Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Biggles]

Are there not some UK GTPlanet posters who will be directly & immediately effected by Brexit?

Having made an effort to get UK citizenship for my kids, my eldest daughter opted to go to university in Holland where, as an EU student, her fees are minimal. She was completely blindsided by Brexit. Nobody knows how Brexit will impact this. My other option is Hungarian citizenship, but as Hungary drifts further & further towards xenophobic, racist nationalism (because that's always worked so well in Europe), that doesn't seem like a particularly secure EU connection.

Meanwhile, my niece, who has lived in London her entire life has just decamped to Edinburgh (her maternal homeland). Nice that the old folks were able to **** up the future for young people.

 

[Liquid]

Are there not some UK GTPlanet posters who will be directly & immediately effect by Brexit?

I am a UK citizen who lives abroad in the EU.

🤬 knows what will happen to my status. I wasn't allowed to vote in the referendum.

 

[Dennisch]

I am a UK citizen who lives abroad in the EU.

🤬 knows what will happen to my status. I wasn't allowed to vote in the referendum.

Better prepare and watch this documentary.

 

[Robin]

🤬 knows what will happen to my status. I wasn't allowed to vote in the referendum.

I'm pretty sure overseas UK citizens were able to vote in the referendum at an embassy. Although I'm not sure if every country had plans in place.

Better prepare and watch this documentary.

Are you suggesting that Britain will fall into a civil war and cease to exist after Brexit!?

 

[Liquid]

I'm pretty sure overseas UK citizens were able to vote in the referendum at an embassy. Although I'm not sure if every country had plans in place.

Due to the sterling efficiency of Flintshire County Council I, apparently, was not a registered expat/proxy voter despite having gone in person to sort it out for the 2015 general election.

The British Embassy in Slovakia is lucky to get its own eMails, never mind sort something out for someone who needs it.

 

[Slapped]

I'm pretty sure overseas UK citizens were able to vote in the referendum at an embassy. Although I'm not sure if every country had plans in place.

Some, but not all. If you've been living abroad for 15 years or more then you automatically lose your right to vote.

 

[UKMikey]

From Private Eye's rotating news page: "Leave.EU chief executive Liz Bilney faces questioning over the antics of Aaron Banks and chums":

BREXIT cheerleader Liz Bilney is heading for a rendezvous with Inspector Knacker ["of The Yard" = the police]. As chief executive of Arron Banks’s Leave.EU, she was the “responsible person” who must account for every penny spent. Now the Electoral Commission has found Leave.EU “knowingly or recklessly” breached the Brexit referendum spending limits, it is Bilney, not Banks or Nigel Farage, who must face the cops.

But was she really “responsible”, or just a convenient figurehead? No one who has read Banks’s self-aggrandising account of the campaign, Bad Boys of Brexit, can be in any doubt as to who called the shots.

Take the book’s entry for 1 August 2015, after one of the 900,000 or so online followers that US political strategists Goddard Gunster had helped Leave.EU collect had complained to Banks that the font in a campaign email was so small he “needed a bloody microscope to read it”.

Banks exploded. “It’s a shame we can’t organise anything. The email looked ****,” he told Bilney. “I expect to see a massive improvement in attitude and performance.” Banks was “appalled by the lazy pace” of the campaign. Some of Bilney’s people were “swinging the lead”. He demanded “daily reports on numbers of registrations, donations and site usage as well as a weekly newsletter”.

Absurd micromanagement
Faced with absurd micromanagement, rants and harassment, Bilney threatened to resign before backing down and apologising. Banks quoted her as telling him she was drinking “a pint of suckitup (her words) and was getting on with the job”.

The Electoral Commission fined Leave.EU for an “unlawful overspend” of “at least £77,380”. Serious though follow-up criminal charges may be, no one can claim that overspending by about 10 percent of the legal budget of £700,000 swung the referendum. The political significance of the investigation lies in the Electoral Commission’s use of “at least”. Leave.EU was meant to have reported not only its spending during the official campaign period but also spending in the months before the cap was enforced that carried over and propelled Leave to victory.

Take the money lavished on the pricey consultants at Goddard Gunster. They and Leave.EU have admitted Goddard did a little more than give Banks the referendum-winning advice that “facts don’t work” in modern politics. One strategist told PR Week the firm had staff embedded in Leave.EU UK offices and ten more in the US assigned to the account. Banks said Goddard Gunster was able to mine social media databases, “allowing it to conduct in-depth demographic polling and recommend precision target-messaging”.

Propaganda budget
For all that, the Electoral Commission said Bilney had failed to report fees paid in the “contractual arrangement” with the firm, which must have been “in excess of the spending limit”. Nor, the commission continued, did Leave.EU accurately report £6m of loans from Banks to Leave.EU. Meanwhile, a look at the accounts of a Banks company, Better for the Country Ltd (which has Bilney on the board), showed it provided £12.4m of “administrative services” to Leave.EU in the year to May 2016. Add these figures together and you glimpse a propaganda budget that may have swung the result, and for which Bilney may carry the can.

At the start of Bad Boys of Brexit, Banks introduces Bilney by saying she fought a losing battle to bring his and his friends’ “antics” under control: “The best she can hope is that they don’t land her in prison.”

 

[Touring Mars]

In more British news.. David Davis looks like he might be resigning due to his own incompetence... or seemingly impossible task of actually carrying out Brexit...

Thought I'd reply in this thread...

If David Davis were to resign, Theresa May would be all but finished - in many ways it might be a political mercy killing, since I reckon May is a lame duck already.

May is about to publish the UK's 'backstop' plan on the custom's union etc. which could determine whether the whole Brexit process officially makes the transition from 'omnishambles' to 'cluster:censored:'.

 

[baldgye]

Thought I'd reply in this thread...

If David Davis were to resign, Theresa May would be all but finished - in many ways it might be a political mercy killing, since I reckon May is a lame duck already.

May is about to publish the UK's 'backstop' plan on the custom's union etc. which could determine whether the whole Brexit process officially makes the transition from 'omnishambles' to 'cluster:censored:'.

Thanks, the British thread is now a US Police thread...

Yeah, apparently she’s spoken to him and is sure he’s not going to be leaving today... it’s kind of staggering just how badly every facet of Brexit has gone...

 

[TheCracker]

it’s kind of staggering just how badly every facet of Brexit has gone...

I think it's rather obvious that Brexit was going to be a shambles from the very start. It was a knee jerk reaction to the sudden rise in support for rightwing nationalist parties and seemingly given very little thought to the actual process and consequences of leaving the EU. I have a feeling that many referendum voters, perhaps me included, voted for remain not because they thought the EU was a great and faultless system of government, but because it was clear that the repercussions of leaving the EU were going to awful for years if not decades to come if we went ahead with it.

 

[baldgye]

I think it's rather obvious that Brexit was going to be a shambles from the very start. It was a knee jerk reaction to the sudden rise in support for rightwing nationalist parties and seemingly given very little thought to the actual process and consequences of leaving the EU. I have a feeling that many referendum voters, perhaps me included, voted for remain not because they thought the EU was a great and faultless system of government, but because it was clear that the repercussions of leaving the EU were going to awful for years if not decades to come if we went ahead with it.

Unfortunately it wasn’t obvious to half of the people who voted.

Even more unfortunate is that those who continue to perpetuate lies are given platforms to do so.


This idiot, for example;

 

[TheCracker]

"David Davis 'also trained to take people out" - he'll do fine on Tinder then.

 

[baldgye]

Here is the leader and cheif campaigner for leaving the EU. Why is he still given a platform to lie to people? Why, after lying to people in order to win a ‘democratic’ vote is this person not facing charges for knowingly lying to the electorate?

Staggering. I don’t understand how leavers can continue to stand by their decision. It’s insane

 

[Touring Mars]

It was a knee jerk reaction to the sudden rise in support for rightwing nationalist parties and seemingly given very little thought to the actual process and consequences of leaving the EU.

I'm not so sure that's all it was - while the Leave campaign was based on many deeply misleading, even downright fraudulent, claims, the Remain campaign was largely fought on the basis that "The EU is deeply flawed, but let's try and change it from the inside!" - and the trouble is that the EU is deeply flawed, but the very concept that a single member state can change it from within is not only flawed but is practically impossible.

Brexit was indeed always going to be hard - and while the UK government couldn't organise the proverbial piss up in a brewery, the shambolic nature of the Brexit negotiations thus far is easily as much the fault of the EU's negotiating tactics as it is the fault of an incompetent UK government. At least Remain supporters were considerably more realistic (and pessimistic) about the desire and the ability of the EU and the UK to negotiate as painless an exit process as possible. Most Brexiteers, on the other hand, were guilty of incredible levels of wishful thinking, believing that a pragmatic solution will present itself by virtue of the fact that, ultimately, both sides will do what benefits them the most. The big problem with that idea is that the only solution that doesn't seriously hurt the EU is for the UK to ditch the idea of leaving entirely - but since that is not going to happen, the EU are practically forced to adopt a hostile stance that will ensure that the UK pays a very heavy price; for the EU, Brexit must cost the UK very dearly - and that is a sad reflection of what the EU has become.

And yet they may well end up rueing the opportunity to make life a little easier for themselves, as the pressure grows over Italy and when the Greek debt crisis drags on. Brexit may soon appear to be small beer in the grand scheme of things.

 

[UKMikey]

And yet they may well end up rueing the opportunity to make life a little easier for themselves, as the pressure grows over Italy and when the Greek debt crisis drags on. Brexit may soon appear to be small beer in the grand scheme of things.

Are we allowed to invoke terms like "schadenfreude" post Brexit or should we be using less German based terms?

 

[PeterJB]

As far as I know the idea of "soft" vs "hard" Brexit didn't come about until after the referendum result, and it's no secret that Labour and the other left-wing parties would stop Brexit completely if they could, which is why soft Brexit is basically being discussed as a sort of compromise, and all the second referendum diatribe are a very good way stalling negotiations as we have less than a year to go and basically nothing decided by a Prime Minister who voted remain, clearly doesn't want to leave, and is making a pig's ear of basically every facet of national leadership.

 

[Mr Tree]

The big problem with that idea is that the only solution that doesn't seriously hurt the EU is for the UK to ditch the idea of leaving entirely - but since that is not going to happen, the EU are practically forced to adopt a hostile stance that will ensure that the UK pays a very heavy price; for the EU, Brexit must cost the UK very dearly - and that is a sad reflection of what the EU has become.

I'm not following the negotiations up close but what move(s) has the eu taken that was to make sure this costs the UK dearly?
As far as I know the eu just won't allow the UK to have an a la carte eu. But like I said I'm not following up close so please correct me.

A more general question. Why would the eu take a nice stance in the negotiations. They've got little to lose as a whole. In 2 years the uk will be gone deal or no deal. The UK will be alone and the eu will have each other so I can't see how anyone could've expected an easier negotiation.

Also there was a deal made with cameron one that once more was quite special as the UK is the only nation to have had these privledges and had the oppertunity to renegotiate. When you then say well not.good enough we'll leave what leverage is left to negotiate? I just can't wrap my head around the idea that the eu is doing something unexpected. This was going to be the clear result all along whatever farage was saying

PS I'm not implying you didn't realise these where going to be though negotiations.

 

[UKMikey]

As far as I know the idea of "soft" vs "hard" Brexit didn't come about until after the referendum result, and it's no secret that Labour and the other left-wing parties would stop Brexit completely if they could

It's a secret to me since Labour are officially committed to supporting the Brexit process.

I think a lot of individuals on both sides of the political divide would like to wish Brexit away as if it never happened if that were possible and that it's misrepresenting the situation to see it in purely political terms.

 

[MatskiMonk]

In 2 years the uk will be gone deal or no deal.

Actually, in 295 days 9 hrs and 32 minutes!

 

[baldgye]

As far as I know the idea of "soft" vs "hard" Brexit didn't come about until after the referendum result, and it's no secret that Labour and the other left-wing parties would stop Brexit completely if they could, which is why soft Brexit is basically being discussed as a sort of compromise, and all the second referendum diatribe are a very good way stalling negotiations as we have less than a year to go and basically nothing decided by a Prime Minister who voted remain, clearly doesn't want to leave, and is making a pig's ear of basically every facet of national leadership.

Labour can’t and won’t stop Brexit. Why lie? The Super Lefty Corbyn refuses to go against Brexit.

Labour COULD fight against Brexit and give people like me some sort of hope that this whole shambolic mess won’t lead in economic ruin for those lesser well off. But they won’t and have refused to do so. Like every political bone thrown Jezzez way, he’s totally ****ed it


Soft-Brexit isn’t a compromise it’s a fallacy. You leave the EU, you get a divorce.

 

[TheCracker]

Brexit was indeed always going to be hard - and while the UK government couldn't organise the proverbial piss up in a brewery, the shambolic nature of the Brexit negotiations thus far is easily as much the fault of the EU's negotiating tactics as it is the fault of an incompetent UK government.

The EU was always going to make it into a messy divorce. They have too much to lose by letting us go with barely a clip around the ear. Like you say, the situation in Greece, which pre-dates any real mention of what became known as Brexit, showed just how in crisis the EU is with it's member states and it's wish to keep them all in order. It's like trying to carry home 28 oranges from the supermarket without a bag. Once one falls its very hard to keep balancing the rest. You're going to end up with a real mess to clear up.

I've heard so many 'leavers' say that the EU has nothing to gain by making it hard for us to leave and from a trade and business perspective that probably true. But that doesn't take into account the, if you like, emotional aspect of us divorcing the EU and all the trouble that will likely cause in the future with others 'wanting out' if the UK can get out with little consequence.

 

[baldgye]

I've heard so many 'leavers' say that the EU has nothing to gain by making it hard for us to leave and from a trade and business perspective that probably true.

My mum tows this line. I mean it’s simple, the EU is a political entity, they can and will take a short term loss on trade for long term power and benefits.

I personally don’t have an issue with the EU. It’s democratic rational and allows more people from more places more opportunities.

 

[Touring Mars]

what move(s) has the eu taken that was to make sure this costs the UK dearly?
As far as I know the eu just won't allow the UK to have an a la carte eu.

It is as much to do with what they haven't done than what they have, but things include ruling out continuing single market access, ensuring that the UK pays tariffs, advising EU companies to avoid buying British components, refusing to negotiate at all until compensation payments are agreed, failing to respect the Good Friday agreement, kicking UK out of the Galileo program etc. - it all strikes me as being unnecessary and purposefully designed to frustrate the process rather than to make things easier. The prevailing theory appears to be 'make Brexit as hard as possible to discourage others from leaving too', rather than working co-operatively towards solutions that ensure as little disruption to both sides as possible.

I can understand why the EU should (and even must) adopt a tough stance toward anyone contemplating leaving the Euro, but not the EU - especially when, as is the case for the UK, it was decided in a simple, clear democratic vote by the people (as opposed to, say, a unilateral decision made by whoever happens to be in charge of Italy, Greece, Hungary etc.).

A more general question. Why would the eu take a nice stance in the negotiations. They've got little to lose as a whole.

I would strongly disagree with that - the UK is massively important to the EU in almost every way, not least as the UK economy is second only to Germany and London being a major financial hub. UK intelligence and military capability is vital to the security of Europe whether or not we're in the EU, so UK-EU relations are still hugely important. I accept that the EU can take the hit of losing the UK - there is, after all, still 27 members and Brexit doesn't affect the Euro - so it begs the opposite question, what does the EU gain from making Brexit as difficult as possible? 'A la carte' EU membership sounds like a pretty good idea compared to how the EU might end up.

 

[baldgye]

I would strongly disagree with that - the UK is massively important to the EU in almost every way, not least as the UK economy is second only to Germany and London being a major financial hub.

Since the Brexit vote however the U.K. fell below France economically.
Also London being outside of the single market opens a raft of huge opportunities for EU nations (like France and Germany) to be the new financial hub of the world.

The U.K. has enjoyed special status and privileges within the EU since we joined and many EU nations where getting pretty fed up with us. It only follows that they would look to take advantage when we are weak.



On your second point about security, I think we have seen how important the EU is to our security in the fallout of the Russian government trying to murder two people in a small British town with a chemical weapon. We went to the EU/UN and the EU used it’s financial weight.

Given our keenness to help the Americans destroy the Middle East, I can see why I weaker U.K. in terms of military, could be seen to many as an advantage

 

[Mr Tree]

It is as much to do with what they haven't done than what they have, but things include ruling out continuing single market access, ensuring that the UK pays tariffs, advising EU companies to avoid buying British components, refusing to negotiate at all until compensation payments are agreed, failing to respect the Good Friday agreement, kicking UK out of the Galileo program etc. - it all strikes me as being unnecessary and purposefully designed to frustrate the process rather than to make things easier. The prevailing theory appears to be 'make Brexit as hard as possible to discourage others from leaving too', rather than working co-operatively towards solutions that ensure as little disruption to both sides as possible.

I can understand why the EU should (and even must) adopt a tough stance toward anyone contemplating leaving the Euro, but not the EU - especially when, as is the case for the UK, it was decided in a simple, clear democratic vote by the people (as opposed to, say, a unilateral decision made by whoever happens to be in charge of Italy, Greece, Hungary etc.).


I would strongly disagree with that - the UK is massively important to the EU in almost every way, not least as the UK economy is second only to Germany and London being a major financial hub. UK intelligence and military capability is vital to the security of Europe whether or not we're in the EU, so UK-EU relations are still hugely important. I accept that the EU can take the hit of losing the UK - there is, after all, still 27 members and Brexit doesn't affect the Euro - so it begs the opposite question, what does the EU gain from making Brexit as difficult as possible? 'A la carte' EU membership sounds like a pretty good idea compared to how the EU might end up.

Yeah I don't find it that odd we finish this negotiation and payments still having to ve made before we start trade negotiations. We didn't exclude the UK from the single acces market, the acces is linked with free travel of persons and goods. Since that's no option for the UK the UK deceides to leave the market it's kind of the entire idea behind this market as was the euro you guys allready didn't have to do...

I can't comment on the good friday agreement so I'll accept that as a valid point as I will with the galileo program.

I'm not saying that you guys aren't an.importznt economy but hom much of it will be left after you leave the eu market? It was one of the strongpoints of your economy.
Markets are highly influenced by politics.

And I get the idea of eu a la carte, but no one has ever got that right. The idea and goal of the eu is unionisation (or how to say this.in english) to then have a eu a la carte is counter productive to it's goal. Was this goal.of the eu not known by the general public? (I'm not even sure most mainlanders are so it's not meant as a.dig)

Again I can be wrong on a lot of this but this is my perspective. I hope I don't come accros as offensive I'm kind of enjoying to see the opinion of UK citizens and you seem to be well read on the subject.

 

[UKMikey]

unionisation (or how to say this.in english)

If you mean everyone doing things in the same (or compatible) ways then I think the term you're looking for is "unification".

 

[baldgye]

It’s the pantomime that never ends

David Davis was able to essentially bully May (the PM) into setting a date for a plan to go into effect. A plan David Davis hasn’t come up with yet and shows no sign of being able too..

 

[TenEightyOne]

It’s the pantomime that never ends

David Davis was able to essentially bully May (the PM) into setting a date for a plan to go into effect. A plan David Davis hasn’t come up with yet and shows no sign of being able too..

He's planned to make a plan for the plan. Surely that's enough?

 

[baldgye]

He's planned to make a plan for the plan. Surely that's enough?

 

[Robin]

Apparently according to the news he's not going now. I knew he wouldn't because it would be the end of May's government. He's a pretty terrible negotiator, far too provocative and arrogant when dealing with EU.