Snap UK General Election

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, the UK HAS effectively told the continentals that it's already gone.

Yes but it hasn't. No agreements or obligations have ceased at this point, and if a U-turn happens before anything has actually changed on our side, then what's the justification for changes on the other side?

unless the UK has a change of heart, and puts in the effort to mend things.

What more could be done in that regard than a U-turn? A box of chocolates and some flowers?

 

[Borachio]

Which is entirely viable. Provided the UK begins to set its own house in order for doing so. The worrying signs seem to be that the UK so far isn't doing that in earnest either. You know, planning ahead for THAT future...

Oh. I thought WTO rules were the default rules for any country not enjoying a privileged trading status with a bloc of other countries.

 

[AdrienIer]

Actually now that article 50 is triggered I think there's no turning back without the agreement of every EU country.

 

[jackelgull]

Yes but it hasn't. No agreements or obligations have ceased at this point, and if a U-turn happens before anything has actually changed on our side, then what's the justification for changes on the other side?

I mean the UK has essentially said "I think we should see other people" to the EU.
No one moved out of each other's houses or made plans to separate bank accounts and things of that nature, but a declaration of intent was made. The UK u-turning now would simply be the partner selfishly realizing that it kind of needs the other partner to feed into its narcissism and life style without addressing any of the inequalities in the relationship or any admission of its own guilt in the mess that the relationship has become.

Of course since the EU will not look into its own role in this mess, I guess a separation is healthier than staying together.

 

[Arakhor]

I don't believe that there is any proviso for undoing Article 50. Full consent would be needed to extend the two years, but nothing is mentioned about wanting to cancel the whole affair.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, the UK HAS effectively told the continentals that it's already gone.

It might still be living in the house, but the kind relationship it used to be is already over, unless the UK has a change of heart, and puts in the effort to mend things.

I mean the UK has essentially said "I think we should see other people" to the EU.
No one moved out of each other's houses or made plans to separate bank accounts and things of that nature, but a declaration of intent was made. The UK u-turning now would simply be the partner selfishly realizing that it kind of needs the other partner to feed into its narcissism and life style without addressing any of the inequalities in the relationship or any admission of its own guilt in the mess that the relationship has become.

Of course since the EU will not look into its own role in this mess, I guess a separation is healthier than staying together.

But this is isn't a romantic relationship, so the analogy isn't really applicable.

I mean I could compare it to trying to end my agreement with my ISP or something, which is probably actually a closer comparison. In that case if I phone them up and say I want to cancel my contract, they might actually sweeten the deal to keep me as a customer. But I wouldn't make that analogy because that's not the same either.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't believe that there is any proviso for undoing Article 50. Full consent would be needed to extend the two years, but nothing is mentioned about wanting to cancel the whole affair.

Is that really the case? I think it has been often said that if article 50 is triggered it will never forget that you triggered it, so will see this through to the end.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, the chap who wrote Article 50 said he never included any means of reversing it, so it's not that it can't be reversed, it's just the practical interpretation.

 

[Hrothbern]

If the UK and the EU decide to reset the formal status of the relation, then that will be the new reality.
There is no higher authority than the UK and the EU on this.

The only risk the EU takes, is that it will cause a precedent, that could favor more ill-prepared exits., which could easily be tackled by improving the text of art 50 (progressive insight, learning curve and all that)

 

[uppi]

If the UK and the EU decide to reset the formal status of the relation, then that will be the new reality.
There is no higher authority than the UK and the EU on this.

The only risk the EU takes, is that it will cause a precedent, that could favor more ill-prepared exits., which could easily be tackled by improving the text of art 50 (progressive insight, learning curve and all that)

Yes, rewriting article 50 would be the way to go. But in any case, if there is unanimous agreement that the UK should stay, there will be found a way. However, I expect that the UK would have to make some sign of commitment first to get that agreement.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think it is fantasy that the UK will stay. That said, if it would, then with Corbyn i would actually support it staying, cause at least he is anti-austerity and anti-scum, so can help clean up the Ew.
But i would not want the UK staying, with May in the Ew. May is crap, and so is the union.

 

[innonimatu]

Yes, rewriting article 50 would be the way to go. But in any case, if there is unanimous agreement that the UK should stay, there will be found a way. However, I expect that the UK would have to make some sign of commitment first to get that agreement.

No way would some of the EU's governments agree to let the UK stay without imposing on it a lesses status than it had before brexit. And no way will a majority of the british people agree to a deal under pressure: the more demands is put on them, the more bloody minded they will become. The empire may be gone, but the english are still the people who fought two world wars, and lost that empire, to make sure that the germans did not win.

Brexit is, politically, irreversible.

 

[Borachio]

Depends on the timescale you're talking about.

Who's to know what will happen in, say, 200 years time?

 

[uppi]

No way would some of the EU's governments agree to let the UK stay without imposing on it a lesses status than it had before brexit. And no way will a majority of the british people agree to a deal under pressure: the more demands is put on them, the more bloody minded they will become. The empire may be gone, but the english are still the people who fought two world wars, and lost that empire, to make sure that the germans did not win.

Brexit is, politically, irreversible.

I was just pointing out, that the possibility is there. I think as well that the current crop of UK politicians would never make the necessary concessions. They seem to be so inept at European politics that they probably would not even see the need for it.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure I'd see the point of reversing on Brexit anyway. The damage is already done, with something like 15% off the currency value.

That's a lot. And a noticeable price hike on food prices.

 

[Takhisis]

And even if the worst comes to the worst, the UK will be trading under WTO rules in 2 years time.

There is a reason why everybody tries to make deals with their trade partners rather than fall back on WTO rules.

Why would it be a "return" if we never left?

Right now the UK is on its way out. Without a plan, without leadership, without even any civility, but on its way out nonetheless.

Well, the chap who wrote Article 50 said he never included any means of reversing it, so it's not that it can't be reversed, it's just the practical interpretation.

The article itself was included only at the behest of some rather recalcitrant monarchic member state.

No way would some of the EU's governments agree to let the UK stay without imposing on it a lesses status than it had before brexit. And no way will a majority of the british people agree to a deal under pressure: the more demands is put on them, the more bloody minded they will become. The empire may be gone, but the english are still the people who fought two world wars, and lost that empire, to make sure that the germans did not win.

Brexit is, politically, irreversible.

That's the problem. Some idiots who by now haven't even fought either world war have been insisting that they can't let the Germans ‘win the peace’ (sic). I should find my own links, but, yes, while most people don't really mind Germany except once every four years the political class still goes on about the glory of the Empire, the RAF, etc. etc.

 

[Arakhor]

WW2 is rapidly passing out of living memory (let alone anyone who actually fought in it). Still harping on about it now would seem to make bigger fools of us, rather than anyone else.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, yes… that is my point.

 

[Verbose]

But this is isn't a romantic relationship, so the analogy isn't really applicable.

True. It's more of a marriage of convenience. But those DO end up with precisely the same kind of baggage as marriages of love, when either ends.
("The Swedish Theory of Love" says that all relationships must be based on nothing other than mutual sentiment. But established relationships. especially when formalized, do end up with all kinds of secondary attachments. And it is a known aspect of relationships that there is often an asymmetry — that the relationship might not mean quite as much to one partner as to the other.)

The analogy also sort of works (and there are no perfect analogies either) over how downright irrational the British decision to leave seems to many of us. The Brexit process has been jam-packed with symbolism bringing home a point of British rejection of continental Europe.

It's not as if the UK isn't being scrutinized over this.

Oh. I thought WTO rules were the default rules for any country not enjoying a privileged trading status with a bloc of other countries.

Well, yes. But that still means the UK should start building the capacity to handle the border checks that are going to be required to handle imports from Europe that has to be cleared by customs. And build a huge administration to handle the paperwork necessary to process its own exports to the continent. Neither of which seems to be happening, as if the British negotiatiors do not consider the implications of trading on a WTO basis. The WTO or, or EU, certainly won't be fixing this for the UK.

I was just pointing out, that the possibility is there. I think as well that the current crop of UK politicians would never make the necessary concessions. They seem to be so inept at European politics that they probably would not even see the need for it.

Reversal of Brexit is impossible right now. Down the road, who knows? It would seem to hinge on precisely how much of a wall, or cliff to go over, the UK might actually face. Since no one knows, it remains to be seen. But if there's an approaching fall steep enough, even highly unpalatable prospects — unthinkable to accept now — might become politically possible.

The feeling is that the UK needs to decide on a scenario, and prepare. Lots of things can be radically cushioned by planning and preparing in advance.


Moderator Action: Sequential posts merged. Please use +Quote instead of making double or triple posts. ~ Arakhor

 

[HAND]

I'm not sure I'd see the point of reversing on Brexit anyway. The damage is already done, with something like 15% off the currency value.

That's a lot. And a noticeable price hike on food prices.

British supermarkets are now buying more British meat, dairy products, fruit and veg, which is in turn helping to save British farming from going under (dairy especially) because of the fall in Sterling. My dad is a recently retired agronomist (google it), who still gets the gossip from the agricultural world and the general consensus is they are more optimistic now due to the fall in the pound. This rarely if ever gets covered in the media though, a more stable or growing agricultural industry. A lower value pound is no disaster, and it'll develop an export economy over time for goods and services. Many analysts (including Deutsche Bank) were saying the pound was over-valued and the current range is better a fit for the UK/Sterling.