- Joined
- 10 May 2016
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 82
- Country
In the same way as it is yours and HimaginnsFoxtrot Corgi's hobby.
In the same way as it is yours and HimaginnsFoxtrot Corgi's hobby.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/10/02/may-speech-makes-it-clear-we-re-leaving-the-single-marketIn years to come, this will be seen as one of the most disastrous speeches ever made by a prime minister. Not only did she propose a goal which will devastate the British economy, she also gave away her own meagre leverage in securing it.
Britain will be trying to secure a trade deal, which usually takes about seven years, in a two year timetable. Given that it is a trade deal she will clearly be negotiating, it won’t be decided by majority, but by each member state. In some it may even require a referendum. In places like Belgium, it’ll require the agreement of local government in addition to national government. Basically, even if by some miracle she could negotiate the deal in time, she has no chance of ratifying it.
The announcement of the decision about when the UK will trigger Article 50 — the process by which Britain gives formal notice that it intends to leave the EU — was made in a statesmanlike fashion. But the actual content of the decision is reckless and driven by politics, rather than Britain’s national interest.
Once Mrs May triggers Article 50, she has precisely two years to negotiate a new deal with the EU. Senior civil servants have told the prime minister that it is highly unlikely that the UK will be able to negotiate both the terms of its divorce and a new trade deal with the EU within the two-year deadline. As a result, they warned the prime minister that she must have assurances on what an interim trade agreement with the EU would look like in the long period between the UK leaving the bloc and a definitive new deal being put into place.
Unlikely to use them though, as May wants to only use UK advice (no longer using foreigners for advice on Brexit):whereas Canada has offered to lend us 200 business negotiators to help with the Brexit negotiations.
If you're going to screw an economy, you might as well do it properly. The UK has made a mistake, now its doubling down on that mistake, and things like this will only make it worse.It is understood a number of LSE academics specialising in EU affairs have been briefing the Foreign Office on Brexit issues, but the school has received an email informing it that submissions from non-UK citizens would no longer be accepted. Relevant departments subsequently sent notes to those in the group, telling them of the instruction.
Agree with this. Am a remainiac (!) but I don't see the point in wallowing, nor predicting doom and gloom. Time will tell and I do know that being positive, hard work and putting the best heads together isn't going to hurt one bit.And all the remainiacs can do is flap their gums... You can either rejoice in negativity or you can knuckle down and make things work.
Nice that you think the UK is dogs dinner.You can't make a decent meal out of a dog's dinner!
We're about to have less to offer.Nice that you think the UK is dogs dinner.
I don't, I think the UK has a lot to offer.
We're about to have less to offer.
With less foreign students, and scientists, our research will diminish.
Our economy has already been predicted to suffer, and we have seen an increase in racist attacks.
And why? some nebulous ideological, which was won on lies.
Interesting, but not sure how would it help them?One beneficiary of the Brexit campaign would be a terrorist caliphate such as ISIS. A fractured Europe would be a boon for them. Funny how a campaign of terror coincided with the run up to the vote.
Coincidence?
One beneficiary of the Brexit campaign would be a terrorist caliphate such as ISIS. A fractured Europe would be a boon for them. Funny how a campaign of terror coincided with the run up to the vote.
Coincidence?
A fractured Europe would be weaker than a (cooperating) united one. Probably.Interesting, but not sure how would it help them?
In what way?The E.U's current policy benefits the likes of ISIS
In what way?