Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Food for thought for all, from tonight's (London) Evening Standard

Brexit and Article 50: No need for a messy divorce from Europe, writes Sam Leith

Article 50: remember that? The small picture is the fratricidal bloodbath in the upper reaches of the Conservative Party. The much bigger picture is not who gets the pie in this squalid remake of Titus Andronicus, but what the hell happens next.

Clearly, Remainers like me would much rather we had not had a referendum in the first place. Having had the referendum, we would much rather we had won. Having lost, we would much rather that the referendum’s result was never turned into policy. But we did, and we didn’t, and it will be.

Yes, in law the referendum is only advisory. And, yes, if we did have a second referendum there is some grounds to think things might go differently. But there are also grounds to think that if the result of this vote were ignored, or a rerun somehow insisted on, the very substantial number of people who voted Leave would take to the streets with pitchforks — and it would be hard to blame them.

So Article 50, at some point, has to be triggered. But we have a stand-off developing. The moment we trigger Article 50 a two-year countdown starts. If we haven’t sorted out our new relationship with the EU at the end of it, we crash out with no deal, no leverage, no nothing.

And how fast do we do things, on average? The Saville Inquiry took 12 years. The decision over Heathrow expansion has taken nine years and counting. We’ve been dithering over Trident for five years. And it took nearly 25 years to make a movie out of Absolutely Fabulous.

Two years, then, to negotiate dozens of fresh trade deals, to unpick and replace a huge body of law, to put in place border controls and visa systems, to come up with a consistent and workable set of arrangements for foreign-born workers currently in the UK and put the bureaucracies in place to administer them... Call me a Jeremiah, but I’m not optimistic.

Triggering Article 50 cold will create Brapocalypse. Breltdown. A four-dimensional, copper-plated fustercluck. Even if we had the diplomats to do it, which we don’t. And even if we had a consistent idea about what sort of Brexit we want anyway, which we also don’t.

By refusing to begin even informal negotiations ahead of Article 50, the EU’s leaders — if I read them right —hope to make doing it so scary as to be practically impossible. This is a dangerous form of brinkmanship. It’s their version of the petition for a second referendum; and for all the reasons above it is highly unlikely to work. If, and when, the bluff is called for domestic political reasons, everything will go completely to tits.

If we have to go — which we do — it’s in neither our interests nor Europe’s for it to be one of those divorces where the crockery migrates to the patio via a first-floor window. We need to be making nice with our negotiating partners, not sticking our chins out and crossing our arms.

That’s why a soft Remainer such as Theresa May, is, contrary to Michael Gove’s claim, exactly who we need to take Britain out of the EU. We need a show of sad reluctance rather than angry defiance. Someone who can say: “It’s not EU, it’s me...”


....
"Fustercluck" - you heard it here first!
 
That ex Luxembourg pm has a history of allowing some of the most shoddy tax avoidance schemes to operate in his country and he encourage them as well just shows how bent that organisation is that he is the leader, he is an enemy of the common people of Europe.

He'll be gone soon enough. He is an embarrassment to the EU and Merkel has had enough. Cameron did try to tell them.....
 
Food for thought for all, from tonight's (London) Evening Standard

Brexit and Article 50: No need for a messy divorce from Europe, writes Sam Leith

Article 50: remember that? The small picture is the fratricidal bloodbath in the upper reaches of the Conservative Party. The much bigger picture is not who gets the pie in this squalid remake of Titus Andronicus, but what the hell happens next.

Clearly, Remainers like me would much rather we had not had a referendum in the first place. Having had the referendum, we would much rather we had won. Having lost, we would much rather that the referendum’s result was never turned into policy. But we did, and we didn’t, and it will be.

Yes, in law the referendum is only advisory. And, yes, if we did have a second referendum there is some grounds to think things might go differently. But there are also grounds to think that if the result of this vote were ignored, or a rerun somehow insisted on, the very substantial number of people who voted Leave would take to the streets with pitchforks — and it would be hard to blame them.

So Article 50, at some point, has to be triggered. But we have a stand-off developing. The moment we trigger Article 50 a two-year countdown starts. If we haven’t sorted out our new relationship with the EU at the end of it, we crash out with no deal, no leverage, no nothing.

And how fast do we do things, on average? The Saville Inquiry took 12 years. The decision over Heathrow expansion has taken nine years and counting. We’ve been dithering over Trident for five years. And it took nearly 25 years to make a movie out of Absolutely Fabulous.

Two years, then, to negotiate dozens of fresh trade deals, to unpick and replace a huge body of law, to put in place border controls and visa systems, to come up with a consistent and workable set of arrangements for foreign-born workers currently in the UK and put the bureaucracies in place to administer them... Call me a Jeremiah, but I’m not optimistic.

Triggering Article 50 cold will create Brapocalypse. Breltdown. A four-dimensional, copper-plated fustercluck. Even if we had the diplomats to do it, which we don’t. And even if we had a consistent idea about what sort of Brexit we want anyway, which we also don’t.

By refusing to begin even informal negotiations ahead of Article 50, the EU’s leaders — if I read them right —hope to make doing it so scary as to be practically impossible. This is a dangerous form of brinkmanship. It’s their version of the petition for a second referendum; and for all the reasons above it is highly unlikely to work. If, and when, the bluff is called for domestic political reasons, everything will go completely to tits.

If we have to go — which we do — it’s in neither our interests nor Europe’s for it to be one of those divorces where the crockery migrates to the patio via a first-floor window. We need to be making nice with our negotiating partners, not sticking our chins out and crossing our arms.

That’s why a soft Remainer such as Theresa May, is, contrary to Michael Gove’s claim, exactly who we need to take Britain out of the EU. We need a show of sad reluctance rather than angry defiance. Someone who can say: “It’s not EU, it’s me...”


....
"Fustercluck" - you heard it here first!


That coloured bit @The Esk is why I support Theresa May


Why ideologues like @peteblue should not be calling the shots on when or if we trigger article 50.
 
Your posts tonight will live in infamy as it stands already.

Is that the best apology you can give. At least when you are wrong, and have been proven to be wrong, have the good grace to say you were wrong, because everyone else knows anyway......
 
Totally agree - economic shocks are bad for economies. This is the biggest shock since the oil crisis of the 1970's - and we've no obvious way of engineering a recovery.

I think they have some kind of plan that we will just whip up trade deals overnight with US, China, Australia, NZ etc. What they forget is that these deals don't happen overnight and all of these countries have moved on from the 1960s and now have economies geared towards production of goods and services for trade with their neighbouring countries as well as trade agreements with said neighbouring countries. Seems like a very novel idea and an efficient way for countries to operate, maybe a model we could follow. Oh dear....
 
Is that the best apology you can give. At least when you are wrong, and have been proven to be wrong, have the good grace to say you were wrong, because everyone else knows anyway......

You sir can only be described as one bad 'fustercluck'

To quote the London Evening Standard today
 
I think they have some kind of plan that we will just whip up trade deals overnight with US, China, Australia, NZ etc. What they forget is that these deals don't happen overnight and all of these countries have moved on from the 1960s and now have economies geared towards production of goods and services for trade with their neighbouring countries as well as trade agreements with said neighbouring countries. Seems like a very novel idea and an efficient way for countries to operate, maybe a model we could follow. Oh dear....
Hey, perhaps we could invite Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Spain and 22 other European countries to join the UK in a new Economic community?
 
Just read an interesting article claiming that people who voted Leave have, on average, 10 IQ points less than people who voted remain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top