Merged Now What?

[McHrozni]

What I am not understanding is why the EU want a quick move to article 50? Since the process will take at least 2 years, there will be continued uncertainty for 2 years. If they want some certainty the they could agree some draft negotiations agree the shape of things and leave article 50 negotiations to the details. It strikes me there is an element of cutting off one's nose to spite your face. EU refusing to talk is creating more uncertainty. Talk about punishing UK will only make markets more nervous. An adult and calming and reassuring approach would be to say that we will enter negotiations to achieve the best outcome for everyone and start discussing the process and structure so formal negotiations can proceed rapidly and smoothly. Otherwise the beginning of the article 50 negotiations will be negotiating about the negotiations.

I think Merkel et.al. want the UK to take the first step and declare they're leaving the EU while facing complete uncertainty what will they be able to secure for their country. If there were informal talks and they settled on the main points prior to invoking A50, the step would require far less bravery, and it would be a smaller step overall.

In other words, they want to keep the UK in EU by making the first step completely impossible for the British government to take. The referendum was outright foolish, any Leave voter who didn't short the pound (or similar) before going to the polls was an idiot, but now it's down to the continent to patch these self-inflicted wounds. It's a bitter medicine to swallow, but it's the best that can be done.

It's clear the continent was well prepared for the eventuality, while no-one in the UK (especially the leaders of the Leave campaign) was. A thank you would be in order, I think.

McHrozni

 

[MikeG]

.....a 3% tariff across the board would cost £6bn + eating into the savings from the EU contribution.......

There you go........we're financially better off out of the single market, n'est-ce pas?

 

[MikeG]

........It's clear the continent was well prepared for the eventuality.......

You really, really don't follow this stuff, do you? This is a clueless comment.

 

[Planigale]

I'm quite certain UK will not leave the EU. There could well be a general election this fall, with at least one party openly backing a "think again" option. If they win, this will be a mandate to ignore the result of this referendum.

It's not like the next steps the UK must take are set in stone. It's embarrassing to the UK yes, Cameron will rightfully join the ranks of the unemployed certainly, but there is no need to inflict even more pain on the UK and Europe on what was discovered to be a stinking a pack of lies within 18 hours of the votes being counted.

McHrozni

Logical error here. Since there is no fall in the UK there can be no general election. If you mean Autumn then say so. The Lib Dems have already said there election manifesto will be on remaining in / returning to the EU.

I was reading a law company opinion that said article 50 is not irreversible, at any point a country can withdraw from article 50 negotiations and will remain in the EU. So this does suggest that a change of mind could happen up until Autumn (fall) 1918.

I decided to leave the above Freudian error in place. Clearly article 50 should be declared on 11/11 so it completes on 11/11 2018.

 

[The Don]

Looks like those experts (who according to the Leave campaign always get things wrong and cannot be trusted) were right, the UK's credit rating has been downgraded by another agency which in turn will likely result in more expensive borrowing which in turn will mean higher taxes, bigger deficit or less to spend on services like the NHS.

Looks like those experts were right.....

But hey at least we "got our country back"

I expect #IWantMyFutureBack to be trending soon - unless it already is

 

[The Don]

There you go........we're financially better off out of the single market, n'est-ce pas?

It depends on whether you consider the net, net net, or net, net, net contributions to the EU.

It depends on how you price the time and expense for British industry of dealing with the EU tariffs.

It depends on what subsequently happens to the levels of trade with the EU.

It depends on whether you consider the effect on inflation of companies passing on those tariffs to their customers.

 

[McHrozni]

No, you're wrong. It is government policy, the settled will of the people, and there is no viable opposition to enacting the referendum result.

Why do you think Cameron decided to step down in October and not immediately anyway? British politicians now have three to four months to create some internal stability and fix the disarray. Had Cameron quit immediately, or invoked Article 50 immediately, you'd likely be right. He decided to wait until October however - and I bet it's at least partially to give "think again" a chance.

All this talk about "will of the people" and whatnot is nonsense. The margin of victory was paper thin, and it was known within 24 hours of the polls closing that a good deal of this "will of the people" was based on a pack of lies. It's doubtful they could win another referendum if it was held. So much about "will of the people".

The conservatives will have a pro-leave leader in a couple of months time. They are the party of government, and it is government policy to enact the referendum decision (and this from the Remain leadership). Labour, supposedly the opposition, are in utter disarray, trying to oust their leader, and facing a wipe-out in England, according to one of their own, as bad as they have suffered in Scotland. The Lib Dems, who do have a policy of trying to reverse the decision, apparently, are down to 7 or 8 MPs in a parliament of 650 MPs.

It seems like Lib-Dems and Labor could use "think again" in order to win big in an election to me. Considering how quickly it became evident that the British voter was manipulated into voting for something significantly different than what was promised to him it's an entirely legitimate position to take.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Logical error here. Since there is no fall in the UK there can be no general election. If you mean Autumn then say so.

Okay, I didn't realize there was such a great difference between the two.
It's Q3/Q4 2016 - does that do?

The Lib Dems have already said there election manifesto will be on remaining in / returning to the EU.

I guess one doesn't need to be intimate with British politicians to be able to foresee their next step. Most politicians work in the exact same way, and this one really is a no-brainer.

I was reading a law company opinion that said article 50 is not irreversible, at any point a country can withdraw from article 50 negotiations and will remain in the EU. So this does suggest that a change of mind could happen up until Autumn (fall) 1918.[

I decided to leave the above Freudian error in place. Clearly article 50 should be declared on 11/11 so it completes on 11/11 2018.

Hehe. I agree, if it is to be invoked it must be on November 11th, at the 11th hour

CET or GMT?

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Hehe. I agree, if it is to be invoked it must be on November 11th, at the 11th hour

CET or GMT?

McHrozni

It would be typically British to fudge it to be 1030 GMT/1130 CET and in the process completely ruin the symbolism......

 

[McHrozni]

You really, really don't follow this stuff, do you? This is a clueless comment.

Germany presented an 8 page document on the future of the UK within 12 hours of the referendum. France presented Paris as an alternative to London City financial center. Spain began talking about co-soverignty of Gibraltar. Cameron announced he would resign in October while leave campaigners backpedaled on their promises, admitting they were lies.

While I'm reasonably certain one of us doesn't follow this stuff, I'm also quite certain the other one is me.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

Looks like those experts (who according to the Leave campaign always get things wrong and cannot be trusted) were right, the UK's credit rating has been downgraded by another agency which in turn will likely result in more expensive borrowing which in turn will mean higher taxes, bigger deficit or less to spend on services like the NHS

Yep...

The UK has lost its top AAA credit rating from ratings agency S&P following the country's Brexit vote.

S&P said the the referendum result could lead to "a deterioration of the UK's economic performance, including its large financial services sector".
Rival agency Fitch lowered its rating from AA+ to AA, forecasting an "abrupt slowdown" in growth in the short-term.

The moves come after Chancellor George Osborne said the UK will face the future "from a position of strength".

Speaking earlier, in an attempt to restore calm to the markets, the chancellor said the economy would need to "adjust" but was strong enough to cope.

S&P had been the only major agency to maintain a AAA rating for the UK.
On Friday, Moody's cut the UK's credit rating outlook to negative.

 

[angrysoba]

Why do you think Cameron decided to step down in October and not immediately anyway?

That's not quite what he said. He said he would remain for a brief time to "steady the ship" and gave no precise timeline for his resignation. October is the Tory Conference, and he says he wants a new leader in place by then. In other words, he may only be in power as long as it takes for a leadership contest to be held.

 

[Planigale]

Logical error here. Since there is no fall in the UK there can be no general election. If you mean Autumn then say so. The Lib Dems have already said there election manifesto will be on remaining in / returning to the EU.

I was reading a law company opinion that said article 50 is not irreversible, at any point a country can withdraw from article 50 negotiations and will remain in the EU. So this does suggest that a change of mind could happen up until Autumn (fall) 1918.

I decided to leave the above Freudian error in place. Clearly article 50 should be declared on 11/11 so it completes on 11/11 2018.

29 September looks like another good date.

 

[angrysoba]

I think Merkel et.al. want the UK to take the first step and declare they're leaving the EU while facing complete uncertainty what will they be able to secure for their country. If there were informal talks and they settled on the main points prior to invoking A50, the step would require far less bravery, and it would be a smaller step overall.

In other words, they want to keep the UK in EU by making the first step completely impossible for the British government to take. The referendum was outright foolish, any Leave voter who didn't short the pound (or similar) before going to the polls was an idiot, but now it's down to the continent to patch these self-inflicted wounds. It's a bitter medicine to swallow, but it's the best that can be done.

It's clear the continent was well prepared for the eventuality, while no-one in the UK (especially the leaders of the Leave campaign) was. A thank you would be in order, I think.

McHrozni

I don't know if that is the case. I think that a lot of European countries have been exasperated with the UK over the decades. They have put up with Britain being awkward, and for a long time this has been fun, with Britain constantly refusing to go along with Europe, and yet now that Britain have voted to leave, suddenly they don't want to go, and instead Europe is telling the UK to just get the **** out already.

It's not that the EU have deliberately tried to buy time by having British politicians refuse to invoke Article 50. It's just that suddenly no British politician with any power wants to do it. How could the EU have manipulated that?

 

[McHrozni]

I don't know if that is the case. I think that a lot of European countries have been exasperated with the UK over the decades. They have put up with Britain being awkward, and for a long time this has been fun, with Britain constantly refusing to go along with Europe, and yet now that Britain have voted to leave, suddenly they don't want to go, and instead Europe is telling the UK to just get the **** out already.

That's also one possibility, yes.

It's not that the EU have deliberately tried to buy time by having British politicians refuse to invoke Article 50. It's just that suddenly no British politician with any power wants to do it. How could the EU have manipulated that?

I don't think there was any planning involved, they simply seized an opportunity that presented itself. No one in the UK is brave enough to make the first step, so if you want to prevent them to take that step you make it even scarier. This is in line with the actions of Germany, France and Italy when they ruled out any talks until UK invokes A50. They basically told the UK to cement their fate first and then we'll talk about making it less foreboding. If they wanted UK out they would immediately start informal talks to make the transition smoother and easier for the UK.

I'm not saying it's the best thing to do, EU could well be better off without the UK - especially if UK gets the Norwegian model that favors EU beyond all reason - but that's what it looks like to me. It could also be a way EU tries to get the best possible deal out of this whole thing.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

No one in the UK is brave enough to make the first step

I disagree, Nigel Farage absolutely would, as would my local MP (and colossal tool) David Davies. There are hundreds of thousands, millions maybe, of Leave supporters and campaigners who would take the first step right now - and indeed if they could accelerate the process so that they could shut the borders today would do so.

David Cameron has taken the decision to kick the can down the road. There's no-one currently in a position to pick up the can right now.

 

[McHrozni]

I disagree, Nigel Farage absolutely would, as would my local MP (and colossal tool) David Davies. There are hundreds of thousands, millions maybe, of Leave supporters and campaigners who would take the first step right now - and indeed if they could accelerate the process so that they could shut the borders today would do so.

David Cameron has taken the decision to kick the can down the road. There's no-one currently in a position to pick up the can right now.

Okay, no-one in the UK was probably an overstatement. No one in the spitting distance of a position of Prime minister is probably rather accurate however.

McHrozni

 

[Klimax]

That's also one possibility, yes.



I don't think there was any planning involved, they simply seized an opportunity that presented itself. No one in the UK is brave enough to make the first step, so if you want to prevent them to take that step you make it even scarier. This is in line with the actions of Germany, France and Italy when they ruled out any talks until UK invokes A50. They basically told the UK to cement their fate first and then we'll talk about making it less foreboding. If they wanted UK out they would immediately start informal talks to make the transition smoother and easier for the UK.

I'm not saying it's the best thing to do, EU could well be better off without the UK - especially if UK gets the Norwegian model that favors EU beyond all reason - but that's what it looks like to me. It could also be a way EU tries to get the best possible deal out of this whole thing.

McHrozni

Reminder: Until A50 is concluded, process can be stopped at any point. On the other hand ramifications for "suddenly not exiter" might be entirely different case...

===
BTW: Fun stuff from Czech Republic. "Eurosceptics" are nowhere to be seen...

===

Best date to trigger A50 is obviously 11.9.
(Making heads in certain Czech newspaper exploding...)

 

[McHrozni]

Reminder: Until A50 is concluded, process can be stopped at any point. On the other hand ramifications for "suddenly not exiter" might be entirely different case...

True, but that's entirely not up to the quitter either. UK was always a highly problematic member, always recieving special treatment. The British politicians probably realize that abandoning that in exchange for a lesser deal is very Bad for their country.

BTW: Fun stuff from Czech Republic. "Eurosceptics" are nowhere to be seen...

I doubt many of the leaders of "Euroskeptics" are actual Euroskeptics at all. They're just populist hyenas who want to win cheap votes by biting the hand that feeds them. Boris Johnson certainly showed himself to be such, he's probably the norm. They know it too. Given the backpedaling, the deer in the headlights routine and a total lack of answers from the Euroseptic (not a typo) camp, I'm now of the opinion that it was the EU that won the referendum. It showed the Euroseptics for what they are for all the world to see. The willfully ignorant will still felate them, but their actual support will likely plummet.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

I disagree, Nigel Farage absolutely would, as would my local MP (and colossal tool) David Davies. There are hundreds of thousands, millions maybe, of Leave supporters and campaigners who would take the first step right now - and indeed if they could accelerate the process so that they could shut the borders today would do so.

David Cameron has taken the decision to kick the can down the road. There's no-one currently in a position to pick up the can right now.

They would, yes. Farage would be pushing the self-destruct button as hard as he could. That's why I included "with any power" and presumably "any prospects of power" which Mchrozni omitted.

It looks like Jeremy Hunt is calling for the vote to be delayed until near the next general election.

Brexit: Cameron to face EU leaders after vote to leave
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36647006

I wonder again if this is an attempt to endlessly punt it into the long grass.

Maybe the only other possibility I can see is someone of a Daniel Hamman mould from the backbenches appearing.