Brexit starts today - now we wait, and wait...

[oggbashan]

The formal process for the UK leaving the EU starts today. Yesterday Teresa May signed the letter triggering the Article 50 process. It will be delivered by hand today.

But Germany and France have elections due soon. They aren't likely to want to do anything about the Brexit process until AFTER those elections.

Article 50 provides a maximum of two years to negotiate the process of leaving the EU. Given the normal duration of any EU decision making that is insanely fast. Getting all the remaining members of the EU to agree on what happens will be like herding cats in a rainstorm.

Will the UK be asked to pay a bill for outstanding debts? Will the EU agree a trade deal? What happens to EU citizens in the UK; to UK citizens in the EU; to freedom of movement; to refugees...?

No one knows.

Will Scotland leave the UK? Would the EU accept an independent Scotland as a member of the EU? Would they want them? Yesterday the Scottish Parliament voted for a new independence referendum and also reached a significant milestone - a whole year without passing any legislation (except the compulsory budget) at all. That doesn't augur well for an institution wanting to be independent of the UK.

Will Northern Ireland join Southern Ireland and therefore stay in the EU?

No one knows.

Watch this space but don't expect anything but hot air for months and months.

 

[Chris_Michael]

To make a sound long-term decision, you have to weigh the short-term consequences. Why would you want to be shackled to the EU? They're talking about building an army which will cost the UK money in the long-run anyway. Especially if the US is any indication of what skyrockets costs.

 

[oggbashan]

The UK has been a large contributor to the EU for a long time. The money we had been paying propped up some pointless policies and an expensive undemocratic adminstration system. It also did some good - but inefficiently.

But we got some back. My town has benefitted from EU projects, some of which I helped to bid for. If we hadn't joined the EU, the UK might have had that money available anyway.

We joined a Common Market, not the current massive EU.

Some of the money we had been paying financed Europe-wide scientific cooperation and we should continue with many of those projects whether in or out. Some of those projects are the 'exit debt' that is being discussed. The decision to support the projects was sensible and still would be worthwhile expenditure. But the media will present it as 'punishment' of the UK.

 

[Chris_Michael]

Yeah I'm not gonna lie. I'm in way over my head here. I can't even get American issues controlled. For some reason, people from the EU are well-versed in politics that span all across the world yet people from the US don't know shit about Brexit.

What I know comes from listening to the Youtube discussions on the topic. I get so lost. Brexit destroyed long standing friends on Youtube. It was the beginning of fights among people to the point where they wouldn't speak on each others channels anymore.

Sargon (pro Brexit) vs. Thunderf00t (against) was a big one. I tried to listen to their discussion (informal debate) on it but I was lost again.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dsVV3fpVNKI

Well I dunno. But generally speaking, there will always be risks and obstacles in the way.

I really need to learn world history. :/

 

[oggbashan]

... I get so lost. Brexit destroyed long standing friends on Youtube. It was the beginning of fights among people to the point where they wouldn't speak on each others channels anymore.
...

People's reasons for voting for or against Brexit were complex and varied. Some see leaving the EU as the end of the world. Some see it as leaving an organisation that has changed beyond recognition since the UK joined. The campaigning claims by those for and against were overstated and divisive.

But the arguments are not as bitter or as long standing as those between Republicans and Democrats in the US.

The result of the UK referendum was unexpected and unwelcome by many but we have to deal with the result as best we can.

As yet the disaster to the UK's economy predicted by some of those advocating 'Remain' has not happened but there will be some financial pain in the years to come. Whether that will damage the UK in the longer term? No one knows.

And that's the real situation. No one really knows what is going to happen. The UK has taken a leap into the unknown. That worries many people whether they are for or against Brexit.

But the acrimony is not as extensive or deep seated as the hatred between some Trump and some Clinton supporters.

 

[Chris_Michael]

People's reasons for voting for or against Brexit were complex and varied. Some see leaving the EU as the end of the world. Some see it as leaving an organisation that has changed beyond recognition since the UK joined. The campaigning claims by those for and against were overstated and divisive.

But the arguments are not as bitter or as long standing as those between Republicans and Democrats in the US.

The result of the UK referendum was unexpected and unwelcome by many but we have to deal with the result as best we can.

As yet the disaster to the UK's economy predicted by some of those advocating 'Remain' has not happened but there will be some financial pain in the years to come. Whether that will damage the UK in the longer term? No one knows.

And that's the real situation. No one really knows what is going to happen. The UK has taken a leap into the unknown. That worries many people whether they are for or against Brexit.

But the acrimony is not as extensive or deep seated as the hatred between some Trump and some Clinton supporters.

Yeah, I can appreciate that logic. I'm admittedly biased since I have a man-crush on Sargon who is pro-Brexit. According to him, he is center left though many people argue that he is very conservative. Then, from my understanding, conservative and liberals are way different in the UK. Apparently, the right are more like Neo-Nazis? Or is that an over exaggeration? But I've heard that your liberals are more like our conservatives.

So when I'm discussing liberalism vs conservatism, I'm usually not even sure which side of the aisle I fall. People here would say I'm a typical Trump-supporting, Hitler-loving Right Wing ideologue but I think it's more nuanced than that.

 

[oggbashan]

... Then, from my understanding, conservative and liberals are way different in the UK. Apparently, the right are more like Neo-Nazis? Or is that an over exaggeration? But I've heard that your liberals are more like our conservatives.

So when I'm discussing liberalism vs conservatism, I'm usually not even sure which side of the aisle I fall. People here would say I'm a typical Trump-supporting, Hitler-loving Right Wing ideologue but I think it's more nuanced than that.

The UK labels do not translate into US terms AT ALL.

We have three main parties: Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat. All three of them support the Welfare State and the National Health Service. They argue about how they should be organised and financed but their support is unvarying.

The Conservative Party says it is for financial discipline and a balanced budget. The Labour Party is currently infighting inside itself having elected a left wing leader who is unelectable, and their Members of Parliament know he is. They are for more spending, particularly on the NHS, and whenever they are in power the National Debt increases. The Liberal Democrats try to be Centrist but until recent years when they were in coalition with the Conservatives they were very wet and wishy washy. The experience of being part of government has brought some sense of realism to the Liberal Democrats but they have been punished by the electorate.

By US standards all three parties are 'liberal', 'progressive', and for 'big government'. None of them would be electable in the US but the divisions between parties aren't as wide as they are in the US. Having a Labour government or a Conservative government is not a disaster for half the electorate. It is just something to be endured until the next election.

In Parliament the Members of Parliament are much more reasonable with members of the opposite party. Most legislation is passed by consensus, not conflict. MPs work together across party boundaries frequently and effectively. UK politics, except at the extreme fringes, is much more civilised than in the US. Whether that's a good thing? It works most of the time.

MPs can shout at each other across the floor of the House and then meet in the bar afterwards...

 

[Hard_Rom]

Just like our politics. Not so sure on the working together bit though.

The UK labels do not translate into US terms AT ALL.

We have three main parties: Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat. All three of them support the Welfare State and the National Health Service. They argue about how they should be organised and financed but their support is unvarying.

The Conservative Party says it is for financial discipline and a balanced budget. The Labour Party is currently infighting inside itself having elected a left wing leader who is unelectable, and their Members of Parliament know he is. They are for more spending, particularly on the NHS, and whenever they are in power the National Debt increases. The Liberal Democrats try to be Centrist but until recent years when they were in coalition with the Conservatives they were very wet and wishy washy. The experience of being part of government has brought some sense of realism to the Liberal Democrats but they have been punished by the electorate.

By US standards all three parties are 'liberal', 'progressive', and for 'big government'. None of them would be electable in the US but the divisions between parties aren't as wide as they are in the US. Having a Labour government or a Conservative government is not a disaster for half the electorate. It is just something to be endured until the next election.

In Parliament the Members of Parliament are much more reasonable with members of the opposite party. Most legislation is passed by consensus, not conflict. MPs work together across party boundaries frequently and effectively. UK politics, except at the extreme fringes, is much more civilised than in the US. Whether that's a good thing? It works most of the time.

MPs can shout at each other across the floor of the House and then meet in the bar afterwards...

 

[Hard_Rom]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/british-pound-brexit-1.3937381

British pound drops to lowest since 1985 as Theresa May to outline Brexit plan

*I remember when our Nan would send over a fiver each for us kids. Was worth 2.50Cdn per pound. Oil prices crashing has hurt the loonie big time. What is the reason for the pounds loss?*

 

[oggbashan]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/british-pound-brexit-1.3937381

British pound drops to lowest since 1985 as Theresa May to outline Brexit plan

*I remember when our Nan would send over a fiver each for us kids. Was worth 2.50Cdn per pound. Oil prices crashing has hurt the loonie big time. What is the reason for the pounds loss?*

The reason? Simple. The currency traders don't like uncertainty, and uncertainty is what we have now and will have for two years at least.

 

[Hard_Rom]

If the EU folds it will last a lot longer than two years. Britain will not be immune to EU collapse.

EU should have gone for full federation not some namby pamby economic union.

I'm praying that Marine has some sort of huge scandal that does in her career. That stupid bitch needs to languish in a political wilderness the rest of her life.

 

[DeYaKen]

If the EU folds it will last a lot longer than two years. Britain will not be immune to EU collapse.

EU should have gone for full federation not some namby pamby economic union.

I'm praying that Marine has some sort of huge scandal that does in her career. That stupid bitch needs to languish in a political wilderness the rest of her life.

The problem with the EU going for a full federation is that it was never designed to be that. The EU was designed to be a trading block and it was set up to ensure that every country had an equal say. Imagine a US senate where California had the same number of senators as Ohio. As a trading block it works, as a political federation, it is a recipe for disaster. When it comes to law making two countries of half a million population can out vote a single country with a population of 80 million. To correct that you have to convince those small countries to give up the only power they have. In short, for political union, the system needs dismantling and rebuilding from scratch.

One thing that I don't think Og mentioned is that Remainers and Brexiters were not split along party lines. The majority of MP's were for remain. Only UKIP, who only had 1 MP, were wholly in favour of Brexit. The people were evenly split 52% to 48%.

What we now find is that nobody actually thought about how the exit could be managed. As I write this our prime minister is saying that the people wanted us to have control of our borders and that is what she is going to give them. In answer to the next question, she says that she wants free movement of goods and people between Southern and Northern Ireland. This means no border controls between Britain and the EU.

 

[oggbashan]

The problem with the EU going for a full federation is that it was never designed to be that. The EU was designed to be a trading block and it was set up to ensure that every country had an equal say. Imagine a US senate where California had the same number of senators as Ohio. As a trading block it works, as a political federation, it is a recipe for disaster. When it comes to law making two countries of half a million population can out vote a single country with a population of 80 million. To correct that you have to convince those small countries to give up the only power they have. In short, for political union, the system needs dismantling and rebuilding from scratch.

That is the problem many older people have with the EU. We remember that the UK joined a common market, not a federation of states. The EU, and the EURO bloc, have significantly changed the whole arrangement and most of the change was done without democratic input.

One thing that I don't think Og mentioned is that Remainers and Brexiters were not split along party lines. The majority of MP's were for remain. Only UKIP, who only had 1 MP, were wholly in favour of Brexit. The people were evenly split 52% to 48%.

The split between Stay and Leave was complex and unprecedented - and unpredictable. People's reasons for voting either way were very different. For many they had very fine distinctions to be considered not an obvious best choice.

IF the EU had responded in any sensible way to David Cameron's requests for change, particularly about unfettered movement of people, then the result might or probably would have been different. But the EU couldn't or wouldn't even consider change despite the difficulties it was causing across Europe. They, or their negotiators, said - 'Free movement is fundamental to the EU and cannot be altered' - but it wasn't what the UK originally signed up to.

What we now find is that nobody actually thought about how the exit could be managed. As I write this our prime minister is saying that the people wanted us to have control of our borders and that is what she is going to give them. In answer to the next question, she says that she wants free movement of goods and people between Southern and Northern Ireland. This means no border controls between Britain and the EU.

The government was backing Remain. Those advocating Leave were not a political party (except UKIP) nor even a single group. The Leavers had no consistent policies, no consensus among themselves, and no authority to do anything if they won the Referendum.

Worse than 'nobody actually thought about how the exit could be managed' is that the EU treaties don't cover it either. The UK doesn't know how it will work. The EU doesn't know how it will work except that ALL countries will have to agree, and they rarely agree on anything at all.

The EU treaties didn't really expect anyone to leave their wonderful project. Yes, there was an out clause, Article 50, but they didn't really mean it. Now? The UK and the EU are in uncharted territory, without a compass, and the EU has 27 Captains telling the steersman what to do...

 

[oggbashan]

The UK is hardly in a position to lecture any nation on democracy when we have an heireditory head of state (if you Americans like our royals so much, you're welcome to them and the cost of running them for tourists) ...

You and I don't pay a single penny towards the cost of the Royal Family. They are funded by the Crown's estates and taxed much more than any other wealthy individual.

 

[DeYaKen]

The UK is hardly in a position to lecture any nation on democracy when we have an heireditory head of state (if you Americans like our royals so much, you're welcome to them and the cost of running them for tourists) and an over staffed/appointed/heireditory upper house.

Brexshit is a huge con which will only benefit the wealthy - exactly the people who have advocated it for so long - while the rest of us pay the price.

The House of Lords, cannot block legislation. They can only table amendments and send it back to the commons. (as they did with the brexit bill) If the commons do not approve the amendments they are removed and it goes back to the lords. This can only be done three times before the parliament act is automatically invoked. and the elected chamber, The Commons, wins the day. This means that the elected commons has supremacy. That is democracy.

In the EU the parliament cannot amend any bill, it goes to them on a take it or leave it basis. If the parliament rejects the law it goes into Tri-partite. representatives of the commission (unelected) the council of ministers (unelected) and the parliament (elected) get together to work out a compromise. The commission then redrafts the law or forces it through without another vote. The two unelected bodies have supremacy. That is not democracy.

As for your other comment, I can only quote a very old song.
"It's the same the whole world over.
Isn't it a bloody shame.
It's the rich what gets the pleasure.
It's the poor what gets the blame."

 

[DeYaKen]

IF the EU had responded in any sensible way to David Cameron's requests for change, particularly about unfettered movement of people, then the result might or probably would have been different. But the EU couldn't or wouldn't even consider change despite the difficulties it was causing across Europe. They, or their negotiators, said - 'Free movement is fundamental to the EU and cannot be altered' - but it wasn't what the UK originally signed up to.

Free movement of labour
This was enshrined in the treaty of Rome in 1957 so when Britain joined the EEC in 1973 it was in place. At that point we still had border controls but each EEC country had to treat other EEC national the same as their own people. At the time the Brits didn't mind because it meant a lot of their unemployed builders could go and work in booming Germany. The Brexiteers claim that there was never any plan for political convergence but when we joined in 1973 they already had a European Parliament. Why would an organisation with no political aspirations need a parliament?

Giving Cameron what he wanted
To give Britain what they asked for couldn't be done without treaty change. Many EU countries require the approval of the people, by referendum to approve a change in a treaty. This was a problem for the last two treaties with France, Finland and Ireland forcing changes or second votes. The last treat took more than two years to approve. There was a good chance of the whole thing descending into chaos. Cameron must have known this but thought he could put a good spin on the nothing he achieved.

 

[sharingfantasies]

The problem with the EU going for a full federation is that it was never designed to be that. The EU was designed to be a trading block and it was set up to ensure that every country had an equal say. Imagine a US senate where California had the same number of senators as Ohio. As a trading block it works, as a political federation, it is a recipe for disaster. When it comes to law making two countries of half a million population can out vote a single country with a population of 80 million. To correct that you have to convince those small countries to give up the only power they have. In short, for political union, the system needs dismantling and rebuilding from scratch.

One thing that I don't think Og mentioned is that Remainers and Brexiters were not split along party lines. The majority of MP's were for remain. Only UKIP, who only had 1 MP, were wholly in favour of Brexit. The people were evenly split 52% to 48%.

What we now find is that nobody actually thought about how the exit could be managed. As I write this our prime minister is saying that the people wanted us to have control of our borders and that is what she is going to give them. In answer to the next question, she says that she wants free movement of goods and people between Southern and Northern Ireland. This means no border controls between Britain and the EU.

Every state has two senators. It is in the House of Representatives where the numbers are determined by state population.

 

[DeYaKen]

Every state has two senators. It is in the House of Representatives where the numbers are determined by state population.

My apologies and thank you for the clarification. Never too late to learn.

 

[DeYaKen]

Here is the best Laugh
Today the British Government reveals plans to do away with all of those Evil Laws from Brussels by rebranding them as nice cosy British laws and the Brexit supporters are cheering. You couldn't make it up.

 

[BiAsianGirl]

I would like to point out that article 50 is revocable within the 2 year period.

 

[BiAsianGirl]

Here is the best Laugh
Today the British Government reveals plans to do away with all of those Evil Laws from Brussels by rebranding them as nice cosy British laws and the Brexit supporters are cheering. You couldn't make it up.

We have no other choice and do not have the time, money etc to create our own. Within a few years we will probably discard of a few such as some employment laws.

 

[oggbashan]

Here is the best Laugh
Today the British Government reveals plans to do away with all of those Evil Laws from Brussels by rebranding them as nice cosy British laws and the Brexit supporters are cheering. You couldn't make it up.

We have no other choice and do not have the time, money etc to create our own. Within a few years we will probably discard of a few such as some employment laws.

That is an essential part of the transition process. Once they are UK laws they can be repealed or amended by the Parliament at Westminster. If they are not replicated in the interim they cease to have any effect in law.

 

[oggbashan]

I would like to point out that article 50 is revocable within the 2 year period.

It might be but unless the EU changes its organisation and structure substantially revocation is very unlikely.

However if French and German elections changed the attitude of those countries to the EU, e.g. a proposed Frexit, then the EU would be in deep shit.

 

[DeYaKen]

We have no other choice and do not have the time, money etc to create our own. Within a few years we will probably discard of a few such as some employment laws.

That is an essential part of the transition process. Once they are UK laws they can be repealed or amended by the Parliament at Westminster. If they are not replicated in the interim they cease to have any effect in law.

But that is just the point if they were bad, as the leavers kept telling us they were, we could just allow them to lapse. As it is we are making them British Laws which seems to say that they were necessary all along.

 

[Green_Knight]

The UK is hardly in a position to lecture any nation on democracy when we have an heireditory head of state (if you Americans like our royals so much, you're welcome to them and the cost of running them for tourists) and an over staffed/appointed/heireditory upper house.

Brexshit is a huge con which will only benefit the wealthy - exactly the people who have advocated it for so long - while the rest of us pay the price.

The queen, as head of state, plays a minimal (largely formal) part in the government of the country. Even when, as in May 2010, there was an inconclusive election result, the monarch plays no part in the resulting negotiations. In that sense, the UK's head of state is rather like the presidency of Ireland, a largely ceremonial role and there are costs to having a president, just as much as having a royal family.

Are you suggesting that, in contrast to almost all other countries, the UK should not have an upper house of parliament? The upper house performs a valuable role in revising/improving poorly thought-out legislation and in persuading the government to think again. That is important when a government can be elected on the votes of little more than one-third of the electorate.

Should the upper house be elected? If you do that then it would be able to claim its own mandate with a right to stand up to the House of Commons that it currently does not have. If you elected the House of Lords at the same time as the House of Commons, you're going to get the same party winning both and there being a near dictatorship. If you elect the Lords halfway between general elections, you're going to guarantee clashes between the two.

The present system is a curious one but, in its strange way, it works quite effectively.