Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[kabbes]

Because they're sticking up for the best interests of the 27 member states, none of which wanted the UK to leave, still less expelled us from the club? The cunts are the ones that brought this fiasco about and now seem hell bent on making it as painful as possible for all concerned.

Many of the actions are contrary to the best interests of the 27 member states. They are in the best interests of the institutions of the EU, not the member states. It is not in the interests of the member states to leave citizens fucked on residency rights, nor is it in the interests of member states to end up with trade tariffs. The process has laid bare the problems with devolving your decision making to institutions whose interests are not necessarily aligned with yours.

In addition, the EU have really pushed ahead with further federalisation in the 18 months since the Brexit vote. Even if the vote had been to remain, their current direction of travel would have given me pause in and of itself.

 

[Silas Loom]

Many of the actions are contrary to the best interests of the 27 member states. They are in the best interests of the institutions of the EU, not the member states. It is not in the interests of the member states to leave citizens fucked on residency rights, nor is it in the interests of member states to end up with trade tariffs. The process has laid bare the problems with devolving your decision making to institutions whose interests are not necessarily aligned with yours.

In addition, the EU have really pushed ahead with further federalisation in the 18 months since the Brexit vote. Even if the vote had been to remain, their current direction of travel would have given me pause in and of itself.

The UK had an open offer to opt out "ever closer union". And as it stands, the member states and the European Parliament are being rather tougher over negotiations than the Commission or the Council

 

[kebabking]

Because they're sticking up for the best interests of the 27 member states, none of which wanted the UK to leave, still less expelled us from the club? The cunts are the ones that brought this fiasco about and now seem hell bent on making it as painful as possible for all concerned.

i don't see much in the EU's decision making with regards to brexit that seems focused on the best interests of the member states - if you design a negotiating pathway who'se most likely result is the UK storming off in a huff in 2019 and paying not one cent into the EU budget and with huge queues of French, Spanish, Italian etc.. produce rotting in trucks at Calais, then 'looking out for the best interests of the member states' looks to be pretty low on your list of priorities...

the best interests of the member states consists of the UK continuing to buy huge quantities of their stuff, paying into specific joint programmes, legacy commitments and for free trade access, and using its diplomatic, intelligence and military weight to support EU defence and security policy. pretty obviously then, a process that makes those things more difficult is not in the member states best interests.

 

[Silas Loom]

i don't see much in the EU's decision making with regards to brexit that seems focused on the best interests of the member states - if you design a negotiating pathway who'se most likely result is the UK storming off in a huff in 2019 and paying not one cent into the EU budget and with huge queues of French, Spanish, Italian etc.. produce rotting in trucks at Calais, then 'looking out for the best interests of the member states' looks to be pretty low on your list of priorities...

the best interests of the member states consists of the UK continuing to buy huge quantities of their stuff, paying into specific joint programmes, legacy commitments and for free trade access, and using its diplomatic, intelligence and military weight to support EU defence and security policy. pretty obviously then, a process that makes those things more difficult is not in the member states best interests.

This is a rizla away from prosecco and cake. Member states have quite a bit to gain from ensuring that existing EU, EFTA and EEA structures aren't compromised.

 

[Dr. Furface]

i don't see much in the EU's decision making with regards to brexit that seems focused on the best interests of the member states - if you design a negotiating pathway who'se most likely result is the UK storming off in a huff in 2019 and paying not one cent into the EU budget and with huge queues of French, Spanish, Italian etc.. produce rotting in trucks at Calais, then 'looking out for the best interests of the member states' looks to be pretty low on your list of priorities...

the best interests of the member states consists of the UK continuing to buy huge quantities of their stuff, paying into specific joint programmes, legacy commitments and for free trade access, and using its diplomatic, intelligence and military weight to support EU defence and security policy. pretty obviously then, a process that makes those things more difficult is not in the member states best interests.

Thank you David Davis

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Many of the actions are contrary to the best interests of the 27 member states. They are in the best interests of the institutions of the EU, not the member states. It is not in the interests of the member states to leave citizens fucked on residency rights, nor is it in the interests of member states to end up with trade tariffs. The process has laid bare the problems with devolving your decision making to institutions whose interests are not necessarily aligned with yours.

In addition, the EU have really pushed ahead with further federalisation in the 18 months since the Brexit vote. Even if the vote had been to remain, their current direction of travel would have given me pause in and of itself.

Silas loom is right about the ever closer union - the UK was semi-detached anyway and would have remained so. (There is also the question about how the UK still being in the EU would have affected that direction of travel - the UK was very far from a passive member having stuff done to it.)

As for residency rights, who is it that has been the biggest cunt about this? It's quite a competition given the cunty things the cunts in the UK government have been saying (and refusing to say).

 

[kabbes]

Hey, I never said our bunch of cunts gave me any great hope for our future. The point is, though, the EU as an institution has not seriously engaged with any of the attempts even of our bunch of cunts to tie up residency rights. It’s pretty clear that the EU as an institution has punishment of the UK not matter what damage it does elsewhere at the top of its agenda, and that’s a long way from acting in the interests of its member states.

I do get that the closer union would have been different for the UK, but in practice it isn’t great to be ever more disjoint from the club your are trying to be part of. There are all kinds of problems that creates in and of itself.

 

[Silas Loom]

(There is also the question about how the UK still being in the EU would have affected that direction of travel - the UK was very far from a passive member having stuff done to it.).

This. In particular, the single market in services is less likely to adapt and strengthen without the hard work that the UK historically contributed.

 

[Raheem]

the EU as an institution has not seriously engaged with any of the attempts even of our bunch of cunts to tie up residency rights.

As far as I can tell, their cunts have been encouraging our cunts to make a better offer. There's a difference between not engaging and not backing down.

 

[kabbes]

As far as I can tell, their cunts have been encouraging our cunts to make a better offer. There's a difference between not engaging and not backing down.

It’s hard to see through the sea of cunts, but I don’t see the EU suggesting a way forward. Making somebody negotiate with themselves is a good tactic for winning but not a constructive way of ending up with the best solution for all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It’s hard to see through the sea of cunts, but I don’t see the EU suggesting a way forward. Making somebody negotiate with themselves is a good tactic for winning but not a constructive way of ending up with the best solution for all.

Did you actually expect anything different? From either side?

 

[Silas Loom]

It’s hard to see through the sea of cunts, but I don’t see the EU suggesting a way forward. Making somebody negotiate with themselves is a good tactic for winning but not a constructive way of ending up with the best solution for all.

The Council has made it entirely plain that the ways forward need to be modelled on an existing relationship - either Norway, Canada or a country with no relationship. It's hardly their fault that the Conservative party has no idea which of those it wants, and prefers to kick the can and deal in slogans. And the Council can't be blamed for adopting that position given the time it takes to negotiate a deal from scratch. Yes, they probably want us to do the sane thing and join EFTA for the only unproblematic Brexit possible, but they are hardly being obstructive.

The only point about the sequencing where you could argue that they are being unreasonable is Ireland, and the UK suggestions on that score so far are totally vacuous.

 

[kabbes]

Did you actually expect anything different? From either side?

God no. It’s still laid bare the different interests of the EU and it’s member states though.

The Council has made it entirely plain that the ways forward need to be modelled on an existing relationship - either Norway, Canada or a country with no relationship. It's hardly their fault that the Conservative party has no idea which of those it wants, and prefers to kick the can and deal in slogans. And the Council can't be blamed for adopting that position given the time it takes to negotiate a deal from scratch. Yes, they probably want us to do the sane thing and join EFTA for the only unproblematic Brexit possible, but they are hardly being obstructive.

The only point about the sequencing where you could argue that they are being unreasonable is Ireland, and the UK suggestions on that score so far are totally vacuous.

The Council has indeed adopted a route most advantageous to the Council.

 

[Winot]

It’s hard to see through the sea of cunts, but I don’t see the EU suggesting a way forward. Making somebody negotiate with themselves is a good tactic for winning but not a constructive way of ending up with the best solution for all.

In what sense has the EU 'made' the UK negotiate with itself? It was entirely reasonable for the EU to work on the basis that the UK knew what it wanted and had a coherent plan, given that it was the UK that fired the starting pistol on the whole process by triggering Article 50.

I suspect the EU has been a bit taken aback by how incompetent the UK has been. The EU has been transparent and consistent from the beginning. It made its position clear on residency rights on 12 June. It's becoming clear that the UK has been arguing amongst itself from the beginning. There was no need for May to trigger Article 50 when she did. The blame for the pressure we (and the EU) are now under is entirely the fault of the UK government.

 

[Raheem]

God no. It’s still laid bare the different interests of the EU and it’s member states though.

The Council has indeed adopted a route most advantageous to the Council.

The Council is the member states. The hardline is coming from the political leaders of the other 27 EU countries, not from nameless EU bureaucrats.

 

[pocketscience]

But you seem to be trying to invalidate the pov that thinks brexit is going to make all kinds of things worse, including social inequality. There are some pretty solid reasons for believing that social inequality will worsen with a tory-led brexit (which is the only brexit we have atm). We know there are tories out there who seek a race to the bottom wrt tax and trade. We know it because the current brexit secretary laid it all out for us in a pamphlet he wrote last year. He is one of them, as is Fox. Johnson doesn't really believe in anything, but his track record as London mayor shows that he does not give a flying fuck about social inequality. So there you go - the three idiots entrusted with conducting the tory-led brexit. This is not socialists not daring to 'make a go of real change'.

No I'm sticking with the facts we know now and not getting my knickers in a twist.
Funny how the narrative as moved to Brexit (all kinds, not just a hard brexit) equals economic meltdown, worsening social inequality, death of the NHS, tax haven etc

The doom and gloom is built on a series of massive assumptions: a) that the negotiations break down completely. b) that the government goes for a hard brexit. c) that the government gets that hard brexit past parliament d) the Eu economy doesn't go tits-up in the meantime.

 

[Winot]

No I'm sticking with the facts we know now and not getting my knickers in a twist.
Funny how the narrative as moved to Brexit (all kinds, not just a hard brexit) equals economic meltdown, worsening social inequality, death of the NHS, tax haven etc

The doom and gloom is built on a series of massive assumptions: a) that the negotiations break down completely. b) that the government goes for a hard brexit. c) that the government gets that hard brexit past parliament d) the Eu economy doesn't go tits-up in the meantime.

If assumption (a) holds then there is nothing the government or parliament can do. The default is that we crash out. There is no (b) or (c).

 

[Kaka Tim]

The Council is the member states. The hardline is coming from the political leaders of the other 27 EU countries, not from nameless EU bureaucrats.

which is so demonstrably obvious you wouldn't think it needs spelling out. The Uk has not ever agreed to anything within the EU that the government of the time didn't think was good for them - and nor has france or germany or italy etc etc.
The terms that the EU negotiating team are laying down are done after consulting with the 27 Eu governments - after Germany has told them what to say.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No I'm sticking with the facts we know now and not getting my knickers in a twist.
Funny how the narrative as moved to Brexit (all kinds, not just a hard brexit) equals economic meltdown, worsening social inequality, death of the NHS, tax haven etc

Although not put in such apocalyptic terms, that's been my narrative on a tory-led brexit on here for the last two years.

 

[Silas Loom]

If assumption (a) holds then there is nothing the government or parliament can do. The default is that we crash out. There is no (b) or (c).

And all that is required for a) to hold is that the current red lines remain in place. Oh, and that the DUP have a say on the Northern Ireland solution.

Quite why an EU economic collapse (d) would help the Brexiteer cause, and end gloom, is very unclear.

 

[pocketscience]

this is utter lefty bubble piss flaps. Brexit - especially hard brexit - will give us more austerity and more neo-liberalism. It will fuck the poorest, most deprived parts of the country and the poorest and most vulnerable people even harder than are being fucked now.

Can't you see what you're doing? Associating anyone wanting Brexit with now supporting a Tory led shambles hard brexit while adding the usual doom mongering rhetoric used by the tory and & Eu neo-liberal elite.

Anyone who calls themselves a socialist and is pushing for hard brexit is a fucking idiot.

Who would that be then? Show me anyone here pushing for hard brexit.

also - a brexit reverse and the accompanying humiliation will shatter the tories for a generation and may well explode the post imperial delusions of little englander nationalism. It will die with the baby boomers.

Indeed a humiliation for the whole nation. Not to mention a breakdown in democracy causing a huge dejection, particularly in the working class of the north that voted for brexit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Indeed a humiliation for the whole nation. Not to mention a breakdown in democracy causing a huge dejection, particularly in the working class of the north that voted for brexit.

Democracy did not end in June 2016. The idea that you push ahead with something regardless of the consequences and that nobody should be held to account for doing so. That is a breakdown in democracy.

As for 'humiliation for the whole nation', it would be a humiliation for a government is not a humiliation for a nation, although if such a thing were to happen, putting paid to the various neo-colonialist, militarist ambitions of various UK leaders, that would be a thoroughly good thing. Bit of national humiliation over hubristic ideas would be good for Britain and good for the rest of the world.

There was a basic contradiction in process with the referendum. A government wanting to make a change and calling a referendum with options 'this change/no change' is one thing. It can campaign on the basis of what the change is and how they propose to do it. But a govt calling a referendum where they want the 'no change' option and offer no solution at all as to how to do the 'change' option is contradictory, and leads to this mess. All kinds of nasty shit is now projected about what the referendum really means, including limiting EU immigration, which a majority of leave voters are said to have wanted, but far from a majority of everyone. Even 90 per cent of 52 is less than 50.

 

[Kaka Tim]

the usual doom mongering rhetoric used by the tory and & Eu neo-liberal elite.

Its not doom mongering - its absolutely the consensus amongst everyone who's looked at the facts outside of a handful of twats like Rees mogg. Many brexiteers openly admit it - but see it as worth it as a way of ridding the UK of decadent EU influences like workers rights and health and safety regulations (coupled with deluded post imperial hubris).


.

Indeed a humiliation for the whole nation. Not to mention a breakdown in democracy causing a huge dejection, particularly in the working class of the north that voted for brexit.

But you may get to a situation where most of the nation are demanding the whole process be aborted because its headed for disaster. And fuck off with this betraying the "working clases of the north" (of which i am one btw) - they didn't all vote brexit (check out the %s in manchester, liverpool, leeds, sheffield etc) . And what about the young working classes? or working classes of london? or scotland? or nothern ireland? Or do you get double points for being a miserable old cunt in a flat cap or something?

And this notion that the working class are "pro-brexit" needs dumping - the biggest brexit demographic were retired home owners

 

[SpackleFrog]

A brexit under Labour will be a very different proposition. Lexit in fact. Not that long to wait. Probably well before 2022.

See now you're going the other way and talking as if it's cut and dried - there won't be an election until 2022 unless somebody forces the Tories to have one.

A Brexit negotiated by Labour would be a soft Brexit. A Labour government that came to power following a no deal Brexit would not be able to deliver on its promises and would be blamed for all the shit. Corbyn would be Britain's answer to Hollande.

What does a soft Brexit even mean?

If a Labour Govt was in power and "shit" happened it would be their bloody fault - the whole point of getting them into power remember is to try to advance the transformation of society, into one that isn't shit.

Honestly, between the wide eyed optimisim and fatalistic pessimism I can't breathe.

 

[SpackleFrog]

the uk out side the EU will be even more prey to neo-liberal forces

What, even more so than inside a trade block that forces member states to privatise water? Christ get a fucking brain cell

 

[SpackleFrog]

Of course it will give the Tories more power. It'd be impossible for it not to. There will be no more European Court of Justice, for one example. This isn't an opinion - it's a fact that leaving the EU gives the British govt more power (all that "taking back control" stuff) and the party in power right now is the Tory Party. I honestly find it a bit weird that you'd actually try to deny this.

It's also impossible for us to have an election before Brexit because it's already happening. Thought you might have noticed that.

What has the ECJ stopped the Tories doing? There was thing about overfishing years ago and thats literally it. The ECJ like the EU itself is totally committed to austerity.

Nothing is happening you tool. Nothing. Tell me one thing that has changed since the referendum regarding Britain's membership of the EU. No one in the Tory govt or the Council of Ministers has a fucking clue what's going on.

 

[Silas Loom]

What, even more so than inside a trade block that forces member states to privatise water? Christ get a fucking brain cell

AIUI the relevant EU regs insist on free and fair competition unless the water supply is completely public. Do you have any information to the contrary? That’s not the same thing as forcing privatisation even if it annoys jurisdictions which have spun out their utilities.

 

[SpackleFrog]

...sorry guys...I would apologise for hijacking the thread but it's ALREADY BEEN HIJACKED BY SWIVEL EYED LOONS WHO KEEP GOING ON ABOUT FACTS WHILE REPEATEDLY STATING UNTRUE THINGS ffs I have never known a political issue reduce so many people's IQ by so much.

 

[SpackleFrog]

AIUI the relevant EU regs insist on free and fair competition unless the water supply is completely public. Do you have any information to the contrary?

You've literally just supplied info backing up my point, if you're gonna do it for me what do you want?

 

[Raheem]

If a Labour Govt was in power and "shit" happened it would be their bloody fault -

This is obviously not true. Shit things can happen without them being the government's fault. If Labour were to come to power shortly after Brexit, they would have to deal with whatever the consequences of Brexit are. They might cope relatively well or relatively badly, but they won't be able to just make the consequences not happen.