Options

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] Brexitstential Crisis

15681011104

Posts

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Remind me who Kate Hoey is? Wikipedia plants her as a former Minister of Sport. What has she said?

    Labour, Leave, constituency Vauxhall so never getting elected again.
    Also from NI.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    One thing I am thinking is that you know what? Despite the fact that Corbyn is 100% a useless sack of shite the fact he's headlining atm is possibly evidence that the media do have it in for him.

    Because whatever way you spin it having most of your shadow cabinet resign on you is not as big a fuck up as sending us back to the economic stone age and breaking up 300 years of union in one stroke. It just isn't.

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Cameron stated quite specifically that the choice on article 50 is for the next PM.

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    edited June 2016
    Oh fuck "big gav" is speaking.
    Edit: wanted a border poll to be completely dismissed. What an <unmentionable>.
    Cameron kindly saying fuck off, it's in the good friday agreement.

    For context, "big gav" is DUP member for east belfast, and gave the most ungracious acceptance speech ever heard by a returned MP.

    altid on
  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited June 2016
    Casual wrote: »
    One thing I am thinking is that you know what? Despite the fact that Corbyn is 100% a useless sack of shite the fact he's headlining atm is possibly evidence that the media do have it in for him.

    Because whatever way you spin it having most of your shadow cabinet resign on you is not as big a fuck up as sending us back to the economic stone age and breaking up 300 years of union in one stroke. It just isn't.

    Yeah, but Cameron resigned. Focusing on how much he's screwed up is beating a dead horse, while beating the very live horse that is Corbyn's position is more exciting

    RMS Oceanic on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    it's shaping up to be a leave-or-defy intra-Labour fight, which could prove decisive if the Tories bungle a little bit more

    Labour is still unlikely to make a majority but coalitions do happen

    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Cameron suggests UK should stay in the single market.

    (During the campaign Vote Leave said explicitly that they did not think the UK should remain in the single market.)
    Cameron says he agrees that parliament is sovereign, but he says MPs must respect the result of the referendum.

    He says it will be up to the new government to decide whether to join the EEA.
    This is not going to cause a ton of controversy at all. Nosiree.

  • Options
    Bad-BeatBad-Beat Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    One thing I am thinking is that you know what? Despite the fact that Corbyn is 100% a useless sack of shite the fact he's headlining atm is possibly evidence that the media do have it in for him.

    Because whatever way you spin it having most of your shadow cabinet resign on you is not as big a fuck up as sending us back to the economic stone age and breaking up 300 years of union in one stroke. It just isn't.

    It's also in part because there is a very orchestrated campaign by resigning shadow cabinet members to drip feed their resignation letters periodically throughout the days rather than in one go to keep the story and pressure going. They are using the media to help their cause and the media are only too happy to oblige because this is pure fucking gold for them. Everybody wins... Except when Corbyn refuses to resign, then everyone in Labour loses.

  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    it's shaping up to be a leave-or-defy intra-Labour fight, which could prove decisive if the Tories bungle a little bit more

    Labour is still unlikely to make a majority but coalitions do happen

    If someone knew what they were doing, all you'd have to do is remind everyone that BoJo - for I'm taking it as given he gets the nod for now - either outright lied or failed to correct the claims put out there.

  • Options
    Bad-BeatBad-Beat Registered User regular
    edited June 2016
    I've got to say, I approve of post-politics, blunt, doesn't give a fuck David Cameron:
    Back in the Commons, Labour’s Pat McFadden says Boris Johnson in his Telegraph article this morning said he wanted the UK to have full access to the single market. Is there any country with full access to the single market that does not allow free movement of labour?

    Cameron says there is no country with full access to the single market that does not also pay a contribution and allow free movement.

    Not even attempting to make it easy for the next PM. He's checked out.

    Bad-Beat on
  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Bad-Beat wrote: »
    I've got to say, I approve of post-politics, blunt, doesn't give a fuck David Cameron:
    Back in the Commons, Labour’s Pat McFadden says Boris Johnson in his Telegraph article this morning said he wanted the UK to have full access to the single market. Is there any country with full access to the single market that does not allow free movement of labour?

    Cameron says there is no country with full access to the single market that does not also pay a contribution and allow free movement.

    Not even attempting to make it easy for the next PM. He's checked out.

    I think this is a point that really has to be hammered home too: Single Market or Immigration Control. You can't have both. And we've got a taste of what happens when the single market is threatened.

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Simon Hoare (Con) bring up the racism associated with the leave campaign. Quotes a specific tweet with a vote leave hashtag.

    The leavers keep bringing up "we won the referendum" and asking for assurances it won't be stopped. Insecure anyone?

  • Options
    honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    So what are the Lib Dems up to right now? Also is it relevant? The last I've seen from them was that Clegg opinon piece from Wednesday that more or less predicted what happened on Friday.

  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    it's shaping up to be a leave-or-defy intra-Labour fight, which could prove decisive if the Tories bungle a little bit more

    Labour is still unlikely to make a majority but coalitions do happen

    If someone knew what they were doing, all you'd have to do is remind everyone that BoJo - for I'm taking it as given he gets the nod for now - either outright lied or failed to correct the claims put out there.

    like any good new labourite, benn would wait until the polling suggests that defy looks like a vote-getter, then he'll put all his chips in against lexit and nastytoryxit at the same time, and hope for splits in 'zits

    for the time being, he can just let corbyn commit to LEAVE IMMEDIATELY NOOOOOW and also form an entire shadow cabinet and team based on that promise

    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    So what are the Lib Dems up to right now? Also is it relevant? The last I've seen from them was that Clegg opinon piece from Wednesday that more or less predicted what happened on Friday.

    tim farron pledged to defy the referendum on sunday

    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    So what are the Lib Dems up to right now? Also is it relevant? The last I've seen from them was that Clegg opinon piece from Wednesday that more or less predicted what happened on Friday.

    They have pledged to fight the next election on either preventing Brexit or re-entry to the EU, depending on when it happens.

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Also interesting phrasing by David Lammy on a second referendum - a "referendum on the detail" of a new deal. Worth a shot.

  • Options
    Bad-BeatBad-Beat Registered User regular
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Cameron could rock up tomorrow, jump up on the table, shout "Article 50, Bitches!!", then drop trou and take a great big shit on the desk and it would probably legally count as triggering Article 50.

  • Options
    TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Bad-Beat wrote: »
    I've got to say, I approve of post-politics, blunt, doesn't give a fuck David Cameron:

    Eh. Actual DGAF Cameron would have said "To hell with the vote, we're not leaving."

  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    eEK! wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Tony Blair is possibly a war criminal, but he was not utterly, comically, tragically useless.

    The left wing that hated Blair now has control of the Labour party. It has been an unmitigated disaster.

    At least Tony can blame some of that on Bush, Corbyn clearly doesn't listen to anyone though.

    The great mystery to me though is how Labour still don't have candidate to replace him with, he was hated by the party right out of the gate, they've got to be able to unite behind someone surely.

    Hell forget Blair even Miliband's rock of pledges looks like savy politics now.

    Although thinking of Miliband I'm reminded that he really was unfairly smeared by the press over his inability to look cool while eating and "gasp" having sex before marriage (compared to right wing MPs who wouldn't know sexual morality if it shat on their face), which seems to have lead to this boy who cried wolf situation with Corbyn.

    The one guy who probably should have gotten the rains (David Milliband) pretty much turned his back on politics, and I can't really imagine what incentive he has to come back at this point.

    Lets imagine fun scenarios where Dave Milliband is sitting in a dingy bar in a generic southern united states area, a man in a suit walks through the door...

    "David, your country needs you!"

    "... I don't have a country"

    *David belts a whiskey shot and lights a cigarette*

    "You're a hard man to find."

    *David drags from cigarette, sighs* "Not hard enough."

  • Options
    Bad-BeatBad-Beat Registered User regular
    If the Government can send us to war without a vote by Parliament (e.g. Falklands) using the Royal Prerogative, I'd wager they can also agree to invoke Article 50 with a similar argument + popular backing via referendum.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    I dunno it seems suuuuper weird for the EU to be all "YOU SAID ARTICLE 50 IN THE COMMONS, IT STARTS NOW NO TAKES BACKSIES".

    As much as they might want to that's some pretty weak sauce.

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    For that reason I hope Cameron is incredibly careful with his choice of words tomorrow.

  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    I dunno it seems suuuuper weird for the EU to be all "YOU SAID ARTICLE 50 IN THE COMMONS, IT STARTS NOW NO TAKES BACKSIES".

    As much as they might want to that's some pretty weak sauce.

    Not in the Commons, at this EU meeting that's happening tomorrow. They've said if Cameron mentions the results of the referendum there that will count as invoking A50.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    I dunno it seems suuuuper weird for the EU to be all "YOU SAID ARTICLE 50 IN THE COMMONS, IT STARTS NOW NO TAKES BACKSIES".

    As much as they might want to that's some pretty weak sauce.

    Not in the Commons, at this EU meeting that's happening tomorrow. They've said if Cameron mentions the results of the referendum there that will count as invoking A50.

    Doesn't this seem faintly ridiculous to anyone?

  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2016
    Germany has ruled out any possibility of informal talks on Britain leaving the EU before it files formal notice of its intention to go, dealing a major blow to the Brexit campaign’s leaders.

    As the US secretary of state, John Kerry, warned in Brussels that the UK’s departure would have “consequences” demanding “sensitive, thoughtful, responsible and strategic” leadership, chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman said only Britain could start the exit process.

    If the government decided it needed “a reasonable amount of time to do that, we respect that”, Steffen Seibert said. But he cautioned: “One thing is clear – before Great Britain has sent this notification, there will be no informal preliminary talks about the exit modalities.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leaders-crunch-talks-brexit-fallout

    "Shit or get off the pot"

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Germany has ruled out any possibility of informal talks on Britain leaving the EU before it files formal notice of its intention to go, dealing a major blow to the Brexit campaign’s leaders.

    As the US secretary of state, John Kerry, warned in Brussels that the UK’s departure would have “consequences” demanding “sensitive, thoughtful, responsible and strategic” leadership, chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman said only Britain could start the exit process.

    If the government decided it needed “a reasonable amount of time to do that, we respect that”, Steffen Seibert said. But he cautioned: “One thing is clear – before Great Britain has sent this notification, there will be no informal preliminary talks about the exit modalities.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leaders-crunch-talks-brexit-fallout

    "Shit or get off the pot"

    If this is the EU's tactic to force the issue I'm pretty fine with it.

    No stupid games to try and wrangle a technicality on A50 but a straight forward, "if you want to negotiate terms then we're negotiating terms, no half hearted backroom shit".

    This is the best thing they could do to fuck Boris from going forward and back him into the embarrassing climb down corner. It almost feels like they're trying to give us a chance.

  • Options
    [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    I dunno it seems suuuuper weird for the EU to be all "YOU SAID ARTICLE 50 IN THE COMMONS, IT STARTS NOW NO TAKES BACKSIES".

    As much as they might want to that's some pretty weak sauce.

    Not in the Commons, at this EU meeting that's happening tomorrow. They've said if Cameron mentions the results of the referendum there that will count as invoking A50.

    Doesn't this seem faintly ridiculous to anyone?

    From now on, the referendum should only be referred to as "that which which cannot be mentioned", a la Voldemort.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • Options
    SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    I dunno it seems suuuuper weird for the EU to be all "YOU SAID ARTICLE 50 IN THE COMMONS, IT STARTS NOW NO TAKES BACKSIES".

    As much as they might want to that's some pretty weak sauce.

    Not in the Commons, at this EU meeting that's happening tomorrow. They've said if Cameron mentions the results of the referendum there that will count as invoking A50.

    Doesn't this seem faintly ridiculous to anyone?

    Only a little. They don't want to do any negotiating while Britain is still a part of the EU. Bringing up the referendum in talks with the EU makes it a negotiation of the british exit, and the EU is firmly against anything even remotely looking like that. It seems their stance is "If you want out, get out, and then you can come back for some negotiations on how the rest of Europe is going to treat you". The EU seems as thought they are going to make this as painful as possible for the UK so as to discourage future exits.

  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    If A50 isn't triggered, and we end up with the threatened/predicted Brexiteer/UKIP/racist riots in the streets, any of you in a city that might be in the firing line is welcome to crash on my village-located couch until it all blows over.

    Simon_Pegg_in_the_Winchester.jpg

  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    I dunno it seems suuuuper weird for the EU to be all "YOU SAID ARTICLE 50 IN THE COMMONS, IT STARTS NOW NO TAKES BACKSIES".

    As much as they might want to that's some pretty weak sauce.

    Not in the Commons, at this EU meeting that's happening tomorrow. They've said if Cameron mentions the results of the referendum there that will count as invoking A50.

    Doesn't this seem faintly ridiculous to anyone?

    From now on, the referendum should only be referred to as "that which which cannot be mentioned", a la Voldemort.

    I was thinking Macbeth. As in Blackadder.

  • Options
    SkuntySkunty Registered User regular
    I almost imagine that tomorrow's meeting will essentially become a game of 'loser says what' in multiple languages with 'loser' replaced by 'leader who wants to declare article 50'. Essentially DC needs to turn up with his mouth wired shut and a neck brace so tight he can't even nod an agreement, just in case.

  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Germany has ruled out any possibility of informal talks on Britain leaving the EU before it files formal notice of its intention to go, dealing a major blow to the Brexit campaign’s leaders.

    As the US secretary of state, John Kerry, warned in Brussels that the UK’s departure would have “consequences” demanding “sensitive, thoughtful, responsible and strategic” leadership, chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman said only Britain could start the exit process.

    If the government decided it needed “a reasonable amount of time to do that, we respect that”, Steffen Seibert said. But he cautioned: “One thing is clear – before Great Britain has sent this notification, there will be no informal preliminary talks about the exit modalities.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leaders-crunch-talks-brexit-fallout

    "Shit or get off the pot"

    If this is the EU's tactic to force the issue I'm pretty fine with it.

    No stupid games to try and wrangle a technicality on A50 but a straight forward, "if you want to negotiate terms then we're negotiating terms, no half hearted backroom shit".

    This is the best thing they could do to fuck Boris from going forward and back him into the embarrassing climb down corner. It almost feels like they're trying to give us a chance.

    In the long run the EU is economically stronger with the UK still part of it. A punitive exit is cathartic, but a UK climbdown and reconciliation looks better.

  • Options
    P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    I dunno it seems suuuuper weird for the EU to be all "YOU SAID ARTICLE 50 IN THE COMMONS, IT STARTS NOW NO TAKES BACKSIES".

    As much as they might want to that's some pretty weak sauce.

    Not in the Commons, at this EU meeting that's happening tomorrow. They've said if Cameron mentions the results of the referendum there that will count as invoking A50.

    Doesn't this seem faintly ridiculous to anyone?

    Only a little. They don't want to do any negotiating while Britain is still a part of the EU. Bringing up the referendum in talks with the EU makes it a negotiation of the british exit, and the EU is firmly against anything even remotely looking like that. It seems their stance is "If you want out, get out, and then you can come back for some negotiations on how the rest of Europe is going to treat you". The EU seems as thought they are going to make this as painful as possible for the UK so as to discourage future exits.
    that's not how article 50 works

    this prevents two situations, in my mind - the U.K using invoking article 50 as a threat in negotiations (kinda weak at this point, but there are still probably fears it would cause issues regarding emboldening Leave campaigns in other countries), and the U.K negotiating from a quantum position where they act as if article 50 is a done deal but aren't actually bound to invoke article 50 at all

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • Options
    NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    I dunno it seems suuuuper weird for the EU to be all "YOU SAID ARTICLE 50 IN THE COMMONS, IT STARTS NOW NO TAKES BACKSIES".

    As much as they might want to that's some pretty weak sauce.

    Not in the Commons, at this EU meeting that's happening tomorrow. They've said if Cameron mentions the results of the referendum there that will count as invoking A50.

    Doesn't this seem faintly ridiculous to anyone?

    Only a little. They don't want to do any negotiating while Britain is still a part of the EU. Bringing up the referendum in talks with the EU makes it a negotiation of the british exit, and the EU is firmly against anything even remotely looking like that. It seems their stance is "If you want out, get out, and then you can come back for some negotiations on how the rest of Europe is going to treat you". The EU seems as thought they are going to make this as painful as possible for the UK so as to discourage future exits.
    There's a part of me that hopes that this goes horribly, horribly wrong (as in, even worse than it already has) for England (and, in unfortunate extansion, rest of UK).
    Mainly because i want it clear for everyone that, yes, this was stupid, and nobody should ever do this again.

    But on the other hand, i have a cousin who moved to England (London, i think) years ago and lives there.
    And i hope this does not cause trouble for her.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Germany has ruled out any possibility of informal talks on Britain leaving the EU before it files formal notice of its intention to go, dealing a major blow to the Brexit campaign’s leaders.

    As the US secretary of state, John Kerry, warned in Brussels that the UK’s departure would have “consequences” demanding “sensitive, thoughtful, responsible and strategic” leadership, chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman said only Britain could start the exit process.

    If the government decided it needed “a reasonable amount of time to do that, we respect that”, Steffen Seibert said. But he cautioned: “One thing is clear – before Great Britain has sent this notification, there will be no informal preliminary talks about the exit modalities.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leaders-crunch-talks-brexit-fallout

    "Shit or get off the pot"

    If this is the EU's tactic to force the issue I'm pretty fine with it.

    No stupid games to try and wrangle a technicality on A50 but a straight forward, "if you want to negotiate terms then we're negotiating terms, no half hearted backroom shit".

    This is the best thing they could do to fuck Boris from going forward and back him into the embarrassing climb down corner. It almost feels like they're trying to give us a chance.

    In the long run the EU is economically stronger with the UK still part of it. A punitive exit is cathartic, but a UK climbdown and reconciliation looks better.

    Yep, they're fucking Boris.
    Brussels has also emphatically ruled out informal talks on a possible trade deal before the UK triggers article 50. “No notification, no negotiation,” one official said on Sunday. A diplomat added: “If they treat their referendum as a non-event, we will also treat their referendum as a non-event.”

    This is the Diplomatic equivalent of "no lube".

  • Options
    SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited June 2016
    P10 wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron seemed to deny that article 50 requires a parliamentary vote.

    Also seemed to say it's not being applied immediately, which is good? The consensus here seems to be the longer it goes without being activated the less likely it is to happen at all.

    So right now there seem to be three legal scenarios that possibly clash

    - The lawyer who argued parliament need to vote on A50
    - Cameron's assertion that the PM alone can decide, he's just not going to
    - The EU assertion that if he mentions the referendum at this meeting that invokes A50

    It's the latter two that are uncomfortably synergistic

    I dunno it seems suuuuper weird for the EU to be all "YOU SAID ARTICLE 50 IN THE COMMONS, IT STARTS NOW NO TAKES BACKSIES".

    As much as they might want to that's some pretty weak sauce.

    Not in the Commons, at this EU meeting that's happening tomorrow. They've said if Cameron mentions the results of the referendum there that will count as invoking A50.

    Doesn't this seem faintly ridiculous to anyone?

    Only a little. They don't want to do any negotiating while Britain is still a part of the EU. Bringing up the referendum in talks with the EU makes it a negotiation of the british exit, and the EU is firmly against anything even remotely looking like that. It seems their stance is "If you want out, get out, and then you can come back for some negotiations on how the rest of Europe is going to treat you". The EU seems as thought they are going to make this as painful as possible for the UK so as to discourage future exits.
    that's not how article 50 works

    this prevents two situations, in my mind - the U.K using invoking article 50 as a threat in negotiations (kinda weak at this point, but there are still probably fears it would cause issues regarding emboldening Leave campaigns in other countries), and the U.K negotiating from a quantum position where they act as if article 50 is a done deal but aren't actually bound to invoke article 50 at all

    I was assuming it's all posturing, and that article 50 didn't actually work that way. I just meant that the posturing didn't seem ridiculous. They seem to want to hard-line this as much possible.

    Sleep on
This discussion has been closed.