the host country. At the moment these regulations and frameworks are largely harmonised in the EU for most sectors, but as soon as the UK starts tearing up 'red tape' that harmonisation goes out the window and GATS becomes far more protectionist.
 

Kadayi

Banned
Also I love this talk that you confidently know the will of the electorate. Half the electorate already don't want the result, and the shift to 'regrets decision' was larger for remain. Keep this mess up for much longer and we won't need a second referendum, parliament will just block it.

Please, you just confidently predicted that UKIP wouldn't benefit at all based on what? If the conservatives fail to uphold and act on the result, where exactly do you think those former conservative leave voters are going to go exactly? Just disappear into some hole in the ground? They're sure as shit are not going to vote Labour given their position on Brexit.

Also, what the media tells you, it not necessarily reflective of what people think as a whole. All media institutions have their prejudices and bylines. A few people publicly declaring the day after regrets, getting national coverage by a shocked media is not necessarily reflective of a wider impetus. Unless things suddenly bank dramatically in real world terms and the country rolls into a full on recession, with massive job losses up and down the country, I doubt many leave voters are likely to suddenly think differently, and in truth they're probably more likely to look at the present government's procrastination that has fueled market uncertainty as the culprit versus anything else. After all, we're not of the EU yet.

(People are definitely overestimating the backlash from this once some time has passed. Redoing referendums isn't exactly uncommon in Europe...). Right now everyone sane is playing for time and space.

Politically I just don't see happening. To renege on it would tantamount to political death for the conservatives, and dramatically undermine the public faith in democracy as an institution. I don't think it serves anyone's interest go down that route.

3.5% tariffs on average for goods under GATT. Exporters (both in the UK and the EU) can live with that. Service exports under GATS are a mess of exemptions, restrictions wildly varying timescales and a cludge of legal messes as a 2012 Parliament research paper (funny enough about the economic benefits of being in the EU)

Key words 'Without further negotiation'.
 

oti

Banned
Back in.

I read somewhere May wants to delay Art. 50 but I can't imagine the EU being OK with that. Merkel was the biggest "friend" of the UK so far but even she won't tolerate that, I'm sure.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
That's the main thing with trade in services under GATS, you have operate under the legal frameworks and protections of the host country. At the moment these regulations and frameworks are largely harmonised in the EU for most sectors, but as soon as the UK starts tearing up 'red tape' that harmonisation goes out the window and GATS becomes far more protectionist.

Correct. It becomes a huge (galaxy sized) game of legal Jenga
 

kmag

Member
Exactly, EU countries will be fine. We will continue to but their goods with fairly minor wto tariffs. It is the UK, whose biggest expert is services who will be royally fucked.

If people want a visual representation of what a tariff regime between the UK and the EU would look like here it is note the overwhelming amount of tariffs below 5%

UDsHDfu.png


The bottom axis shows the 2011 trade surplus or deficit between the EU and UK in each tariff goods sector.

Oh I suppose I should mention that aside from tariffs, you'd also have custom charges which currently don't apply but they're relatively minor.
 

Hasney

Member
Back in.

I read somewhere May wants to delay Art. 50 but I can't imagine the EU being OK with that. Merkel was the biggest "friend" of the UK so far but even she won't tolerate that, I'm sure.

She's said that it wouldn't be this year basically. I'm guessing she'd want to negotiate the terms of negotiation once it's triggered.
 
It almost looks like Article 50 was written to destroy any country stupid enough to withdraw.


You'll sell pieces of land. Scotland, Northern Ireland will be sold to Ireland. Gibraltar to Spain. Falklands to France for the lolz.

Almost? That's precisely the intent of it, to ensure the EU retains all the power and make it so that only crazy people would try it.

Maybe the German Embassy can be allowed to expand until it covers the whole city of London.
 

SuperSah

Banned
The issue with A50 is how vague it is. It was tossed in there to please some people and was never expected to have been used at all.

Now it's going to be used, people are in a bit of a pickle when trying to actually spell out the process.
 
It almost looks like Article 50 was written to destroy any country stupid enough to withdraw.


You'll sell pieces of land. Scotland, Northern Ireland will be sold to Ireland. Gibraltar to Spain. Falklands to France for the lolz.
Can we sell Essex to Brazil?
 

Hasney

Member
Can we sell Essex to Brazil?

Oh please, this is not the time for stupid jokes like this.

It should be to the highest bidder, surely.

The issue with A50 is how vague it is. It was tossed in there to please some people and was never expected to have been used at all.

Now it's going to be used, people are in a bit of a pickle when trying to actually spell out the process.

And the EU trying to set out the process to be as annoying as possible for anyone else who does it.
 

PJV3

Member
The issue with A50 is how vague it is. It was tossed in there to please some people and was never expected to have been used at all.

Now it's going to be used, people are in a bit of a pickle when trying to actually spell out the process.

It's to keep people like Farage happy, a state determined to leave can do so legally and that's about it.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Plenty of people's whole worldview is based on shitty tabloid rags and interacting with other people similar to them. It's all complete nonsense, but if it's in The Sun/Daily Mail/whatever else, it must be true!

Not that it excuses anything, mind.

Even shitty tabloids are a big step-up from Twitter, which is where a lot of this hysteria is coming from.

I swear, I feel like at some point we entered an internet created reality-distortion field, the real "generation gap" is people who live in the social media bubble, and those who don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom