Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

A hard BREXIT would affect both parties. Since Britain imports far more than it exports it would be worse for Europe. Britain will be geographically and somewhat culturally in Europe but not in the EU. If you are exporting to EU of course you have to follow their laws e.g. import licences, customs etc.

That's not how it works. We're all better off when following standards. The biggest player in any market will set the standard. It's irrelevant who is importing or who is exporting. I also highly doubt the UK mainly imports from. Europe. The numbers don't support your assessment.

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx

The UK has for centuries been closer aligned to Europe than USA. That's not going to change.

Nah. Not being an EU member means staying in the car but not being allowed to have an opinion on where it goes. Just dumb. Also makes the EU as a whole weaker. Real clever in times when Russia and China are flexing their muscles.

It was EU who stopped a complete Russian take-over of the Ukraine. Do you think stuff like that will be easier or harder now?

Unless it is a boycott by the EU most of the trade should continue as before. The of course the more fishing grounds we claim back towards what we had Pre-Common Market/EU, then the less we need to steal from the African waters hence African fishermen.

 

[seanie]

A hard Brexit would be far worse for the UK. Yes we import more than we export, but our exports to the EU are around 45% of our trade, whereas the EU's exports to us are about 10% of their trade.

A hard Brexit would put us on worse trading terms with 27 of our closest neighbours. Those 27 would still have each other.

Before, the EU, in fact before the Common market butter, beef and lamb were cheaper. New Zealand and Australia were selling these to us far cheaper than European countries did.

However we traded with the European countries before we joined the EU. The UK provides quality products for which the top 10 which are high standard and cost-efficient.


Machinery including computers: Mainly high tech industrial use
Vehicles :
Pharmaceuticals:
Gems, precious metals:
Electrical machinery, equipment:
Oil
Aircraft, spacecraft: $20.7 billion
Optical, technical, medical apparatus:
Plastics, plastic articles:
Organic chemicals:

There are other markets but we do not have the capacity to fill these. In the unlikely event of a trade boycott, other countries in Latin America, China Australasia and the Middle East (apart from Oil and LNG) would welcome these

Your frantic handwaving doesn't distract from the essentially idiocy of your original point.

The fact that the UK imports more from the EU than we export to it, does not put the EU at a disadvantage in the event of a hard Brexit.

A hard Brexit would put the UK on worse trade terms with a market on its doorstep of around 450,000,000 people.

A hard Brexit would put the EU on worse trade terms with a market on its doorstep of around 60,000,000 people.

 

[seanie]

Around 45% of the UK's trade would be on worse terms than it is now. Around 10% of the EU#s trade would be on worse terms than it is now.

Who's better able to bear that?

Especially given that, some specialist sectors aside, a significant chunk of what manufacturing capacity we do have is foreign owned, tied into EU supply chains, and is at risk from de-investment if a hard Brexit occurs.

 

[skepticalbip]

Around 45% of the UK's trade would be on worse terms than it is now. Around 10% of the EU#s trade would be on worse terms than it is now.

Who's better able to bear that?

Especially given that, some specialist sectors aside, a significant chunk of what manufacturing capacity we do have is foreign owned, tied into EU supply chains, and is at risk from de-investment if a hard Brexit occurs.

It actually just depends on how the two parties want to draw up their trade agreements. If the EU wants to be punitive then it will be more difficult for the UK to trade with them. However the UK may be able to draw up better trade agreements with North and South American countries and Asian countries than those the EU has with them. If so then the UK could well be in a much better trade position than they would staying in the EU.

So whether BREXIT helps or hurts the UK depends on what future trade agreements are, not only with the EU but, with the world.

 

[seanie]

Well the original point contested was about a "hard brexit" being worse for the EU because we import more than we export, which is utter bollocks. A hard Brexit hurts the UK more than the EU.

As to other potential trade agreements, the UK will inevitably have less weight when dealing with other countries compared to the EU, for reasons of simple size. Currently we have no capacity to undertake such negotiations, and all the signs are we don't have capacity to undertake the current negotiations to leave the EU, given the incompetence on display so far.

And even when we leave the EU, given they are the largest free trade area on our doorstep, we will still have to mostly comply with their regulatory frameworks and legislation to access that market.

Brexit only hurts the UK. The only question is how much.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I had an import business during the transition to EU. There was loads of stuff that magically became easier over night. Way less paper work.

Time is money.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well the original point contested was about a "hard brexit" being worse for the EU because we import more than we export, which is utter bollocks. A hard Brexit hurts the UK more than the EU.

As to other potential trade agreements, the UK will inevitably have less weight when dealing with other countries compared to the EU, for reasons of simple size. Currently we have no capacity to undertake such negotiations, and all the signs are we don't have capacity to undertake the current negotiations to leave the EU, given the incompetence on display so far.

And even when we leave the EU, given they are the largest free trade area on our doorstep, we will still have to mostly comply with their regulatory frameworks and legislation to access that market.

Brexit only hurts the UK. The only question is how much.

There's not going to be a hard Brexit. May is going to bend over and take it up the arse to keep the UK in, in practice. There's too much to lose by not doing it. Thanks to the EU, and the lack of red tape, the economies have become extremely integrated. Breaking that up will be very costly for all sides. Best avoided. Both the EU and May is on the same side. But less of a problem for the EU negotiators, because any financial loss for any side they can spin to a "I told you so". Pretty much all the big investment banks are looking into moving to Amsterdam, and have threatened to do so. Both the EU negotiators and May knows this. May is fucked.

My prediction is that Brexit will be limited to making immigration slightly more complicated. The rest will stay. So throwing a bone to BNP, but otherwise business as usual.

But sure, whatever deal the UK enters will be to a disadvantage to the UK. If it isn't, it'll make the EU look weak. Both the EU and May will get something so they can spin to a win. But the reality will be that the UK is going to get reamed.

That's my crystal ball.

On the other hand, in the long term, Brexit will matter less. I think we're heading towards a global EU of sorts. Of course, not officially, with flags and stuff. But piecemeal through "trade-deals". That's been an on-going process the last 70 years. That's only been of benefit to all sides. It'll continue.

There's plenty of political commentators who think all state power will be, in practice, transferred to these trade associations. Because they're binding long term agreements that tie the hands of stupid short sighted careerist politicians. It'll be the death of democracy, in practice. But it won't be that bad. Some argue it's already happened.

And with the developing world developing so nicely. In half a century or so most of them will be on par with the west in incomes. Which will make the whole anti-immigration thing... quaint. At that point all countries might as well just open their borders to anyone.

That's assuming we manage to get global warming under control. Which does seem to need a global EU of sorts (ie, a UN with a penis). If we don't we'll be the petty lords of Westeros squabbling over power while the zombies kill everyone.

So things are looking bright for super-governmental bodies with legislative powers.

 

[bilby]

Well the original point contested was about a "hard brexit" being worse for the EU because we import more than we export, which is utter bollocks. A hard Brexit hurts the UK more than the EU.

As to other potential trade agreements, the UK will inevitably have less weight when dealing with other countries compared to the EU, for reasons of simple size. Currently we have no capacity to undertake such negotiations, and all the signs are we don't have capacity to undertake the current negotiations to leave the EU, given the incompetence on display so far.

And even when we leave the EU, given they are the largest free trade area on our doorstep, we will still have to mostly comply with their regulatory frameworks and legislation to access that market.

Brexit only hurts the UK. The only question is how much.

There's not going to be a hard Brexit. May is going to bend over and take it up the arse to keep the UK in, in practice. There's too much to lose by not doing it. Thanks to the EU, and the lack of red tape, the economies have become extremely integrated. Breaking that up will be very costly for all sides. Best avoided. Both the EU and May is on the same side. But less of a problem for the EU negotiators, because any financial loss for any side they can spin to a "I told you so". Pretty much all the big investment banks are looking into moving to Amsterdam, and have threatened to do so. Both the EU negotiators and May knows this. May is fucked.

My prediction is that Brexit will be limited to making immigration slightly more complicated. The rest will stay. So throwing a bone to BNP, but otherwise business as usual.

But sure, whatever deal the UK enters will be to a disadvantage to the UK. If it isn't, it'll make the EU look weak. Both the EU and May will get something so they can spin to a win. But the reality will be that the UK is going to get reamed.

That's my crystal ball.

On the other hand, in the long term, Brexit will matter less. I think we're heading towards a global EU of sorts. Of course, not officially, with flags and stuff. But piecemeal through "trade-deals". That's been an on-going process the last 70 years. That's only been of benefit to all sides. It'll continue.

There's plenty of political commentators who think all state power will be, in practice, transferred to these trade associations. Because they're binding long term agreements that tie the hands of stupid short sighted careerist politicians. It'll be the death of democracy, in practice. But it won't be that bad. Some argue it's already happened.

And with the developing world developing so nicely. In half a century or so most of them will be on par with the west in incomes. Which will make the whole anti-immigration thing... quaint. At that point all countries might as well just open their borders to anyone.

That's assuming we manage to get global warming under control. Which does seem to need a global EU of sorts (ie, a UN with a penis). If we don't we'll be the petty lords of Westeros squabbling over power while the zombies kill everyone.

So things are looking bright for super-governmental bodies with legislative powers.

I think your optimism is misplaced; The May government has not once shown any inclination to waver from their ideological path on the basis of mere facts, and has not hesitated to make things massively worse than they needed to be on any number of fronts (including, but certainly not limited to, Brexit) if by making things worse for the UK, they have been able to appease the Tory party and its tabloid reading base.

Just because it's obvious that a hard Brexit will be a massive disaster for the UK, that doesn't in any way imply that the May administration will resile from it. Austerity and the cuts to vital infrastructure and services have demonstrably and obviously been a massive disaster, and yet the response to every new evidence of the damage they are doing has been to double down, lest they appear to be weak. The idea that it is 'weakness' to own up to, and try to make amends for, a mistake that EVERYONE knows you have made is their biggest problem, and something that most non-Tories grow out of at about 15 years of age.

 

[Jayjay]

What's comical is that May was against Brexit before the referendum. She's pushign it through out of sheer sense of duty and loyalty to the party.

 

[bilby]

What's comical is that May was against Brexit before the referendum. She's pushign it through out of sheer sense of duty and loyalty to the party.

Yup. When 'duty' and 'loyalty' trump 'reality' and 'reason', everything goes to shit in short order.

She, and the tabloid newspaper owners who pull her strings, has it all wrong anyway - it has always been the duty of the PM to do what is best for the country, not what is most popular with the great unwashed; And the loyalty of the PM should be to the country first, last and always, not to the party.

This idea that the ignorant masses should have more say than the experts is very new - it has existed for only a couple of decades in British politics - and very, very stupid.

 

[TSwizzle]

What's comical is that May was against Brexit before the referendum. She's pushign it through out of sheer sense of duty and loyalty to the party.

She's pushing it through because there was a referendum on it and the vote was to leave. The U.K. Has always been ambivalent about the EU.

 

[bilby]

What's comical is that May was against Brexit before the referendum. She's pushign it through out of sheer sense of duty and loyalty to the party.

She's pushing it through because there was a referendum on it and the vote was to leave. The U.K. Has always been ambivalent about the EU.

She's pushing it through because despite knowing it will be a disaster, and despite the non-binding referendum having delivered a knife-edge result, she is cowed by the tabloid press and panicked by the possibility that the racist right supporters of her party might defect to UKIP, BNP et al (Which was the reason her predecessor, the spineless Cameron, called the vote in the first place, secure in the (false) belief that the 'Remain' vote would win easily, and silence the critics in his own party.

No sane analysis of the referendum suggests that there is clear evidence that the people wanted Brexit at the time of the vote - not least because at the time of the vote, it was even less clear what Brexit might entail - and it's STILL not certain today exactly what the fuck they were asking people to vote for or against.

They asked "Do you want to do some undefined thing that is anti-EU, bearing in mind that we have no legal requirement to take any notice of your opinion, and basing your answer on a massive pack of lies about how much more will be spent on the NHS if you say 'yes'?", and having asked that question, the public gave a resounding 'Maybe', at which point everyone went fucking batshit nuts and decided that this was a clear mandate to fuck the country up beyond all recognition. The margin of the result was FAR smaller than the error bar, even before we consider the effect of the outright lies told by the 'Leave' campaign.

The result of the vote was 'we don't fucking know, but a tiny fraction more of us might lean more one way than the other, despite nobody being able to tell us for sure what the actual effects of leaving might be, and despite all of the people who actually understand the most likely implications telling us it will be a massive disaster'. That's no basis for massive constitutional change.

Narrow wins when selecting a government are one thing - you get another vote in a few years, so if the people make a poor choice, they have the option to correct it. But this is a permanent change; in most systems, radical and irreversible changes require 2/3 majorities, or have other safeguards against change on a whim (eg requiring an absolute majority in each territory/state, for example).

If we are to pretend to be democratic, then there is an imperative to hold a referendum AFTER the details of Brexit are known, so that the voters can vote on a known package of specific and detailed changes.

Making a massive constitutional change on the basis of internal Tory party in-fighting that lead to a non-binding, non-specific referendum with an incredibly marginal result that every qualified observer knows will be hugely damaging to the country is despicable, anti-democratic, and diametrically at odds with reason.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There's not going to be a hard Brexit. May is going to bend over and take it up the arse to keep the UK in, in practice. There's too much to lose by not doing it. Thanks to the EU, and the lack of red tape, the economies have become extremely integrated. Breaking that up will be very costly for all sides. Best avoided. Both the EU and May is on the same side. But less of a problem for the EU negotiators, because any financial loss for any side they can spin to a "I told you so". Pretty much all the big investment banks are looking into moving to Amsterdam, and have threatened to do so. Both the EU negotiators and May knows this. May is fucked.

My prediction is that Brexit will be limited to making immigration slightly more complicated. The rest will stay. So throwing a bone to BNP, but otherwise business as usual.

But sure, whatever deal the UK enters will be to a disadvantage to the UK. If it isn't, it'll make the EU look weak. Both the EU and May will get something so they can spin to a win. But the reality will be that the UK is going to get reamed.

That's my crystal ball.

On the other hand, in the long term, Brexit will matter less. I think we're heading towards a global EU of sorts. Of course, not officially, with flags and stuff. But piecemeal through "trade-deals". That's been an on-going process the last 70 years. That's only been of benefit to all sides. It'll continue.

There's plenty of political commentators who think all state power will be, in practice, transferred to these trade associations. Because they're binding long term agreements that tie the hands of stupid short sighted careerist politicians. It'll be the death of democracy, in practice. But it won't be that bad. Some argue it's already happened.

And with the developing world developing so nicely. In half a century or so most of them will be on par with the west in incomes. Which will make the whole anti-immigration thing... quaint. At that point all countries might as well just open their borders to anyone.

That's assuming we manage to get global warming under control. Which does seem to need a global EU of sorts (ie, a UN with a penis). If we don't we'll be the petty lords of Westeros squabbling over power while the zombies kill everyone.

So things are looking bright for super-governmental bodies with legislative powers.

I think your optimism is misplaced; The May government has not once shown any inclination to waver from their ideological path on the basis of mere facts, and has not hesitated to make things massively worse than they needed to be on any number of fronts (including, but certainly not limited to, Brexit) if by making things worse for the UK, they have been able to appease the Tory party and its tabloid reading base.

Just because it's obvious that a hard Brexit will be a massive disaster for the UK, that doesn't in any way imply that the May administration will resile from it. Austerity and the cuts to vital infrastructure and services have demonstrably and obviously been a massive disaster, and yet the response to every new evidence of the damage they are doing has been to double down, lest they appear to be weak. The idea that it is 'weakness' to own up to, and try to make amends for, a mistake that EVERYONE knows you have made is their biggest problem, and something that most non-Tories grow out of at about 15 years of age.

That's a good point. May was against Brexit. She could do a hard Brexit just to prove her opponents wrong. My mistake thinking that politicians give a shit about anything except their own careers. Wrong of me.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the UK is heading for a rude awakening. Great news to the Dutch in that case.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What's comical is that May was against Brexit before the referendum. She's pushign it through out of sheer sense of duty and loyalty to the party.

Loyalty to the people you mean? Aka, doing her fucking job. There was a referendum. Her hands are tied. She could say, "fuck the people". But she is a politician. So that would be killing her own career.

BTW, I fucking hate referendums. All of them. People don't know anything. They're not qualified. Politicians spend all their days doing their homework on this. Hopefully it is anyway.

The Brexit vote truly proved that the people are morons. Fuck idiot coward Cameron. Big decisions doesn't mean we should include the people. It probably means that the people are less qualified than ever to judge the merits of it. The only times direct democracy is appropriate is when we're voting for things that affect us immediately. Like stuff in the city we live. But even then we're dumb ass. Any local election on demolishing a building to build something new and better = almost always against.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What's comical is that May was against Brexit before the referendum. She's pushign it through out of sheer sense of duty and loyalty to the party.

Loyalty to the people you mean? Aka, doing her fucking job. There was a referendum. Her hands are tied. She could say, "fuck the people". But she is a politician. So that would be killing her own career.

BTW, I fucking hate referendums. All of them. People don't know anything. They're not qualified. Politicians spend all their days doing their homework on this. Hopefully it is anyway.

The Brexit vote truly proved that the people are morons. Fuck idiot coward Cameron. Big decisions doesn't mean we should include the people. It probably means that the people are less qualified than ever to judge the merits of it. The only times direct democracy is appropriate is when we're voting for things that affect us immediately. Like stuff in the city we live. But even then we're dumb ass. Any local election on demolishing a building to build something new and better = almost always against.

A referendum is actually a vote but for a particular subject rather than particular parties. No matter what type of vote, it doesn't really vary the level of voter sensibilities or asininities.

- - - Updated - - -

She's pushing it through because there was a referendum on it and the vote was to leave. The U.K. Has always been ambivalent about the EU.

She's pushing it through because despite knowing it will be a disaster, and despite the non-binding referendum having delivered a knife-edge result, she is cowed by the tabloid press and panicked by the possibility that the racist right supporters of her party might defect to UKIP, BNP et al (Which was the reason her predecessor, the spineless Cameron, called the vote in the first place, secure in the (false) belief that the 'Remain' vote would win easily, and silence the critics in his own party.

No sane analysis of the referendum suggests that there is clear evidence that the people wanted Brexit at the time of the vote - not least because at the time of the vote, it was even less clear what Brexit might entail - and it's STILL not certain today exactly what the fuck they were asking people to vote for or against.

They asked "Do you want to do some undefined thing that is anti-EU, bearing in mind that we have no legal requirement to take any notice of your opinion, and basing your answer on a massive pack of lies about how much more will be spent on the NHS if you say 'yes'?", and having asked that question, the public gave a resounding 'Maybe', at which point everyone went fucking batshit nuts and decided that this was a clear mandate to fuck the country up beyond all recognition. The margin of the result was FAR smaller than the error bar, even before we consider the effect of the outright lies told by the 'Leave' campaign.

The result of the vote was 'we don't fucking know, but a tiny fraction more of us might lean more one way than the other, despite nobody being able to tell us for sure what the actual effects of leaving might be, and despite all of the people who actually understand the most likely implications telling us it will be a massive disaster'. That's no basis for massive constitutional change.

Narrow wins when selecting a government are one thing - you get another vote in a few years, so if the people make a poor choice, they have the option to correct it. But this is a permanent change; in most systems, radical and irreversible changes require 2/3 majorities, or have other safeguards against change on a whim (eg requiring an absolute majority in each territory/state, for example).

If we are to pretend to be democratic, then there is an imperative to hold a referendum AFTER the details of Brexit are known, so that the voters can vote on a known package of specific and detailed changes.

Making a massive constitutional change on the basis of internal Tory party in-fighting that lead to a non-binding, non-specific referendum with an incredibly marginal result that every qualified observer knows will be hugely damaging to the country is despicable, anti-democratic, and diametrically at odds with reason.

You must be telepathic since you seem to know what Teresa is thinking.

 

[angelo]

Seems May [Tories] is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. There would be an outcry had she reversed the Brexit vote, especially from the left!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Seems May [Tories] is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. There would be an outcry had she reversed the Brexit vote, especially from the left!

The EU leaders and war criminal Blair and Sorros funded Gina Robertson are trying to sabotage the BREXIT process by any means necessary. One of Gina's companies is shared with a SORROS based company.

 

[ZiprHead]

What the hell is SORROS?

 

[DrZoidberg]

What the hell is SORROS?

A SORROS is a Jewish money grabbing creature who would go to hell if it wasn't for the fact that Satan worries it'll steal all the silver. With a horned head and cloven feet the SORROS primarily eats pure virgin non-transgendered Caucasian children, while laughing maniacly.

All the philanthropy and massive donations is just a cover for theft somehow. Their main political involvement has mostly been to increase government and Institutional transparency. Of course to make it easier for the SORROS to steal money. Don't be fooled!!!

 

[whichphilosophy]

What the hell is SORROS?

I spellt it wrong. It should be SOROS.

Another interesting article here written a few months ago about Gina Miller and Soros, her Muppetteer.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/80...oros-Article-50-court-case-UK-EU-Open-Society

Ms Miller - known as the “Chief Wrexiteer” - last year caused outrage with her legal case which meant the historic referendum result had to be agreed by parliament which gave MPs and peers a chance to veto Brexit before Article 50 could be triggered.

The 52-year-old former model has threatened more legal action to frustrate Brexit and is currently doling out £300,000 to Remoaner candidates in a bid to influence the election.

Now a leading thinktank has linked her with the Hungarian born American magnate George Soros, who infamously made £1billion on black Wednesday in 1992 when he forced the pound to devalue causing an economic crisis in Britain.

he Bruges Group has pointed out that the people behind anti Brexit campaigner Gina Miller's UK & EU Open Society company have strong links with Soros.

The billionaire, who funds the Open Society Foundation, has used his wealth to regularly interfere in EU politics to force Europe to accept thousands of migrants from the Middle East and Africa.