Tesseraction posted:

oh hey a left-winger came out with a reason to leave the EU that isn't entirely dogshit http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/08/eu-reform-green-brexit

Tesseraction posted:

Well, it provides an impetus for the EU to improve - if one country is willing to leave, the thread of other countries to do so becomes more realistic than if we keep going "no really, we're leaving this time!" and then doing nothing.

It's not to say leaving will definitely improve the EU, but that in her eyes it provides a more realistic root to improving it.

quote:

The real reason Southern Rail services have imploded

“The thing is, I don’t believe this stuff about staff shortages.”

That is what I said, and it doesn’t sound like a magic phrase, but it was as if I had said ‘open sesame’. I had gone to a different station to usual, and the conversation with the member of the station staff went like this.

I had asked why there were no trains on their running timetable to London. It was odd, even by the low standards of Southern Rail, to have them take the trains they couldn’t run off the timetable altogether. Usually, they just mark them as having been cancelled.

“Well,” she said. “It’s still the problem with staff shortages.”

It was then that I finally expressed my disbelief. It wasn’t until I said it that I realised how very little I did believe in the train company’s standard excuse. I mean, only few weeks ago, Southern Rail was claiming it was unprecedented sickness amongst the train crew. Now they appeared to be saying the train crew didn’t exist at all.

And in any case, why should any competent company experience a sudden, prolonged and catastrophic staff shortage, immediately after the short train strike in April, that prevents them from running a large chunk of the trains they are contracted to run?

“You’re right,” she said. “It isn’t true.”

“So what is the truth?” I said hopefully.

“I can’t tell you that because I would be sacked.”

I had to ask a number of other staff members to find out – and I had the chance to see a number of them yesterday because it was such a struggle getting to London (there are supposed to be two direct trains every hour).

The answer, it appears, is that the company has banned the railway staff involved in the two-day strike from doing overtime, to stop them clawing back their lost money.

The trouble is that their roster system relies on overtime. Without overtime, they can’t run the train service that people rely on. The result, as anyone unfortunate enough to live on the south coast at the moment, has been absolute chaos – a wholly unreliable service which at weekends becomes dangerously overcrowded. Sarah had to climb over a table to get off the train late on Sunday night because it was so full of passengers who had been let down time and time again by cancelled trains.

Now, there are a number of peculiar things about this, and they follow on from the central implication. Southern Rail is a private company (part of Govia Thameslink Railway) that are messing their passengers about, deeply inconveniencing their lives and meetings, in order to punish their own staff. In other words, they are doing it by choice.

Of course, we may not believe that story either. I'm sure there are other reasons why the company is not allowing overtime. I can't pretend I know what they are and they are certainly not saying.

What does ring true is that they could run a service – I was told that the depots are full of train crews who are not being allowed out to do their jobs, though I find it difficult to believe – but they have decided their passengers can be inconvenienced in order to teach staff a lesson.

Here are the odd things.

First, because this is not London, the media have not ferreted out the truth and put it on their front pages, and asked why the company directors are drawing down government subsidies (£8.9bn over seven years) while they are failing to provide the contracted service. There appear to be no journalists capable or empowered to turn up at the depot and see for themselves.

Second, there have been no questions in Parliament. My own MP Nick Herbert has made a statement and had meetings with the Department of Transport, as he explained yesterday. But then he still believes the staff shortages yarn.

Third, why is Southern Rail not afraid of losing their franchise? Does the regulator know and approve of this punishment or do they not? If they don't know, should they not investigate? If they do know, are there any circumstances, short of outright criminality, where a private contractor can have the quality clauses invoked to lose their franchise?

Is there no level of incompetence where the regulator will step in and act in defence of the customers?

Because if so, that isn’t what privatisation was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be about providing a competitive market, to force utilities to be sensitive to the needs of customers – the precise opposite of what has happened with Southern Rail.

Because it isn’t clear to me what the difference is between a featherbedded public monopoly and a featherbedded private monopoly – clearly there are no competitive or regulatory pressures on Govia Thameslink/Southern Railway. It is even conceiveable that the senior management of GTR don't know either.

I have no theoretical problem with privatisation. Quite the reverse, as long as the operator is transparent and accountable. I believe in shaking up services so that they do what they claim to. But this regime has allowed a wholly indefensible feather-bedding that allows one company to make a point to its staff – forcing them into an overtime drought that is mainly suffered by their customers.

A kind of industrial action in reverse. Once again, it is those who depend on the service who get it in the neck.

If that isn’t a scandal that ought to be handed over to John Humphreys, I don’t know what is.

quote:

I've just received this comment, which I reproduce here in its entirety: Hi David,
I have just seen your blog post on the current situation at southern rail and would like to clear up some confusion around the situation.i, as most of you commuters am extremely fed up of the company spun and lies and am looking for a platform to shed some light on he situation. I tried to comment but as a non gmail user I was unable to do so. You have my permission to post my email however if you chose to do so I want it posted in its entirety if that's ok. I am an employee of southern so would appreciate it if you would refrain from making my email address public.

I know the current situation is extremely infuriating but it needs to be looked at from two sides. firstly the current agreement between govia and the DFT.
This is in fact a management contract which differ's from every other agreement throughout the country. All other TOC's hold something called a franchise agreement. Everyone is different but essentially they r responsible for the day to day running of that network. They have specific requirements they have to meet but they generally make the decisions, however with govia's management agreement they have no control or make no decisions. All he terms, targets and and plans have been set out by the DFT. Govia are simply there to implement the changes.
This is unique and has occurred for one reason and one reason only. A test bed for the rest of the country.

In 2011 a report called the McNulty report was published sand set out a number of wide ranging proposals for cutting cost on he railways. Since then the DFT has been putting together a plan to 'streamline' costing on the railway. One of the major changes was to rid the network of guards. (Along with many other members of staff)
What we are seeing (along with arriva Wales and first scotrail) is the beginning of these changes. Many people have asked why MP's and media outlets have been so quite on the matter and as to why govia have no fear of losing the franchise. This is because they are purely the axemen. The DFT will not remove them as they want the company to be the face of the changes to avoid huge public objections aimed at the conservative government. The senior management are purely being told what to do. It's written in their agreement. I have been through the 668 pages of the agreement and they are given financial bonuses based on the inline notation of the changes. However only a freedom of information request will allow us to obtain the actual financial figures. The CEO Charles Horton was brought in to do a similar job (albeit in a smaller scale) at connex. Peter wilkinson speech was an insight into the DFT's and governments plans. It also per toy aligns with the plan to rid the country of unions.
After many failed attempts with filed bills both in the House of Parliament and House of Lords, the conservatives see this as a perfect opportunity to kill of the unions. No staff = no members = no unions.

Secondly you have to appreciate the serve lack of staffing and staff moral within the company. For years the franchise has relied upon staff working rest days to cover the basic timetable. It's estimated the company is operating at 80% staffing levels. Hence you have the current problem. The company has indeed removed rest day working from striking staff members causing the problems you are experiencing. This will unfortunately never change to conserve profits. They would rather be under staffed and pay overtime when needed then have the required number staff and have some being 'spare' when staff sickness/holiday levels are low. I can also confirm that morale is at an all time low. The pure nastiness and bullying from senior management has been on a level never experienced before.
I hope this has cleared up some issues and hopefully opens the eyes of many of the travelling public.
I hope you are able to spread this to as many people as possible.
Kind regards

HJB posted:

not voting for whoever we think will do the least damage.

Tesseraction posted:

That reminds me that John Harris has another brilliant piece in the Graun today:


I skipped plenty, but it's well worth reading.

Tesseraction posted:

yeah it's now Wapping in Surrey

Zephro posted:

There will be a lot if residual bad feeling with nowhere to go which is kind of worrying in itself

Zephro posted:

There was an FT breakdown of who was voting Remain and who was voting Leave that was interesting on this. Being a Labour supporter was strongly predictive of remain, as was being in the A or B social class, as defined by the ONS. Being in social class C1, D or E was strongly predictive of Leave. In other words, Labour supporters are voting in the same way as the middle classes, while the working classes - ie Labour's traditional supporters - lean strongly Leave. Which is pretty strongly indicative that Labour is becoming more and more of a middle-class-only party.

SUNKOS posted:

I feel like that's why we're in for a scary/depressing weekend regardless of the outcome of the referendum.


What are the chances for future everyone-except-the-Tories coalition governments, though? If it wasn't for UKIP I'd imagine that Labour, SNP and the Lib Dems etc. could all form a coalition government? I remember in one of the debates during the last general election Sturgeon was laying the offer of a coalition to Miliband on the common ground of keeping the Tories out of power, and although he declined I'd imagine that Corbyn would be much more open to the idea since it seems unlikely that Labour will ever win Scotland back.

Guavanaut posted:

Perhaps the only one of these things that isn't bad. Or as bad.

Chocolate Teapot posted:

Enjoy losing everything forever, PLP

OvineYeast posted:

a) its membership base will collapse, and with it the party finances
b) it will lose a good chunk of its current voters, but is unlikely to gain any more (the old Labour/Tory swing voters are over in UKIP now, they're not coming back)
c) It will never win an election again

This is all pretty obvious, isn't it?

OvineYeast posted:

You might make a point for c), but a) and b) are certainly not happening (the opposite, if anything - Labour's gained votes since the last general election and also *a lot* of membership).

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

no one knows for sure, but there is a compelling point being made that it is in the interest of the EU to gently caress the UK right hard over this, as an example to quell any other movements in other member states. We don't know that will happen, but if the continent moved to punish the island, the leverage the EU has is massive and Britain will be put through the wringer.

Alternatively if Britain isn't totally hosed, this might embolden the separatists in other nations, and end up breaking up the whole project, which would have devastating effects across the globe but in particular absolutely destroy the European economy.

Who knows though, things might be totally fine. But there are a lot of bad scenarios, and none of this had to happen.

Antti posted:

If you don't agree with us then you're a meanie."

quote:

Brexit: Merkel says 'no need to be nasty' in leaving talks

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the European Union has "no need to be particularly nasty in any way" in the negotiations with Britain about its exit from the bloc.

She insisted that deterring other countries from leaving the EU should not be a priority in the talks.

And she added she was not in favour of pushing for a speedy withdrawal.

Britain narrowly voted to end its membership in a historic referendum last Thursday.

Mrs Merkel was speaking after several EU foreign ministers - including Germany's - had urged Britain to quickly implement its exit.

"It shouldn't take forever, that's right, but I would not fight for a short timeframe," she said.

She added that she was seeking an "objective, good" climate in the talks with Britain, which "must be conducted properly".

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had earlier said negotiations should begin as "soon as possible".

He made the comments after an urgent meeting of the six EU founder members to discuss the decision.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he will step down by October to allow his successor to conduct talks.

The six countries attending the summit in Berlin - Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - first joined forces in the 1950s and still form the core of the EU.

"We say here together, this process should get under way as soon as possible so that we are not left in limbo but rather can concentrate on the future of Europe," Mr Steinmeier said.

His Dutch counterpart Bert Koenders said the continent could not accept a political vacuum, saying "this will not be business as usual".

TinTower posted:

Pissflaps posted:

Create a second tier of EU affiliation that maximises mutual trade benefits without the political integration. Invite the UK, Norway and Switzerland to join it.

ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:

The aforementioned Boris Johnson column

quote:

This EU referendum has been the most extraordinary political event of our lifetime. Never in our history have so many people been asked to decide a big question about the nation’s future. Never have so many thought so deeply, or wrestled so hard with their consciences, in an effort to come up with the right answer.

It has been a gruelling campaign in which we have seen divisions between family and friends and colleagues – sometimes entirely amicable, sometimes, alas, less so. In the end, there was a clear result. More than 17 million people voted to leave the EU – more than have ever assented to any proposition in our democratic history. Some now cast doubt on their motives, or even on their understanding of what was at stake.

It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so. After meeting thousands of people in the course of the campaign, I can tell you that the number one issue was control – a sense that British democracy was being undermined by the EU system, and that we should restore to the people that vital power: to kick out their rulers at elections, and to choose new ones.

I believe that millions of people who voted Leave were also inspired by the belief that Britain is a great country, and that outside the job-destroying coils of EU bureaucracy we can survive and thrive as never before. I think that they are right in their analysis, and right in their choice. And yet we who agreed with this majority verdict must accept that it was not entirely overwhelming.

There were more than 16 million who wanted to remain. They are our neighbours, brothers and sisters who did what they passionately believe was right. In a democracy majorities may decide but everyone is of equal value. We who are part of this narrow majority must do everything we can to reassure the Remainers. We must reach out, we must heal, we must build bridges – because it is clear that some have feelings of dismay, and of loss, and confusion.

I believe that this climate of apprehension is understandable, given what people were told during the campaign, but based on a profound misunderstanding about what has really taken place. At home and abroad, the negative consequences are being wildly overdone, and the upside is being ignored. The stock market is way above its level of last autumn; the pound remains higher than it was in 2013 and 2014.

The economy is in good hands. Most sensible people can see that Bank of England governor Mark Carney has done a superb job – and now that the referendum is over, he will be able to continue his work without being in the political firing-line. Thanks in large part to the reforms put in place by David Cameron and George Osborne, the fundamentals of the UK economy are outstandingly strong – a dynamic and outward-looking economy with an ever-improving skills base, and with a big lead in some of the key growth sectors of the 21st century.

We should be incredibly proud and positive about the UK, and what it can now achieve. And we will achieve those things together, with all four nations united. We had one Scotland referendum in 2014, and I do not detect any real appetite to have another one soon; and it goes without saying that we are much better together in forging a new and better relationship with the EU – based on free trade and partnership, rather than a federal system.

I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be. There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment. EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU.

British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market. Britain is and always will be a great European power, offering top-table opinions and giving leadership on everything from foreign policy to defence to counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing – all the things we need to do together to make our world safer.

The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal. This will bring not threats, but golden opportunities for this country – to pass laws and set taxes according to the needs of the UK.

Yes, the Government will be able to take back democratic control of immigration policy, with a balanced and humane points-based system to suit the needs of business and industry. Yes, there will be a substantial sum of money which we will no longer send to Brussels, but which could be used on priorities such as the NHS. Yes, we will be able to do free trade deals with the growth economies of the world in a way that is currently forbidden.

There is every cause for optimism; a Britain rebooted, reset, renewed and able to engage with the whole world. This was a seismic campaign whose lessons must be learnt by politicians at home and abroad. We heard the voices of millions of the forgotten people, who have seen no real increase in their incomes, while FTSE-100 chiefs now earn 150 times the average pay of their employees. We must pursue actively the one-nation policies that are among David Cameron’s fine legacy, such as his campaigns on the Living Wage and Life Chances. There is no doubt that many were speaking up for themselves.

But they were also speaking up for democracy, and the verdict of history will be that the British people got it right.

quote:

The EU will treat Britain like Greece

I arrived in Brussels as the Daily Telegraph’s correspondent in early June, 2015. A fortnight later, Alexis Tsipras snubbed Brussels, and called a referendum on the third bailout that was designed to save the Eurozone from collapse.

The terms he was later given - €50bn of assets sold and a de facto control of economic policy surrendered - were so harsh they were later denounced as a "coup".

It taught me two things: that in the cause of its salvation the European Union can be profoundly flexible and exceptionally brutal, and that events can swiftly take a momentum that is hard to control.

Nothing of that experience gives me hope for the years that now await our country.

Britain is almost certainly out the European Union

As far as Brussels is concerned, Britain has left.

At home on Friday morning, Britons were dumbstruck, agog at the result, or chuffed at having taught Brussels a lesson.

We now see street protests to overturn the result, internet petitions, suggestions that the UK or Scottish Parliament could revoke it or somehow make it go away. Westminster is occupied by Labour coups and Tory successions. Few seem to believe we are going.

In Brussels, they have been ready to say goodbye for a long time. Britain had been half-way out the door for forty years. David Cameron had announced this referendum in January 2013. He had won an election on the back of it, and many expected him to lose it. He, and they, repeated many times that it was final and binding. Patience is exhausted.

On Friday there was grave sadness, but no panic. The timetable for the talks was announced days before the vote. Martin Schulz, the president of the Parliament, spoke at dawn; Donald Tusk, the president of the Council, delivered a statement at 07.40 GMT. The founding members' foreign ministers met on Saturday; sherpas for the 27 remaining states will meet today to sketch out the months ahead.

Leaders have demanded Article 50 is activated immediately, to create certainty. Realistically, Mr Cameron has until Christmas.

Scotland is ready to quit, and diplomats are quite open to welcoming them into the EU club.

The treaties say that all Britain’s rights and obligations must remain for two years once Article 50 is activated. But Lord Hill, Britain’s commissioner, quit yesterday, and Downing Street said it had no plans to replace him, and Jean-Claude Juncker told Ukip MEPs to pack their bags. Is the legal order fragmenting? What other clauses in the treaties - which protect British expats on the continent, among other things - will now be ignored without consequence?

So the Brexit locomotive has left the station.

Can it be halted?

The European Council has offered a narrow window, saying that Britain has not left until Article 50 is activated formally by the Prime Minister, “if it is indeed the intention of the British government.”

Mr Cameron has left it to his successor to activate it. Mrs Merkel is in no hurry. Senior EU sources say they can wait until Christmas, but prevarication would trash Britain's credit-worthiness.

There are two problems. Firstly, to not activate Article 50 would be a rejection of democracy on a scale that could only be described as a coup, and would poison British public life for generations.

Secondly, a wave of movements demanding referendums on the terms of membership, given a huge boost by Mr Cameron, is tearing across Europe – in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Italy, Hungary. Marine Le Pen could will run rampant in French elections in the spring.

Leaders anticipated that Boris Johnson would pursue a 'vote leave for a better deal' strategy, and ruled it out from February, precisely to prevent this scenario.

Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday: “The repercussions of the British referendum could quickly put a stop to such crass rabble-rousing, as it should soon become clear that the UK was better off inside the EU.” Britain simply has to go, on bad terms, pour encourager les autres.

Britain has very few friends

In European eyes, David Cameron has had a remarkably generous lot: already out the euro, ever closer union, justice and home affairs obligations and Schengen, he was offered an enhanced deal that confirmed the perks of membership with scant obligations.

Yet he attacked Brussels for years for domestic advantage. Mr Cameron campaigned hard against his appointment. Stories about Mr Juncker's alleged drinking and the war record of his father, a conscript in the Wehrmacht, emerged. Yet Juncker offered an olive branch by giving Jonathan Hill the financial services portfolio Mr Cameron craved, in order to preserve the City. He is profoundly angry.

In his brutal negotiation, Alexis Tsipras had a number of cards to play. There was the “solidarity” that EU states are obliged to show each other, the pity and guilt at the plight of the Greek people who had been punished through no fault of their own, and the €83 billion of German taxpayer cash in Greek banks that risked going up in smoke. Their referendum had been hasty, the question unclear, Mr Juncker said; Greeks made plain they wanted to remain Europeans.

No such goodwill exists for Britain, now an ex-member. Mr Johnson, the possible next prime minister, caused genuine and grave offence by likening the European project to the ambitions of Hitler. His declarations that Brexit will trigger events that unravel the entire project is, in effect, a declaration of war that must be met.

Recall how inflexible European leaders were during Mr Cameron’s attempted renegotiation, when he put a gun to their heads and threatened to leave unless they submitted to his demands. He has fired that gun in the air, and locked himself out the room. Britain’s only leverage is how much damage a messy Brexit would inflict on European economies.

Time is not on our side

Once Article 50 is activated, events will move frighteningly fast. It took Mr Cameron seven full months to secure his meagre renegotiation. He will have just two years to get an exit deal covering every facet of British life, and a trade deal that will do the least harm to the fragile, debt-laden economy.

The government is in disarray, the Labour party in meltdown, and the imminent exit of Scotland means it will be unclear with who or what, exactly, the EU is negotiating with. The French foreign minister yesterday implored Cameron to find a successor to take charge.

A ban issued from Downing Street on Brexit preparations – lest it boost the leave campaign – meant Britain’s most senior officials were permitted to “think” about a Brexit, but not allowed to write anything down.

Several take their guide from Flexcit, a book by a blogger Richard North that advocates a Norway-style deal as a half-way house under a “soft” exit. The crucial weeks ahead of polling day were spent in purdah, tending the garden.

The UK has next to no trade negotiators, and will need hundreds, to replicate the market access it currently has with 50 states around the world .

But the EU is ready. Talks in Jean-Claude Juncker’s in house think-tank began months ago. Foreign ministries have been preparing position papers. Lawyers are busy: Brussels has had 70 years of practice in writing treaties, signing trade talks, fixing accessions and bailouts, making and breaking nations.

Britain has very few friends

In European eyes, David Cameron has had a remarkably generous lot: already out the euro, ever closer union, justice and home affairs obligations and Schengen, he was offered an enhanced deal that confirmed the perks of membership with scant obligations.

Yet he attacked Brussels for years for domestic advantage. Mr Cameron campaigned hard against his appointment. Stories about Mr Juncker's alleged drinking and the war record of his father, a conscript in the Wehrmacht, emerged. Yet Juncker offered an olive branch by giving Jonathan Hill the financial services portfolio Mr Cameron craved, in order to preserve the City. He is profoundly angry.

In his brutal negotiation, Alexis Tsipras had a number of cards to play. There was the “solidarity” that EU states are obliged to show each other, the pity and guilt at the plight of the Greek people who had been punished through no fault of their own, and the €83 billion of German taxpayer cash in Greek banks that risked going up in smoke. Their referendum had been hasty, the question unclear, Mr Juncker said; Greeks made plain they wanted to remain Europeans.

No such goodwill exists for Britain, now an ex-member. Mr Johnson, the possible next prime minister, caused genuine and grave offence by likening the European project to the ambitions of Hitler. His declarations that Brexit will trigger events that unravel the entire project is, in effect, a declaration of war that must be met.

Recall how inflexible European leaders were during Mr Cameron’s attempted renegotiation, when he put a gun to their heads and threatened to leave unless they submitted to his demands. He has fired that gun in the air, and locked himself out the room. Britain’s only leverage is how much damage a messy Brexit would inflict on European economies.

Time is not on our side

Once Article 50 is activated, events will move frighteningly fast. It took Mr Cameron seven full months to secure his meagre renegotiation. He will have just two years to get an exit deal covering every facet of British life, and a trade deal that will do the least harm to the fragile, debt-laden economy.

The government is in disarray, the Labour party in meltdown, and the imminent exit of Scotland means it will be unclear with who or what, exactly, the EU is negotiating with. The French foreign minister yesterday implored Cameron to find a successor to take charge.

A ban issued from Downing Street on Brexit preparations – lest it boost the leave campaign – meant Britain’s most senior officials were permitted to “think” about a Brexit, but not allowed to write anything down.

Several take their guide from Flexcit, a book by a blogger Richard North that advocates a Norway-style deal as a half-way house under a “soft” exit. The crucial weeks ahead of polling day were spent in purdah, tending the garden.

The UK has next to no trade negotiators, and will need hundreds, to replicate the market access it currently has with 50 states around the world .

But the EU is ready. Talks in Jean-Claude Juncker’s in house think-tank began months ago. Foreign ministries have been preparing position papers. Lawyers are busy: Brussels has had 70 years of practice in writing treaties, signing trade talks, fixing accessions and bailouts, making and breaking nations.

We don't get to be Norway

The Leavers’ best hope – a Norway deal that means EEA status, retained rights for the City and immigration - is almost certainly off the table.

Britain has made clear it doesn’t want free movement – and so any deal on those grounds would be so impossibly fragile as to be a waste of time. Frankfurt and Paris would certainly like our banks. Mr Juncker is determined to undo Britain's attempt to create a multi-currency union, meaning clearing houses that trade in Euros and generate billions for the Exchequer will have to be domiciled in the Eurozone.

Leaders have made clear, before and after the vote, that Britain is not getting access to the single market.

“Out is out,” said Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister, some weeks ago.

“There will certainly be no cherry picking,” confirmed Mr Juncker, saying it will be a "clean" divorce.

More likely is a Canadian-style trade deal, that will set tariffs on imports and exports. That may be fine for German manufacturers. But Britain’s service economy will be cut up like an old car. British graduates are about to learn what it's like to use an Australian-style points system.

We do not control this process

Article 50 is designed so that it leaves any state that activates it is a supplicant.

The remaining EU states will negotiate between themselves and deal with the UK as one, just as they would for Albania or Turkey.

If a deal covering trade arrangements isn’t struck once the two-year period expires, Britain is simply released from the EU treaties and left on crippling WTO terms - something the Treasury terms a "severe shock scenario" and which it envisages would likely result in a cut in GDP of six per cent and increase unemployment by 800,000, not including the risks presented by emergency spending cuts, or the "tipping points" presented by the crystallisation of financial stability risks.

It means the government will effectively be forced to take any fait accompli presented at the last minute, or face ruin.

Even then, any further trade deal will require ratification by EU parliaments, meaning Belgian MPs, amongst others, can veto it.

The Leave campaign is fond of a quote attributed to Churchill: “Each time we have to choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea.”

Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee, For those in peril on the sea.

MrFlibble posted:

You think after what we've done to the stock market the eu's gonna say "alright, I suppose you can stay"?

I doubt we get even the same deal as before but considerably shittier and also no veto or say in anything that people were floating before.

Palpek posted:

This isn't this simple though. A politician saying that he/she will ignore the results of the referendum (which not invoking article 50 would be) is political suicide as well as it would mean telling the majority of the country that their opinion doesn't mean poo poo after all. Basically both invoking and not invoking article 50 means the end to the political career of the person doing it which is the whole point of the scuffle happening now.

Zephro posted:

The more I think about a second referendum the more I wonder. The oil price is low, Scotland isn't going to want the Euro, the Spanish will fight it because of the precedent it sets, etc. The only way I could see it working is if Scotland somehow inherited the UK's old seat, but I have no idea how/if that'd work legally.

SquadronROE posted:

What's the chance that the Brexit'ers just say "Well guys the EU won't let us out without severely punishing us!" and they'll back down from pulling out?

They'd be able to still blame the EU for society's ills without actually damaging the economy.

blowfish posted:

This is the best case scenario. And it's exactly what this

looks intended to lead to.

awesome-express posted:

Gove would make a nice fall guy for invalidating the referendum tho

Breath Ray posted:

I'm curious: why would changing how we trade with the EU 'kill' the UK economy, and what is meant by 'kill'?

LemonDrizzle posted:

Excerpts from Theresa May's leadership campaign launch speech: http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/theresa-mays-launch-statement-full-text.html


"No change for the foreseeable future" sounds very much like "no Article 50 for the foreseeable future".