If I was British I'd stop buying products made in the EU. It's not like they can't get cars, wine etc from elsewhere.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom
- Thread starter emigre
- Start date
- Views 100,147
- Replies 1,214
- Likes 5
So... Seems like may 's delay until June 30th is final. At least that is something, but I have no idea what's going to be next. Her deal is certainly of the table, hard brexit and the second referendum are somewhat of the table and the EU isn't about to "substantially" change the deal If I had to guess, I'd say there be a fall of the government, but again : I have no idea.
If not for anything else the EU trade deals makes importing goods from there cheaper than comparable products from elsewhere. It'd be wilfully ignoring the benefits of the EU to... I guess trying to prove that there are no benefits? If enough people did it, it would be a good practice to see how things would turn out without the EU(minutes some hot angle's, of course) But I think most simply going to ignore what was voted for and are going to be surprised by the impact.
Okay. And... Just why would you do that?
If not for anything else the EU trade deals makes importing goods from there cheaper than comparable products from elsewhere. It'd be wilfully ignoring the benefits of the EU to... I guess trying to prove that there are no benefits? If enough people did it, it would be a good practice to see how things would turn out without the EU(minutes some hot angle's, of course) But I think most simply going to ignore what was voted for and are going to be surprised by the impact.
So, instead of doing something productive, the parliament decided to drag out an old rule , that you can't vote on the same thing more then twice. Ok, I get that rules and traditions are important, but shouldn't resolving the situation be more important?
@Taleweaver Sorry about the 4. point I asked about previously. I, honestly, wasn't expecting any serious answers to that. I read up a bit more about the brexit, and the more I read the harder it gets to take the British government seriously. In my mind their government stands somewhere between criminally incompetent and plainly stupid.
@Taleweaver Sorry about the 4. point I asked about previously. I, honestly, wasn't expecting any serious answers to that. I read up a bit more about the brexit, and the more I read the harder it gets to take the British government seriously. In my mind their government stands somewhere between criminally incompetent and plainly stupid.
It's actually more than once (unless it is "substantially different", as speaker John Bercow puts it). But I disagree that it's not productive. This whole "let's have everyone vote on it AGAIN" is just stalling for time, so this refusal is just what should have happened. Erm...that is to say: the governments should've expected what the outcome of those minor changes were at best going to result in minor vote differences, and shouldn't even have had "let's put the same deal up for voting yet a third time" as a strategy to begin with. You really don't have to be Nostradamus to predict the outcome of that, so this blocking was bound to happen sooner or later.
Oh, and I don't mind answering questions. I wouldn't be here if I didn't take an interest in the topic.
But isn't May trying to negotiate a new exit date and tack it to her deal, basically still stalling for time, just in a more drawn out way. Wouldn't it have been better to allow the vote, making it clear that after this the deal is off the table, without proper renegotiation?
As far as I'm concerned, the deal was already off the table the first time. It was already delayed, so it's not like the second vote could have passed for "but now that you've all had time to think about it...how do you feel now?". But it got voted for anyhow, because there were some changes made to it (or weren't...the EU leaders said that "the deal won't change, but we'll gladly provide information on what we mean by things". I'm not in a position to tell whether they came back on that statement).
So a third time is just silliness. To quote Vaas Montenegro: the definition of insanity is doing the exact… same fucking thing… over and over again, expecting… shit to change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't actually have to follow through with it, right? It's not legally binding? The only downside to backing out would be egg in the face? Or have things changed since last I read up on it?
Last I've read (a couple months ago), this was indeed the case: if the UK decides it wants to remain in the EU, there isn't a way the EU can stop it. This obviously changes after the actual brexit, because at that time, the UK would just be like any other country the EU has no special arrangements with.
The thing is: due to the way May negotiated, the UK is more or less on the equivalent of a conveyor belt towards the EU exit. she was probably convinced that this "if we don't accept my deal, we'll leave without a deal" would rally the government behind her, but that plan failed...twice. The others are mostly divided between holding a second referendum and a hard brexit. Support for "just staying in the EU" is marginalized as being "not in the interest of the people" (because representing 48% of the people is obviously unheard of!). I guess that's why the UK is now asking for a delay. So remaining on that proverbial conveyor belt to the exit but walking away from the exit rather than just stepping off the damn thing.
so those in charge can best summed up as "we don't know what the implications are of this and at this point we're too scared to ask"? Such a dumpster fire of political tomfoolery. And there's always a united ireland (or is it united republic of ireland?), which is another ball of fun.
I can't seem to find anywhere that the EU voted that they can try to make a deal till 30th of june. They're voting at this moment now ? Nothing has been decided yetSo... Seems like may 's delay until June 30th is final. At least that is something, but I have no idea what's going to be next. Her deal is certainly of the table, hard brexit and the second referendum are somewhat of the table and the EU isn't about to "substantially" change the deal If I had to guess, I'd say there be a fall of the government, but again : I have no idea.
Okay. And... Just why would you do that?
If not for anything else the EU trade deals makes importing goods from there cheaper than comparable products from elsewhere. It'd be wilfully ignoring the benefits of the EU to... I guess trying to prove that there are no benefits? If enough people did it, it would be a good practice to see how things would turn out without the EU(minutes some hot angle's, of course) But I think most simply going to ignore what was voted for and are going to be surprised by the impact.
Yes.. My earlier post was inaccurate : prolonging until June (but not later) is what may wants, but the EU leaders don't like that this means the UK will still be a member after the EU elections. So it's likely that they'll put the delay at most until may 22nd(1), so the day before the election. But as you said : they're voting on that right now
(1): I wonder why May proposed june in the first place. It's not like she wants to help with this EU election in the UK
It's probably 2 please others in parlement who want to do the european election so that they can undermine the EU even more.Yes.. My earlier post was inaccurate : prolonging until June (but not later) is what may wants, but the EU leaders don't like that this means the UK will still be a member after the EU elections. So it's likely that they'll put the delay at most until may 22nd(1), so the day before the election. But as you said : they're voting on that right now
(1): I wonder why May proposed june in the first place. It's not like she wants to help with this EU election in the UK
Phew...just read the result of the summit. At least it's clear, but it's not exactly a simple sound bite. Let's put it in programming language:
IF (May gets her deal through house of commons) THEN
there's a delay until may 22nd
ELSE
there's a delay until april 11th
IF (on april 11th, the UK will organize EU elections) THEN
prolonged delay until the end of the year
ELSE
no deal brexit
END IF
END IF
As noted in posts above, the first 'if' is damn unlikely. Aside from the two 'nay' vote results, I don't see what they hope to achieve in that time. If it goes through house of commons, they can just as well use May's deal to brexit that same day. That is, of course, if this goes through a third vote to begin with.
So in practical terms, it all comes down to whether the UK will organize EU elections or not. May isn't intending to do that, but given the alternative as well as how the UK behaves (delay! delay! more delay!), a juicy "even more delay" might sound appealing. It also gives them time to organize new elections and/or a new referendum.
IF (May gets her deal through house of commons) THEN
there's a delay until may 22nd
ELSE
there's a delay until april 11th
IF (on april 11th, the UK will organize EU elections) THEN
prolonged delay until the end of the year
ELSE
no deal brexit
END IF
END IF
As noted in posts above, the first 'if' is damn unlikely. Aside from the two 'nay' vote results, I don't see what they hope to achieve in that time. If it goes through house of commons, they can just as well use May's deal to brexit that same day. That is, of course, if this goes through a third vote to begin with.
So in practical terms, it all comes down to whether the UK will organize EU elections or not. May isn't intending to do that, but given the alternative as well as how the UK behaves (delay! delay! more delay!), a juicy "even more delay" might sound appealing. It also gives them time to organize new elections and/or a new referendum.
I'm somewhat confused, why does the UK, a country that is more or less set to leave the EU, still have the right to participate and hold the EU election? I mean why should they have any say in the EU, an organizations they have decided to leave? Is it some kind of loophole in the jurisdiction, something that hasn't been thought out completely?
Because at this moment, they're still a union country and all members have to participate
Well normally a country doesn't leave so there probably wasn't a rule for that in place just yet because they didn't think about it or something like that. Probably after the brexit a rule like that will be placed that when undergoing article 50 you can't be re-elected anymore. But at the moment there's no such rule
Wow.. No wonder you are a Chinese. If I was America I 'd stop buying products made in the China. You sounds like a Racist! How would you feel about that? Watch your mouth. What's wrong with you ? EU is wonderful and my friend came from Uk. They prefer UK to be with EU. Shame on you for saying that! SMH.
Okay. And... Just why would you do that?
If not for anything else the EU trade deals makes importing goods from there cheaper than comparable products from elsewhere. It'd be wilfully ignoring the benefits of the EU to... I guess trying to prove that there are no benefits? If enough people did it, it would be a good practice to see how things would turn out without the EU(minutes some hot angle's, of course) But I think most simply going to ignore what was voted for and are going to be surprised by the impact.
You said it. I don't understand him and wonder why he would do that.
Last edited by spotanjo3,
Delay at his point is playing for time. Reason sold to the EU was "to have a chance to get people behind the current deal" (Agreement (what if the talks fail) after which the separation talks start.) - which no one believes anymore.
Now it seems to have become a "who is better prepared for a hard separation currently" question, and the answer to that at the current point in time is - the EU.
Thats where the powerplays come in.
"Only if you show intent of actually producing something in return." - is calling a bluff.
At the same time its also raising political pressure. To what result, we currently dont know.
Now it seems to have become a "who is better prepared for a hard separation currently" question, and the answer to that at the current point in time is - the EU.
Thats where the powerplays come in.
"Only if you show intent of actually producing something in return." - is calling a bluff.
At the same time its also raising political pressure. To what result, we currently dont know.
Last edited by notimp,
The only thing i see at the moment is a no deal or remain. Most politicians in the UK are 2 stubborn. They see the deal as bending to the EU wich it isn't since they decided to leave themselves. At the moment the UK is making a mockery out of themselves in front of the world. It has been 3 years already and they're acting like spoiled children crying on the floor in a toyshop when they don't get what they want. Also that of being stubborn being extremely childish. Especially for them being adults and politicians.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
