|
Yesssss. Disssmissss ssssuch sssilly ideassss from your mindsss.Europe is NOT a country and it was the habit of treating it as such adopted by so many EU lawmakers that actually started this sad sorry mess in the first place.Exactly. The EU was never meant to be an actual nation. But it's been moving further and further towards that, and I sympathize with those that do not want their national identities watered down to the point of non-existence.Except there is no evidence of this in anything beyond an agreed-upon currency and a few trade deals. There hasn't been an attempt for a national language or anything else that would imply such a nation on a day to day level.
Then again, as someone else pointed out, there are loonies out there who believe the United Nations is slowly corrupting every member nation at the behest of the lizard people. So there's that.
~grabs the Reptoid and shoves him into a cage~ This is MY UN!!! You can't have it!
|
If the Brexit happens, either the UK succeeds in its bet and shows that national preeminence is the way to go. Then other EU countries will follow suit and the EU will become a mere stack of treaties regulating relations between sovereign nations
Or it fails miserably and prove that a strong political EU where the selfishness of nations has no place is the way to go
|
|
About xenophobia and racism, the factors in this election "that dare not speak their name," we can't do much. If the reason someone voted to leave is because they don't want Poles in their neighborhood drinking vodka instead of whisky and because the Italians eat garlic in bed,.... well, pointing out that the Poles actually drink more beer than vodka probably wouldn't help.
But they're tied very closely together. Xenophobia and racism are there and they're certainly factors, but they're tied closely to people's economic perceptions. It's not just that they don't want to live next to the filthy vodka drinking Poles, but that they're taking the jobs and making you poor. It's nonsense of course, but scapegoating is a very effective tactic. The economy is bad, you can't find a job and people are giving you an easy explanation that matches your prejudices.
When times are good, you may still be prejudiced, but it's a lot harder to...
Not only that because many people who are not prejudiced to start with will become amenable to prejudice if they feel that no one cares about them while X and Y get all the privileges without even working for them or deserving them
And governments do not take the adequate early actions because by the time you admit that your country is failing it is already too late. And even then, people including politicians still hope for some miracle because surely this cannot last long, right ?
What we can do is debunk prejudices at every turn and keep caring about others' plight no matter how tempting self-pity becomes
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nuff' said. The saddest thing is that UK had the best deal of any UE country, and threw it away for bad reasons.
Why the best deal ? Because historically it was hard to get HMG to say yes to anything without a little incentive (between states it's not called a bribe). Along the years, UK hoarded a lot of rebates, preferential conditions and special statuses. The last one allowed it to withdraw british welfare from EU citizens working in UK, while UK citizens working elsewhere in the EU would still get it, for reasons (mostly to satisfy a xenophobic fringe of its electorate).
Even if Brexit-UK got the same favorized partnership as Norway and Iceland (that is, membership in the EEA), it would be worse off than it is now. It's not a punishment, just the normal thing, but it will probably be felt like one.
It seems that Cameron is willing to let all of EU wait for the conservative party congress in october, and the hell with economic conséquences. I guess he hopes to "push" all of us into giving him an even better deal, which would justify a second referendum (or let him just ignore the first one). Alas for him and UK, I don't think it would be the sensible thing to do for EU, as it would encourage any and all populists on the continent to go the same way (that is, throw a tantrum and get candies) which would quickly lead to a complete disintegration of the union. There is already talk of ignoring the letter of the article 50 if HMG try to do a slow-motion.
This story has a moral philosophy : be content of what thou have.
las for him and UK, I don't think it would be the sensible thing to do for EU, as it would encourage any and all populists on the continent to go the same way (that is, throw a tantrum and get candies) which would quickly lead to a complete disintegration of the union. There is already talk of ignoring the letter of the article 50 if HMG try to do a slow-motion.
This story has a moral philosophy : be content of what thou have.
If you are saying what I think you are saying...are you talking about stating that Article 50 would be void?
Basically stating that the Overall EU can enforce itself upon the other nations/states of the EU?
That sounds like a dangerous precedent? When that occurred in the US it ended in the bloodiest war the US had ever seen.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
las for him and UK, I don't think it would be the sensible thing to do for EU, as it would encourage any and all populists on the continent to go the same way (that is, throw a tantrum and get candies) which would quickly lead to a complete disintegration of the union. There is already talk of ignoring the letter of the article 50 if HMG try to do a slow-motion.
This story has a moral philosophy : be content of what thou have.
If you are saying what I think you are saying...are you talking about stating that Article 50 would be void?
Basically stating that the Overall EU can enforce itself upon the other nations/states of the EU?
That sounds like a dangerous precedent? When that occurred in the US it ended in the bloodiest war the US had ever seen.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Oh, the drama ! The angst ! Do you seriously consider that UK would first brexit THEN militarily attack all the rest of EU if it doesn't get its way? No kidding ?
I fail to see any relation between this and anything that happened in the USA. You know, you have your specifities and we have ours, and all that happen in Europe doesn't always translate into something that already happened across the Atlantic.
All I'm saying is that if UK aims to use the letter of article 50 to hold hostage all EU, it's not completely impossible that other countries agree to go for the spirit of the text and cut it short. Certainly not tomorrow, but maybe in some months time, especially if the Financial crisis goes deeper and drags all of the continent down.
Getting a clear answer from HMG should not be that long : either they intend to go for brexit according to the referendum, and we can start together on the damage control ; or they plan to ignore it, take some serious political damage at home but cease to rock the european boat for everybody else, which is quite selfish of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nuff' said. The saddest thing is that UK had the best deal of any UE country, and threw it away for bad reasons.
Why the best deal ? Because historically it was hard to get HMG to say yes to anything without a little incentive (between states it's not called a bribe). Along the years, UK hoarded a lot of rebates, preferential conditions and special statuses. The last one allowed it to withdraw british welfare from EU citizens working in UK, while UK citizens working elsewhere in the EU would still get it, for reasons (mostly to satisfy a xenophobic fringe of its electorate).
Even if Brexit-UK got the same favorized partnership as Norway and Iceland (that is, membership in the EEA), it would be worse off than it is now. It's not a punishment, just the normal thing, but it will probably be felt like one.
It seems that Cameron is willing to let all of EU wait for the conservative party congress in october, and the hell with economic conséquences. I guess he hopes to "push" all of us into giving him an even better deal, which would justify a second referendum (or let him just ignore the first one). Alas for him and UK, I don't think it would be the sensible thing to do for EU, as it would encourage any and all populists on the continent to go the same way (that is, throw a tantrum and get candies) which would quickly lead to a complete disintegration of the union. There is already talk of ignoring the letter of the article 50 if HMG try to do a slow-motion.
I am in no way going to disagree with what you've said here, not least because you have a clearer understanding of the history and politics of the EU than I do, and I, unlike Michael Gove (and apparently a worryingly large portion of the UK population), think that listening to and learning from people who know more than you is one of the most important decision making tools we have in the modern age.
I do think, though, that there is possibly a different interpretation for Cameron's delay. It's possible that he isn't trying to manipulate the EU, but instead the electorate of the UK. Maybe he thinks that if things go badly for the next few months, the government can say "Look, you were lied to in the run up to the last referendum, you've seen what could happen if we leave. How about we have another vote to check you still want it?" and get a different result...
This story has a moral philosophy : be content of what thou have.
I was thinking "What ye sow, so shall ye reap", "Be careful what you wish for" or "Don't listen to xenophobic weasel-faced politicians" :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think, though, that there is possibly a different interpretation for Cameron's delay. It's possible that he isn't trying to manipulate the EU, but instead the electorate of the UK. Maybe he thinks that if things go badly for the next few months, the government can say "Look, you were lied to in the run up to the last referendum, you've seen what could happen if we leave. How about we have another vote to check you still want it?" and get a different result...
Your guess is as good as mine. But can we (UK+EU) wait months for him to pull this trick ?
And how will the brexit crowd would react if the PM tries to bury their vote, after having already admitted their victory ? What if the political backlash and general anger leads to another Leave vote ? Economical turmoil is not a fertile ground for well-thought décisions, and the "Elite" denying the people its say on important matters plays exactly in the hands of populists such as UKIP.
In short : if he (PM Cameron) plans to do that, he should and could do it now. Waiting for october will only add to the bill (both in terms of economical damge and loss of goodwill from his EU partners). Of course, to do this he will need some courage and quite a bit of selflessness, but hey, as a politico his goose is already cooked : he will forever be branded as the guy who outdid the Luftwaffe in terms of damage to the City of London !
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The EU has given the UK more than enough already. And they are still not satisfied. No point in trying to coddle them any further as they will always want more and are not even able to be reasonable about this. Playing with the EU's existence and the risk of yet another grave financial and economical crisis just to advance individuals' political carreers.
I fully agree. Britain got a colossal amount back from the EU for putting not a massive amount in. This message was not even remotely communicated at all by the Remain campaign during the referendum. A lot of British people think we put in less than we got out. Many of those same people have now been told that EU funding for their (often poor and neglected by London) regions will now be pulled and that nice new business centre or sports complex won't be happening and they're confused and angry about that.
All I'm saying is that if UK aims to use the letter of article 50 to hold hostage all EU, it's not completely impossible that other countries agree to go for the spirit of the text and cut it short. Certainly not tomorrow, but maybe in some months time, especially if the Financial crisis goes deeper and drags all of the continent down.
This won't happen. There is no legal mechanism in the EU for forcing a country out against its will, and introducing one quickly and in a knee-jerk reaction to Brexit would ring alarm bells across Europe, not to mention being tremendously out of character for an organisation that prefers a more measured, careful response to issues. They will instead enact pressure through other means (perhaps a hint of a moderately better deal if we invoke Article 50 sooner). This morning, in fact, they seemed to be saying that they'd be - relatively - happy as long as Article 50 is enacted by the end of this year, two months after when it is being proposed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This won't happen. There is no legal mechanism in the EU for forcing a country out against its will, and introducing one quickly and in a knee-jerk reaction to Brexit would ring alarm bells across Europe, not to mention being tremendously out of character for an organisation that prefers a more measured, careful response to issues. They will instead enact pressure through other means (perhaps a hint of a moderately better deal if we invoke Article 50 sooner). This morning, in fact, they seemed to be saying that they'd be - relatively - happy as long as Article 50 is enacted by the end of this year, two months after when it is being proposed.
Never say never ! It will all dépends on how things turns out in a few months time... The EU is nothing but pragmatic, and the last economical crisis led it to construct on the fly new mechanisms ; even the ECB chose to ignore its own rules to do what was needed. If UK goes out of its collective way to wreck other economies for selfish reasons, nobody will object to its forced exclusion : all in the name of democracy and of the collective will of the british people.
And who said that EU was content to wait ?
As far as I know, Junkers asked for the exit declaration to come "at once", the European Parliament and its president wanted it "as soon as possible" (EDIT: and voted this morning a reolution asking for it "immediately"), and Merkel speaking for all 6 original members of EU saif they were agreed "that no formal or informal negociation about Brexit would take place" as long as HMG didn't declare its intent.
It's the exact opposite of HMG stance, who wanted to negociate first and declare itself later. Niet, said the continent.
A third way of explaining Mr Cameron refusal to issue a formal declaration (despite having said before the vote that he would do so at once) could be that he refuses to personnally assume the responsability of the referendum he asked. Letting the next PM handle the matter could be a way of getting back at his Iago, BoJo. Of course, it can be argued that a continent-wide economical crisis is a harsh price to pay for personal revenge, but hey, politicians can be as insane, immature and mean as any other guy.
The truth is probably a mix between this (a little sweet revenge) and a attempt to put pressure on EU to get a better deal. The bad thing is, the current uncertainty is as devastating to UK that it is to any other EU country.
NEWS Flash : Foreign office has declared that Brexit is a fact and that no second referendum will take place. So long for that hope...
All of this is like a train wreck, all in slow motion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not clear to me that Cameron can personally issue a formal declaration. That he can personally invoke Article 50. That needs a vote in Parliament, I believe. Which he could call for, of course.
In one way pushing it off onto the next PM looks like revenge, but in another it seems reasonable. Handing over the implementation to those who actually wanted it to happen. It's certainly good politics. Taking responsibility for the thing your political opponents want to do is rarely a good idea, especially if you think it's going to be painful.
True enough. But it's not about asking him to implement Brexit, just to draw the conséquences of the referendum he himself asked for. As the current PM, he has authority to do so and had announced he would be done at once (before the vote).
UK has no constitution, and there is no written rule or precedent to handle such a referendum. So I guess he could do it by himself, solely on authority of the referendum itself, or ask for a Parliament vote, or whatever else he can think about.
It's just that the house is quite burning, and that he would be nice of him to do something other than waiting for the conservative party pow-wow in october. All that is asked of him is proclaiming the intent of the country he is supposed to lead, to enable negociations (which he could then let the next PM handle). It's a yes/no question, in a time of urgent need.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just that the house is quite burning, and that he would be nice of him to do something other than waiting for the conservative party pow-wow in october. All that is asked of him is proclaiming the intent of the country he is supposed to lead, to enable negociations (which he could then let the next PM handle). It's a yes/no question, in a time of urgent need.
Actually, given the complexities of the Article 50 negotiations, I think it would be a very bad idea indeed to announce intention to leave three months before anyone's actually prepared to commence negotiations in earnest, especially when the person who will be doing the bulk of the negotiations will be someone other than him. There's no need to be burning time on the clock that he doesn't need to.
You wrote of a burning house, but I'm not sure I see it; the EU doesn't need the Brits in order to manage its day to day affairs, or even to indulge in long-term planning, for the most part. A decision that requires a simple majority in the EU legislature can still be taken.
What Cameron's done, in practical terms, is to self-handicap the UK because they have a lot less of their traditional ability to engage in horse-trading. (It's hard to trade when no one believes you have, or will have, any horses.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never say never ! It will all dépends on how things turns out in a few months time... The EU is nothing but pragmatic, and the last economical crisis led it to construct on the fly new mechanisms ; even the ECB chose to ignore its own rules to do what was needed. If UK goes out of its collective way to wreck other economies for selfish reasons, nobody will object to its forced exclusion : all in the name of democracy and of the collective will of the british people.
Any such move would require the EU to change its fundamental rules to allow it to kick a member state out. Britain itself - which remember is still a member until the process is completed - will simply veto it. I suspect others - maybe Greece or Poland - would be starkly tempted to as well as the precedent would be alarming.
A third way of explaining Mr Cameron refusal to issue a formal declaration (despite having said before the vote that he would do so at once) could be that he refuses to personnally assume the responsability of the referendum he asked. Letting the next PM handle the matter could be a way of getting back at his Iago, BoJo. Of course, it can be argued that a continent-wide economical crisis is a harsh price to pay for personal revenge, but hey, politicians can be as insane, immature and mean as any other guy.
Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" He was also under the impression that the Leave camp had a plan all ready and waiting to roll.
Later that day Sky News political editor Faisal Islam asked a prominent Leave campaigner what the plan was for Brexit and they replied, "We haven't got one."
All of this is like a train wreck, all in slow motion.
Yup. We live in interesting times.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bit off topic - but some people are talking about economic fallout like it's already happened. Stock market /= economy, and it's only a good indicator in the long-term. Investors just don't like uncertainty, and no one is totally sure what the actual impact will be.
Short-term market changes are psychology - not actual business/economics.
Now - I'm NOT saying that Brexit won't be bad for the economies of the UK, Europe, and/or world, but there are far too many unknowns at this point for anyone to really know what the consequences would be.
Plus - as someone who works in finance, I can say clearly that most investors don't really know what they're doing. Ever hear of the contrarian investment theory? It involves figuring out what the small-time investors are doing and doing the exact opposite because they're dumb. :P
My personal guess is that the Brexit will almost certainly have negative short-term economic consequences, but that's just a guess, and I'm not even going to try to guess at the long-term ones.
A bit off topic - but some people are talking about economic fallout like it's already happened. .
More like "is already happening." It's not completed yet, but it's certainly started. Jobs have already left the City as businesses move their operations; nearly 35% of financial firms have either frozen hiring or are hiring short-term contracts only, and new startups are down some huge percentage.
This quote is funny. "Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" "
You are the ass who wanted this and got on the band wagon. Be a man and face up to what you made. I so hope that he is ruined politically and never comes back. I feel sorry for the Brits, having to put up with people like this.
|
|
It's just that the house is quite burning, and that he would be nice of him to do something other than waiting for the conservative party pow-wow in october. All that is asked of him is proclaiming the intent of the country he is supposed to lead, to enable negociations (which he could then let the next PM handle). It's a yes/no question, in a time of urgent need.Actually, given the complexities of the Article 50 negotiations, I think it would be a very bad idea indeed to announce intention to leave three months before anyone's actually prepared to commence negotiations in earnest, especially when the person who will be doing the bulk of the negotiations will be someone other than him. There's no need to be burning time on the clock that he doesn't need to.
You wrote of a burning house, but I'm not sure I see it; the EU doesn't need the Brits in order to manage its day to day affairs, or even to indulge in long-term planning, for the most part. A decision that requires a simple majority in the EU legislature can still be taken.
What Cameron's done, in practical terms, is to self-handicap the UK because they have a lot less of their traditional ability to engage in horse-trading. (It's hard to trade when no one believes you have, or will have, any horses.)
A bit off topic - but some people are talking about economic fallout like it's already happened. Stock market /= economy, and it's only a good indicator in the long-term. Investors just don't like uncertainty, and no one is totally sure what the actual impact will be.
Short-term market changes are psychology - not actual business/economics.
Now - I'm NOT saying that Brexit won't be bad for the economies of the UK, Europe, and/or world, but there are far too many unknowns at this point for anyone to really know what the consequences would be.
Plus - as someone who works in finance, I can say clearly that most investors don't really know what they're doing. Ever hear of the contrarian investment theory? It involves figuring out what the small-time investors are doing and doing the exact opposite because they're dumb. :P
My personal guess is that the Brexit will almost certainly have negative short-term economic consequences, but that's just a guess, and I'm not even going to try to guess at the long-term ones.
The core of the problem is not the financial markets, though as always we should take care that they do not provoke another all too true recession, it is the companies waiting to know what will happen before spending their money in Britain or in the EU.
We are in a time of slow beginning recovery for European economies and a massive pause in spendings could be just what sends us back spiraling into an all too real economic crisis :-(
This quote is funny. "Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" "
You are the ass who wanted this and got on the band wagon.
Who, Cameron? He never wanted this, and he never joined this particular bandwagon. He campaigned -- granted, not well, but incompetence != malice -- against the Leave campaign until the final tallies were in.
I grant that it happened on his watch, and I grant that offering the referendum was a stupid decision from the start, but the backbenchers in Parliament do get to have a say from time to time....
This quote is funny. "Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" "
You are the ass who wanted this and got on the band wagon.
Who, Cameron? He never wanted this, and he never joined this particular bandwagon. He campaigned -- granted, not well, but incompetence != malice -- against the Leave campaign until the final tallies were in.
I grant that it happened on his watch, and I grant that offering the referendum was a stupid decision from the start, but the backbenchers in Parliament do get to have a say from time to time....
Ah. I was wrong. My apologies. I now see his point of view.
Well, he didn't actually want it. He (stupidly) wanted the referendum, but he was on the Remain side.This quote is funny. "Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" "
You are the ass who wanted this and got on the band wagon. Be a man and face up to what you made. I so hope that he is ruined politically and never comes back. I feel sorry for the Brits, having to put up with people like this.
My guess is that he thought it would fail and he would gain something out of that. oops!!!
Ah. I was wrong. My apologies. I now see his point of view.This quote is funny. "Yes. As Cameron walked back into Number 10 after announcing his resignation, he apparently said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" "
You are the ass who wanted this and got on the band wagon.
Who, Cameron? He never wanted this, and he never joined this particular bandwagon. He campaigned -- granted, not well, but incompetence != malice -- against the Leave campaign until the final tallies were in.
I grant that it happened on his watch, and I grant that offering the referendum was a stupid decision from the start, but the backbenchers in Parliament do get to have a say from time to time....
If you want someone upon whom to vent your spleen, I suggest Boris Johnson (BoJo), the former mayor of London, one of the most visible pro-Leave campaigners, and quite possibly the next and final Prime Minister of the UK.
He was initially a Europhile until he saw a pollitical opening to become the face and spokesman for the Euroskeptic wing of the conservative party. And Cameron's arranged matters such that the whole mess is likely to fall in his lap, because he might well be in charge of exit planning and negotiations.
From his perspective, I'm sure this is playing out like that old short story "The Monkey's Paw." Now he's had his wish granted, and it is likely to make his life a hell of a lot worse.
So while he's a great target for your spleen, it may be unnecessary.....
The core of the problem is not the financial markets, though as always we should take care that they do not provoke another all too true recession, it is the companies waiting to know what will happen before spending their money in Britain or in the EU.
We are in a time of slow beginning recovery for European economies and a massive pause in spendings could be just what sends us back spiraling into an all too real economic crisis :-(
My thoughts exactly. Investors positively HATE uncertainty and will wait to see which way the coin is falling before moving, and it's precisely the worst timing possible (stocks markets are also scared silly, but hey, it happens all the time for much less than that and they are a buch of sheep anyway. Meh !).
I just wish that EU at large would not have to wait long months for UK to make up its mind. Either they go for brexit, either they renege on the vote and stay : both would be fine by me, but Cameron has to stop the drama, grab down and find a pair (an american expression that sounds so un-british and un-etonian, but nice image).
Never say never ! It will all dépends on how things turns out in a few months time... The EU is nothing but pragmatic, and the last economical crisis led it to construct on the fly new mechanisms ; even the ECB chose to ignore its own rules to do what was needed. If UK goes out of its collective way to wreck other economies for selfish reasons, nobody will object to its forced exclusion : all in the name of democracy and of the collective will of the british people.Any such move would require the EU to change its fundamental rules to allow it to kick a member state out. Britain itself - which remember is still a member until the process is completed - will simply veto it. I suspect others - maybe Greece or Poland - would be starkly tempted to as well as the precedent would be alarming.
I agree that it would be a very bad thing, and would be only used as a very last resort. But HMG should be wary if its bet is that they can stay forever in a stasis, between in and out (as a sort of undead country member). An exorcism would be bad, but could still be done if the alternative is worse.
But HMG should be wary if its bet is that they can stay forever in a stasis, between in and out (as a sort of undead country member). An exorcism would be bad, but could still be done if the alternative is worse.
Again, I'm not seeing this. Right now, the UK isn't "between in and out," but in. It still has all the rights and duties of any other EU member.
And while I suppose HMG could decide to expel all of the foreign workers, that's also a decision they could have taken in January. It would violate the same agreements today that it would have violated then, and the EU has exactly the same santioning authority now that it would have had then.
In what sense is the UK a zombie?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Questions from an American. How many times has the Supreme Court of the UK and its predecessors been overturned by the EU's Court of Justice? And what does the return of sovereignty do to those decisions?
Just had a look at the UK Supreme Court website's part dealing with Europe.
Apparently the UKSC usually followed the European Convention of Human Rights (ie, their decision just could not be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights). And a few times, it decided not to follow a decision of the European Court. The latter apparently took into account the point of view of the UKSC and echoed it in its future judgments. Which the UKSC shows as an example of the "dialogue" between the 2 courts.
They do not mention a case where the UKSC's judgment has been overturned by the European Court.
But HMG should be wary if its bet is that they can stay forever in a stasis, between in and out (as a sort of undead country member). An exorcism would be bad, but could still be done if the alternative is worse.Again, I'm not seeing this. Right now, the UK isn't "between in and out," but in. It still has all the rights and duties of any other EU member.
And while I suppose HMG could decide to expel all of the foreign workers, that's also a decision they could have taken in January. It would violate the same agreements today that it would have violated then, and the EU has exactly the same santioning authority now that it would have had then.
In what sense is the UK a zombie?
Pun but no disregard intended. The issue will stay murky as long as HMG won't make a clear statement of its intent, between acting on the referendum (out) or ignoring it/asking for a Parliament vote/any other way of circumventing Brexit (in).
Is it better if I compare UK to the Schrodinger cat ? All UE is waiting for someone to open the damned box. Can't be simpler than that !
So far, we have the Foreign Office secretery telling that Brexit is a fact, but on what authority ?
Pun but no disregard intended. The issue will stay murky as long as HMG won't make a clear statement of its intent, between acting on the referendum (out) or ignoring it/asking for a Parliament vote/any other way of circumventing Brexit (in).
Well, yes, the UK --- and England before it -- has a long history of concealing its true intentions in matters diplomatic. So this should be no surprise.
But until and unless it does something, the situation today is no different than the situation from January -- and, for that matter, the situation today with anyone else. Poland or France could very well invoke Article 50 tomorrow,.... so what?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pun but no disregard intended. The issue will stay murky as long as HMG won't make a clear statement of its intent, between acting on the referendum (out) or ignoring it/asking for a Parliament vote/any other way of circumventing Brexit (in).Well, yes, the UK --- and England before it -- has a long history of concealing its true intentions in matters diplomatic. So this should be no surprise.
But until and unless it does something, the situation today is no different than the situation from January -- and, for that matter, the situation today with anyone else. Poland or France could very well invoke Article 50 tomorrow,.... so what?
So, while Brexit is still floating around, it's bad for investment (political turmoil is a powerful repellent for money) and it's bad for internal politics of most other EU countries who have their own populist nutcases to shut up.
All of which would be resolved by HMG making up its collective mind. And be a team player, for once, instead of doing evrything to share the misery it called on its own head.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
grab down and find a pair (an american expression that sounds so un-british and un-etonian, but nice image).Did this idiom get lost in translation? "Buckle down and grow a pair" perhaps?
Oops, sorry, it was "reach down your pants and grab a pair". Didn't check it beforehand.
It amused me a lot to employ such rude language about Her Majesty's Government Prime Minister.
Pun but no disregard intended. The issue will stay murky as long as HMG won't make a clear statement of its intent, between acting on the referendum (out) or ignoring it/asking for a Parliament vote/any other way of circumventing Brexit (in).Well, yes, the UK --- and England before it -- has a long history of concealing its true intentions in matters diplomatic. So this should be no surprise.
But until and unless it does something, the situation today is no different than the situation from January -- and, for that matter, the situation today with anyone else. Poland or France could very well invoke Article 50 tomorrow,.... so what?
Are you claiming that no events have taken place since January that might influence whether the UK stays or leaves the EU?
Cause that's what you're saying and that doesn't seem accurate at all.
Are you claiming that no events have taken place since January that might influence whether the UK stays or leaves the EU?
No, I'm not, and I'm not saying it, either. But if the markets are worried because Britain might leave the EU -- well, it might have left the EU in January, and Poland might leave the EU tomorrow.
And if the markets are worried because the UK is now seriously discussing leaving the EU,... well, that serious discussion (and therefore the worry) won't go away simply because the Foreign Office makes a statement one way or another. Marine Le Pen, for example, is pushing for a similar referendum in France (she has a marvelously self-congratulatory op-ed in today's New York Times), and nothing that HMG says will shift that push...
Basically, Smarnil seems to be arguing that if HMG would just make an appropriate statement one way or another, it will unring the bell and all the uncertainty that he objects to will magically vanish because we will suddenly know what will happen. It doesn't work that way, not at all. The genie is out of the bottle, the fuse is lit, the avalanche has started, and whatever happens, the EU will never be the same again.
The gimp has been woken!
I'm gonna bring the pig.
|
|
Basically, Smarnil seems to be arguing that if HMG would just make an appropriate statement one way or another, it will unring the bell and all the uncertainty that he objects to will magically vanish because we will suddenly know what will happen. It doesn't work that way, not at all. The genie is out of the bottle, the fuse is lit, the avalanche has started, and whatever happens, the EU will never be the same again.
It's not the uncertainty of their leaving - that seems 80-90% or so at this point - it's the uncertainty of where all of the chips will fall afterwards.
|
|
While it is definitely true that the EU will never be the same again, it is impossible to know in which direction it will go and thus to actually prepare for it and start building it as long as the UK 's final decision remains unknown
You cannot build a strong EU no matter its orientation on shifty foundations
And if the markets are worried because the UK is now seriously discussing leaving the EU,... well, that serious discussion (and therefore the worry) won't go away simply because the Foreign Office makes a statement one way or another. Marine Le Pen, for example, is pushing for a similar referendum in France (she has a marvelously self-congratulatory op-ed in today's New York Times), and nothing that HMG says will shift that push...
There is a huge difference between Marine Le Pen (basically, our Nigel Forage, with a blonde wig) pushing for something and a Foreign Office statement, don't you think ?
Basically, Smarnil seems to be arguing that if HMG would just make an appropriate statement one way or another, it will unring the bell and all the uncertainty that he objects to will magically vanish because we will suddenly know what will happen. It doesn't work that way, not at all. The genie is out of the bottle, the fuse is lit, the avalanche has started, and whatever happens, the EU will never be the same again.
Yes and no. A statement would dispel the uncertainty about the way the whole mess is moving, which would allow everybody to start coping with it and make contingency plans. All parties involved (governments and private interests) would be better off.
Also, if by chance HMG said it has no intent of following through the Brexit no matter what, or asked for a confirmation vote from Parliament to the same effect, the whole thing would be over. Poof ! It was all a bad dream ! Funny joke, eh ?
I did some cutting, pasting, and rearranging here; the quotes are awll Smarnil, but the order is mine,... because reasons. Verbum sap.
A statement would dispel the uncertainty about the way the whole mess is moving, which would allow everybody to start coping with it and make contingency plans. All parties involved (governments and private interests) would be better off.Also, if by chance HMG said it has no intent of following through the Brexit no matter what, or asked for a confirmation vote from Parliament to the same effect, the whole thing would be over. Poof ! It was all a bad dream ! Funny joke, eh ?
Not really. Do you really think that anyone would believe a statement from the Foreign Office would settle it? Bear in mind, first, that both major parties are in the middle of leadership disputes. Cameron, in particular, is a dead man walking and will be out before Hallowe'en, and the favorite to replace him (thank you Ladbrookes) is Boris Johnson. Bear in mind as well that the Foreign Office has no decision-making authority whatsoever; it merely represents the view and decisions of HMG to the world at large.
Do you really think that Boris Johnson would consider himself to be bound by a statement issued by Cameron's Foreign Secretary, or even Cameron himself? Of course not! He could, and probably would, repudiate it almost immediately, especially if he had just won the Tory leadership by campaigning on an immediate Brexit. Poof! The not-a-bad-dream was all a bad dream! Like that Doctor Who Christmas special with all the dreams within dreams within dreams! Funny joke, eh?
Turning it around, let's say that Cameron actually invoked Article 50, and then a Stay leader (like Theresa May) won the leadership and whipped Boris back to his kennel. The first thing she would try to do is to revoke the invocation of Article 50, which raises additional uncertainty of whether or not that's even possible, and adds a new set of chips (pace CLH) that could land anywhere.
Basically, there's no statement that HMG could make that would actually resolve any uncertainty.
A statement would dispel the uncertainty about the way the whole mess is moving, which would allow everybody to start coping with it and make contingency plans.
Well, no,... as we've seen, it would dispel nothing. But no one is being stopped from making contingency plans right now. In fact, you make contingency plans precisely because you're uncertain -- and HMG making a statement that they're not going to leave haha wasn't that funny would just create more contingencies to plan for. (OMG, what if Boris repudiates that statement? What if a general election intervenes and UKIP gets to form a government? What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?)
There is a huge difference between Marine Le Pen (basically, our Nigel Forage, with a blonde wig) pushing for something and a Foreign Office statement, don't you think?
Yes, but perhaps not the difference that you think there is. Mme. Le Pen is a politician and there's a fair sporting chance that she might be in a position to exercise decision-making authority. In other words, you have to take her statements seriously because she might win. (And don't try to tell me that she won't win; the experts were making the same statement about Brexit two weeks ago.)
The Foreign Office are a bunch of ventriloquists' dummies who say whatever the person pulling the lever makes them say. In other words, you have to disregard their statements because the people behind them might lose.
All right, I said I was quoting Smarnil, but this next bit is from CLH:
It's not the uncertainty of their leaving - that seems 80-90% or so at this point - it's the uncertainty of where all of the chips will fall afterwards.
But some FO mouthpiece standing up and mouthing the policy-of-the-month won't actually tell anyone where the chips will fall, especially when next month may bring an entirely new policy.
|
|
Le Pen has far less of a chance to win the French presidential election if only because there are 2 turns in it.
The Brexit syndrom takes you past the first turn but will not get you past the second one.
We know this because the exact same thing happened in France in the 2002 presidential election with her father.
Too bad for the UK (and the EU I guess, at least in the short term) that there was only one turn in the Brexit.
That is why a referendum is not something to be considered lightly and surely not in times of crisis.
Compare : a referendum will make the UK exit the EU while it was most definitely not a referendum that made the decision for the UK to enter the EU in the first place
Non-sequitur:
...sometimes the evil shadowy thing with tentacles in the corner is just a plate of calamari in a bad light.
Sometimes you're right to be scared of the plate of calamari. (Link not safe around seafood, or any mealtime really)