Geopolitical impact of Brexit

[Dreadnaught]

A person for whom the matter of freedom of movement of persons is more important than all the other aspects of Brexit is very likely to be a racist, but this misses the point of that exchange. The point is that pretty much all versions of Brexit that retain the freedom of movement are nevertheless likely to result in an outcome that does a great deal "about the reasons they voted to leave in the first place" so your characterization was inaccurate.

What kind of "compromise"--that isn't inimical to the core values, guiding principles and survival of the EU--would you like to see? Can you give some specific examples?

Sorry, but I have to call this out right here. It's garbage to say that changing/limiting immigration as a primary goal is inherently racist. It's as garbage as saying fighting to keep the Kroner is inherently racist.

Policy is policy, and it's absurd to suggest that people who wish to control their borders are racist. The core founding values of the EU were peace and stability through economic union. Not the right of trust-fund hipsters to cruise from city to city on a whim.

This Zionism immigration limits = racisme mindset is a poison to politics on all sides of the Atlantic.

[RandBlade]

I am just telling you that 'that drunk' is the one who calls the shot.He, not Bozo the clown will decide on your visa status. A concept you don't seem to get because you still haven't snapped out of your Great White British dream.

Garbage. Negotiations will determine it, a concept you don't seem to get because you still haven't snapped out of your Great White European dream.

[Hazir]

No RandBlade, for a visafree regime you need a recommendation from the commission. So go ahead and piss them off. I must say that I am surprised you are trying to use the white privilege thing after showing your sense of entitlement and disdain for the 'less savoury'

[RandBlade]

Be realistic. Aimless is more on track, we will get a recommendation so long as we agree to reciprocity, not based upon whether we say nice things about Juncker.

Where Aimless has it wrong is suggesting we will be the ones demanding visas for tourists. We don't do that, we have an established precedent of granting free movement for tourists much easier than free movement to live, work and most importantly claim benefits. It will be uncontroversial for us to agree free, reciprocal tourism while requiring visas for work and welfare.

[Khendraja'aro]

Comical Ali strikes again. Also, Ulbricht: "No one plans to build a wall!"

[Aimless]

Where Aimless has it wrong is suggesting we will be the ones demanding visas for tourists. We don't do that, we have an established precedent of granting free movement for tourists much easier than free movement to live, work and most importantly claim benefits.

No much how much "easier" it may be to tourist in the UK than to settle and work, you also have an established precedent for requiring visas for tourists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_p...isa_exemptions

So perhaps you should qualify your sweeping and factually inaccurate claims about what the UK does or does not do.

[Hazir]

I am being totally realistic. The reality being that your country is a third country after Brexit and that everything is connected to everything and that this has unexpected effects.
One of which could be tourist visas. For reasons that bear no relation to tourism.

Brexit is Brexit.

[Hazir]

And now the Australians want more relaxed travel arrangements too in exchange for a trade deal.

[RandBlade]

No much how much "easier" it may be to tourist in the UK than to settle and work, you also have an established precedent for requiring visas for tourists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_p...isa_exemptions

So perhaps you should qualify your sweeping and factually inaccurate claims about what the UK does or does not do.

Typo I meant to write we won't do that. Autocorrect made it don't and I didn't spot that. Your graphic proves my point, we don't demand tourist visas from any developed nations so why would we from the EU.

And now the Australians want more relaxed travel arrangements too in exchange for a trade deal.

Fantastic! Just what I wanted when I voted for Brexit. Be fairer to the nation I grew up in. I said I wanted to make it better for the Aussies and now my hopes are coming through.

I am being totally realistic. The reality being that your country is a third country after Brexit and that everything is connected to everything and that this has unexpected effects.
One of which could be tourist visas. For reasons that bear no relation to tourism.

Brexit is Brexit.

Bullshit is Bullshit.

11% of Spanish GDP is tourism and by far the biggest source of tourism to Spain is ... the United Kingdom. Nearly 13mn Brits visit Spain annually compared to barely 9mn Germans and barely 8mn Germans and barely 3mn Italians. How much would a loss of British tourism devastate Spain already fragile economic position?

[Khendraja'aro]

Oh, we're doing the percentage deals again? The ones where nearly half of your trades is with the EU and you dismissed*that out of hand as no big deal?

If ~47% is no big deal, why should 11% be?

[Hazir]

Spain alone will not decide on the visa regime you will face. You lot are now reaping what you have sown; by insisting on having trade without free movement you made clear that anybody can exact a price for you not being willing to give free movent. Bozo claiming the two were not linked in the EU forged an unbreakable link all over the world. Congratulations with your clown for a foreign minister.

[RandBlade]

The two are not linked. Nobody is demanding free movement, what is being requested (which is quite standard) is easier visa processing especially for businessmen and students. Nothing wrong with that for anyone reasonable. If you're going to make it easier for a business to invest and develop overseas then you want it to be easier to bring skilled employees and senior executives over etc

As opposed to unskilled, unemployed migrants being able to get on a coach and arrive with equal rights to get universal welfare etc

Boris was right and you're the clown for not wrapping your head around the difference.

[RandBlade]

Meanwhile as potentially millions of impotent snowflakes across the globe seem to want to march to virtue signal their displeasure at a democratic transfer of power ... following the pathetic display of hysteria of most EU foreign leaders having an "emergency" meeting (both the French and British declined to attend that farce) the British PM is confirmed as symbolically front of the queue to meet the new Leader of the Free World to discuss a post-Brexit trade deal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38707524

Impotent 'President' "we'll educate him on Europe" Juncker funnily enough doesn't seem to have a meeting arranged yet to begin re-educating the POTUS. It seems the answer to the "who to call when you want to speak to Europe" quote commonly misattributed to Kissinger is still not him.

[Aimless]

I am finding your transformation into Lewk's racist uncle to be fascinating viewing. Have you guys upvoted each other on reddit yet?

[RandBlade]

Oh, we're doing the percentage deals again? The ones where nearly half of your trades is with the EU and you dismissed*that out of hand as no big deal?

If ~47% is no big deal, why should 11% be?

I never dismissed it as no big deal. 44% and falling of trade is not going to disappear overnight, especially since we want to make a free trade agreement and a customs union with the bloc that provides that 44% and falling of trade. We just want to be able to also form trade agreements with the 56% and rising rest of the world. Oh and were our trade agreements not distorted against them then the rest of the world would make up more than 56%. We've already started preliminary talks with Australia, India and others and as said elsewhere are now going to have discussions with the world's largest single market - the USA.

OTOH imposing visas would inflict actual damage to that 11% and with zero freedom to gain from elsewhere that could only be achieved by imposing the visas.

[RandBlade]

I am finding your transformation into Lewk's racist uncle to be fascinating viewing. Have you guys upvoted each other on reddit yet?

Name one racist thing I said before you sling hollow slurs. I'm finding the crocodile tears of snowflakes coming to naught while things I voted for coming to pass highly entertaining. None of that is racist. Unless you think insulting a drunk white man from Luxembourg is racism.

[RandBlade]

It's especially exhilarating to be repeatedly vindicated at having made the right decision in difficult circumstances to much derision by those with the backing of so-called "experts".

Had we listened to Mr Obama's "back of the queue" threats we'd now have absolutely no chance of getting a trade deal with America. Instead by following in the footsteps of the film Love Actually and repudiating such unwanted attempted bullying by the then American President and doing what we thought was best it now turns out that America is still interested in us after we've done what we decided after all.

What patriot could not be pleased by that? How is that racist?

[Flixy]

Rand, while I think (maybe wishful thinking) that most western countries value actual benefits of negotiations more than personal feelings, do keep in mind that this is not the case all over the world, personal relations are important in diplomacy, which doesn't seem to be Boris Johnson's strong point.

I'd also not have high hopes for good trade deals with the US considering this administration's protectionist stance.

I think Brexit was not a smart choice, but now that's a fact I do hope a deal will be reached that is mutually beneficial. I just fear that the unrealistic expectations from the more hardline Brexit camp will result in no, or a crap deal: the campaign seemed to assume the UK will hey anything they want while not giving in to anything that the EU wants - it's negotiations so compromise will be needed, but I fear the British government will have a hard time selling compromises to the public.

And I do find it odd (and a little ironic) that you have a government negotiating pretty much the most important deals in your recent history while not being elected on any platform related to this. The irony being that Brexit was sold as taking back democratic control, of course. It just seems more logical/fair to me to hold elections worth parties campaigning on their stance on the big issues for these negotiations rather than having a government that was not elected campaigning on any of these issues. Over here when a government resigns the government that takes over is generally restricted from taking action on any controversial issues until new elections are held. Let's face it, the conservative party was elected into government on David Cameron's platform- I think
we can all agree that that's not the government's platform anymore.

[Hazir]

Flixy, even though I agree that the objective should be the most beneficial agreement for both parties, where both parties will separately have to decide what is the most beneficial for them, I think you are forgetting one very important thing. By chosing for a hard Brexit (for political reasons) the government of the UK has effectively chosen for a new relationship with the rest of Europe. This new relationship, which indeed will make them more sovereign, has the important side effect that the cake that is to be divied up in the negotiations is smaller than it would have been under a remain or a soft Brexit. That means that the negotiations are not just going to be about the dvision of the spoils, but also about the division of the losses.

And that means it's going to be exremely difficult to come to any kind of agreement at all.

As for the crowing over a free trade deal with the US; the earliest date for that to start in earnest is in 2019. Basically when Americans are starting to get fired up about the midterm elections. And from the looks of it, no free trade deal will be popular in the USA any time soon. Reports about 'passporting' between the US and the UK for businesses is kinda rich too. As I think it's highly implausible that the USA is going to allow banks that moved operations from the USA to London because regulation is lighter there to operate of those London rules back home. If Trump didn't mean just banks, but businesses, then the Brits who were afraid of losing the NHS under TTIP can be certain they'll loose it under the USA-UK compact.

[RandBlade]

In diplomacy different people have different roles Flixy. May has quite clearly adopted the role of the cool, calm and collected matron that is in charge. Boris is the shooting from the hip kite flyer. Hammond is the quiet but serious money man. This allows Boris to "say the unsayable" and then judging upon the reactions if it goes down well then May can say it herself, if it goes down badly then May can say that's just "Boris being Boris". All sensible administrations have someone like that.

I hold moderate (not high) hope for the US given its protectionist stance. If we take Trump at his word then he wants a deal with the UK and it makes sense given his language to make deals with equivalent English speaking modern developed nations as opposed to third world nations that can undercut the US. I've heard increasing numbers of people suggest a potential "Five Eyes" deal which given the historical and security relations between our nations would make a lot of sense.

I think negotiations will happen and compromise is inevitable but a fair compromise is eminently agreeable. Any compromise will have the numbers to get through Parliament (when the alternative is the hardest of Article 50 exits).

As for your final point that's perhaps the difference between electing parties under PR and individual MPs under First Past The Post. All the MPs in Parliament have their own personal mandate and Parliament is in control of this, we don't have a Presidential system as much as the modern media likes to make it so and David Cameron was not elected President. Half of all Prime Ministers in recent times have taken over in the same manner as Theresa May did and none of them went for an early election. Plus thanks to the Lib Dems we now have the Fixed Term Parliament Act which makes no provision for the PM changing. This makes opposition calls for an early election ring even hollower. At the next election all our MPs will have to be judged accordingly to how they've acted this Parliament by the electorate.

Besides even when there's no change of PM there's no guarantee that governments will honour their platform. In 1997 Tony Blair became PM with a manifesto commitment to no tuition fees. In 1997 Tony Blair abolished free tuition at universities and became the first PM to introduce tuition fees for universities.

[Khendraja'aro]

As for the crowing over a free trade deal with the US; the earliest date for that to start in earnest is in 2019. Basically when Americans are starting to get fired up about the midterm elections. And from the looks of it, no free trade deal will be popular in the USA any time soon. Reports about 'passporting' between the US and the UK for businesses is kinda rich too. As I think it's highly implausible that the USA is going to allow banks that moved operations from the USA to London because regulation is lighter there to operate of those London rules back home. If Trump didn't mean just banks, but businesses, then the Brits who were afraid of losing the NHS under TTIP can be certain they'll loose it under the USA-UK compact.

And even if they do start in 2019 - it will be a looooong time before such an agreement is ratified. I mean, just look at CETA - that one started in 2009. And the finalization of the deal was in 2014 - five years later.

[Hazir]

TBH, ratification will be less of a problem if only 2 parties are involved

[Khendraja'aro]

TBH, ratification will be less of a problem if only 2 parties are involved

I wasn't talking about ratification.*That's the part after 2014 and which is still ongoing.

[Hazir]

And now appearantly the British parliament has to get a vote. Which increases the hope of remoaners that they may stop the folly of Brexit after all.

[Loki]

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-38723261

Looks like David Davis is arguing against parliamentary supremacy...

[Khendraja'aro]

Rand: Hahahahahahahaha hahahahaha *snort* ... ha ha ... ha!

*gasps for air*

I'm dying here!

[RandBlade]

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-38723261

Looks like David Davis is arguing against parliamentary supremacy...

By saying they're going to respect the Supreme Court's decision and have a bill passed by Parliament?

[RandBlade]

Flixy, even though I agree that the objective should be the most beneficial agreement for both parties, where both parties will separately have to decide what is the most beneficial for them, I think you are forgetting one very important thing. By chosing for a hard Brexit (for political reasons) the government of the UK has effectively chosen for a new relationship with the rest of Europe. This new relationship, which indeed will make them more sovereign, has the important side effect that the cake that is to be divied up in the negotiations is smaller than it would have been under a remain or a soft Brexit. That means that the negotiations are not just going to be about the dvision of the spoils, but also about the division of the losses.

And that means it's going to be exremely difficult to come to any kind of agreement at all.

Considering under the now rejected status quo we were paying into the EU over €10bn per annum of course there are losses for you at seeing all those contributions vanish. You were under the naive assumption that the UK must really, really want the Single Market despite having voted to Leave so we would sign up to whatever nonsense you felt like giving to us. That's the same naivety that led the renegotiations under Cameron to be so meaningless, because we wouldn't really vote to Leave. Well we did and we meant it, we've rejected the old deal as not good enough and so now you're losing that money.

If are to come to an agreement then by definition it would have to be for us a BETTER deal than the one we had previously and rejected. You don't reject a bad deal only to accept something that's even worse.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes, yes,*we know about your "my way or the highway"*thinking. You repeated it often enough.

What you still don't seem to understand is that you won't be getting a better deal. Why on earth should you? You've been downright insulting, you massively overestimate your importance and you*kind of ignore that an ex-member will be less positively received than countries which were never members in the first place.

As I said, reality-distortion field.

And now your government has to deal with yet another wrench in the works. The date in*March was already quite ambitious and now, that parliament has to vote on it, do you actually think they'll be able to uphold their timetable? By the way, whatever the date you finally get around to invoking Article 50 (and the negotiations won't start before), you have a serious deadline in*less than two years. That one (in contrast to what your government plans) pretty much won't be moved back from October 2018.

[RandBlade]

We should get a better deal because he who pays the piper calls the tune. We are your number one export market so a trade war would be cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Which means why should we pay you tens of billions of euros a year?

Fully exit without a deal and you won't get a cent off us. If you want more of our money in the future you need to make it worth our while. If it isn't worth our while then no deal.

As for your political project you can continue to destroy your own nation states at your leisure without us now. Go ahead it doesn't affect us anymore and we aren't there to hold you back apparently. Good luck ... oh but then you have people like the Dutch PM saying more integration is a bad idea. Oh dear seems the void of sane sceptic voice is quickly filled with us departed. And by Hazir's own nation too. The irony is delicious.