Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TD1]

You must also consider that the UK has a faction which would have been rather happy to have left the EU without having triggered article 50 at all; there would have been nothing stopping a unilateral withdrawal at all, while our continued membership of the EU stops the UK from being able to manage our political and commercial post-Bexit relations with our Atlantic and Commonwealth partners. Greenland can do it and no one cries havoc, but the UK? Bloody Londongrad financiers I swer on me nan rite

My dad is one such. Personally, I think if an amicable agreement can be reached then so be it. But an insta-withdrawal shouldn't be off the table if the EU refuses to play ball, either.

[Loud Whispers]

On the plus side, the long drawn out process does bore everyone to death, keeping all the coke addled hedge fund managers placid

[Sheb]

You must also consider that the UK has a faction which would have been rather happy to have left the EU without having triggered article 50 at all; there would have been nothing stopping a unilateral withdrawal at all, while our continued membership of the EU stops the UK from being able to manage our political and commercial post-Bexit relations with our Atlantic and Commonwealth partners. Greenland can do it and no one cries havoc, but the UK? Bloody Londongrad financiers I swer on me nan rite

That's bonkers. Going for a no-deal break would disrupt fifty billions bajillions different things. Negotiating with other countries is also much, much easier to be done in a post-Brexit thing once thing are settled with the EU rather than trying to do everything at once.

[smjjames]

You must also consider that the UK has a faction which would have been rather happy to have left the EU without having triggered article 50 at all; there would have been nothing stopping a unilateral withdrawal at all, while our continued membership of the EU stops the UK from being able to manage our political and commercial post-Bexit relations with our Atlantic and Commonwealth partners. Greenland can do it and no one cries havoc, but the UK? Bloody Londongrad financiers I swer on me nan rite

That's bonkers. Going for a no-deal break would disrupt fifty billions bajillions different things. Negotiating with other countries is also much, much easier to be done in a post-Brexit thing once thing are settled with the EU rather than trying to do everything at once.

There are people who wouldn't care if it breaks a bajillion things because for them, exiting the EU is worth the disruption.

[ChairmanPoo]

You must also consider that the UK has a faction which would have been rather happy to have left the EU without having triggered article 50 at all; there would have been nothing stopping a unilateral withdrawal at all, while our continued membership of the EU stops the UK from being able to manage our political and commercial post-Bexit relations with our Atlantic and Commonwealth partners. Greenland can do it and no one cries havoc, but the UK? Bloody Londongrad financiers I swer on me nan rite

That's bonkers. Going for a no-deal break would disrupt fifty billions bajillions different things. Negotiating with other countries is also much, much easier to be done in a post-Brexit thing once thing are settled with the EU rather than trying to do everything at once.

There are people who wouldn't care if it breaks a bajillion things because for them, exiting the EU is worth the disruption.

[TD1]

Ah, melodrama. The remoaner's calling card

[Sheb]

Ah, melodrama. The remoaner's calling card

Are you talking to me? I mean, you might not like it, but over the last 60 years, a shitload of thing has been transferred to be done by the EU, from certifying medicine to funding reasearch, managing external tariffs and trade, allocating fishing rights and bajillions of other things. Thinking that the UK would be better off doing them itself is one thing (wrong in my opinion, but at least reasonably wrong). Thinking that all of that can be solved in a few weeks, or even worse that the UK could just have severed all ties right after the referendum and sorted things out afterward is plain bonkers. You need to find alternatives for every single thing that is currently being done through the EU. That simply cannot be improvised.

Even at the current pace, things are disruptive enough that my (Belgian) uni had to set up a Brexit comittee to evaluate and plan for Brexit. I can't even think what a mess it would have been without any transition periods.

[Loud Whispers]

That's bonkers. Going for a no-deal break would disrupt fifty billions bajillions different things. Negotiating with other countries is also much, much easier to be done in a post-Brexit thing once thing are settled with the EU rather than trying to do everything at once.

I don't care about ease, and I certainly question how this process can in any way be said to be easier than having left the EU and actually begin politically managing the diplomatic relations we already do. Often the easy way brooks no development, just as an individual who always takes the easy way develops into a useless individual, where one who takes the challenging way develops into a capable individual. To that end, the apparently easy way has meant we have not even begun renegotiating our relationships with the entire world, and is about as useful as pushing deadlines away usually is. I don't advocate it strongly, owing to my disappointment and low expectations in the ability of our government, but I do know for certain that the civil service would definitely be up to the job provided the government didn't muck about.

Are you talking to me? I mean, you might not like it, but over the last 60 years, a shitload of thing has been transferred to be done by the EU, from certifying medicine to funding reasearch, managing external tariffs and trade, allocating fishing rights and bajillions of other things. Thinking that the UK would be better off doing them itself is one thing (wrong in my opinion, but at least reasonably wrong). Thinking that all of that can be solved in a few weeks, or even worse that the UK could just have severed all ties right after the referendum and sorted things out afterward is plain bonkers. You need to find alternatives for every single thing that is currently being done through the EU. That simply cannot be improvised.

Even at the current pace, things are disruptive enough that my (Belgian) uni had to set up a Brexit comittee to evaluate and plan for Brexit. I can't even think what a mess it would have been without any transition periods.

Yeah loads of stuff has been nicked by the EU from Europeans lol, I voted to leave now because I knew the longer we remained the more difficult it would be to leave, to the point where I was concerned all of our institutions would end up owned by the EU and leaving would be impossible.
Fortunately the UK is not in so dire a position as Belgium for example, so the situation is a lot simpler to solve - with much staying the same. Issues of borders for example brought up earlier would have to be discussed for another EU country, but not for the UK, because the UK never lost control in the first place.

Take for example the regulation of medicines - the European Medicines Agency actually relied upon the pre-existing national regulatory bodies of the EU nations in order to do its job. Thus the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency was never dissolved nor supplanted in role, remaining in place and function to this day.

External tariffs is better managed for the UK from the UK; it simply doesn't do for any reason to have the EU manage UK trade with America or China, and its management has been particularly poor when it comes to actually managing trade with anyone.
This leads to the rather unconvincing situation, at least if you bare with me, from the British point of view. What I mean by this is that the EU has managed trade between Germany and Europe, but has impeded us in the rest of the world. All of our trade with the USA, China, Australia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Japan e.t.c. that we do, we're doing with no EU trade deal, and sometimes even with no trade agreements at all, and certainly with no trade deals. The reality is, the British people are alike the Dutch, in that when it comes to commerce it is never a question of who will permit them, but who will stop them. Materialistic bastards, but it is these individual merchants who fundamentally manage trade - not politicians, not bureaucrats
It will also certainly be a lot easier for the UK to make these relationships with our historical partners abroad having left the EU - since we will be able to benefit our own economy without harming European partners' economies or social goals.

Allocating fishing rights? AHahaha oh good Lord don't get me started on the fishing rights, it damn well drove me up the wall last thread, I'm much too passionate on the topic for my the good of my own health. EU fishing policy has been to the detriment of the world, subsidizing a few fishing cartel families to overfish for catches no one eats, and the UK has paid poorly for the ambitions of our own pro-EU fishing minister. Needless to say, were I in charge, no one would be fishing in UK waters until such time as it was clear we weren't going to permanently run our country's ecosystem aground.

Research is one I kept for last, because while I disagree with the notion that UK Research rests upon the EU, I am also unhappy with both the way UK and EU spending on UK research has taken place. UK government has put in billions of pounds in research and plans to raise that number... Good, EU has put in billions of euros and who knows if the government will match the contribution in the likely event of EU diminishing this, hence why I left it for last. It's a high priority for the future political campaigning to come in the UK, and I am pleased our current government has decided to increase public spending on research from 1.7% to 2.4% GDP, but I think it should be pushed higher still - nevertheless, my issue is not just with the quantity of funds, but where it is being invested.

The majority of the UK's research, more than the UK and EU contributions combined, is self-funded by the private sector - more than half of the UK's research funds itself.
The only issue with the success is that it is much too lopsided a situation, centering nearly entirely around East England, Southeast England and London. More specifically, centered around Oxford, Cambridge and London.
The value of public funding is that it can be directed in places for long term projects which the private sector would be unwilling to risk. Research investors from the UK, EU and abroad are comfortable setting up shop in Oxford, Cambridge and London because of the concentrated access to energy, data, funds, staff, researchers and elite science boffins, but less so in the rest of entire fucking Britain - at least in relative terms, as they do invest in the rest of Britain, just considerably less so proportionally.

Hence EU and UK research funds could have been used in conjunction with infrastructure and education spending in countries like Wales or regions like Northern Ireland or the North East, to set up not just research projects, but larger centres of research diversified throughout the British isles.
Basically:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Triangle_(UK_universities)
This is good, but can this not be reproduced throughout UK? Also, although this is an issue for the UK, I believe this could be valuable to the EU too, especially regarding the West-East divide in the research sector. Smaller government funds can cause more impact for the future of innovation when used in places private pockets won't go!

Lastly, before I go off track and begin rambling further on political situations which do not actually detail anything about the UK-EU provisional transitional soporific initiation of preliminary negotiatory departure, resolving the issues of Brexit beyond Brexit would and will take much time; resolving them and actually leaving the European Union are different things, however. Our government certainly wishes to buy as much time leaving as slowly out the door as it can get before it begins resolving our issues.

[ChairmanPoo]

LW I understand your frustration with EU institutions but I think you overrate both the good faith of the pro-Brexit parties and the international weight of the UK as an isolated medium sized country. Yhat is:  the people driving this don't have the best interest of the common people in mind ( this is not a "left Brexit")  and the UK will be more easily bullied by international actors (USA, China, Russia, India, and now probably the EU too. )

[martinuzz]

Dutch gambling authority has given 4 game companies 8 weeks time to change their games, because they are in violation of the gambling laws.
If they fail to comply, they can face fines up to 850 thousand euros.
The gambling authority will not yet reveal the exact names of the 4 major game titles or companies, but they will say it concerns games that use loot boxes, and have the option that players pay real life money for those, plus the option to trade items from lootboxes between players.
That is considered gambling under dutch law, and has a risk of gambling addiction. It is illegal to provide that service without proper casino permit.

[Kagus]

Dutch gambling authority has given 4 game companies 8 weeks time to change their games, because they are in violation of the gambling laws.
If they fail to comply, they can face fines up to 850 thousand euros.
The gambling authority will not yet reveal the exact names of the 4 major game titles or companies, but they will say it concerns games that use loot boxes, and have the option that players pay real life money for those, plus the option to trade items from lootboxes between players.
That is considered gambling under dutch law, and has a risk of gambling addiction. It is illegal to provide that service without proper casino permit.

This is big, and about bloody time. Nice to see that the ball has actually started rolling.

[martinuzz]

In other news, the Dutch government wants to withdraw internet providers, datacentres and telecommunications companies from the free market.
Not that they want to go as far as nationalizing them, but they will designate these sectors as 'vital sectors' (just like water, and electricity), which protects them from takeovers.

The minister of Economy will get the full authority to forbid, and even rollback takeovers of these companies, if the takeover can in any way compromise national security or public order.

I wonder what this means for Google server farms (of which we have a lot). Probably nothing, unless Google intends to sell them to the highest bidder, in which case we'll appropriate them and own the internets. 

[Sheb]

I think we're talking past each others. I am not aiming to argue whether the UK was better off within or without the EU, we had that argument plenty of time already and our respective positions are clear. I'm arguing that no matter what you think of the EU, the fact is that doing all that was done through the EU and organizing for it is, and was always going to be, a massively complex affair. I'm not saying the UK couldn't do it, I'm saying it's bonkers to think the UK could have organized to do it in a few weeks.

I also totally don't get your argument of "We could be negotiating with our other partners already". You'll be able to as soon as the UK officially exit Europe. Waiting for the current negotiations period just mean that you won't be trying to do so while also negotiating with the EU and trying to manage the chaos of a quick, no-deal Brexit. Especially since for a lot of other countries, it doesn't make sense to negotiate stuff like trade deals until the status of things like the sharing of import quotas between the UK and the rEU.

[Loud Whispers]

LW I understand your frustration with EU institutions but I think you overrate both the good faith of the pro-Brexit parties and the international weight of the UK as an isolated medium sized country. Yhat is:  the people driving this don't have the best interest of the common people in mind ( this is not a "left Brexit")  and the UK will be more easily bullied by international actors (USA, China, Russia, India, and now probably the EU too. )

What makes you think that? I hold Cameron in obvious disregard, I appreciate Bojo's stance on British rhubarb but believe he is a walking wrecking ball in the foreign office who sought to be Prime Minister, Farage is gone, Theresa May is a spylord who hates shitposters an served Remain when it seemed they were winning, then served Leave when they had won, ad shen placed Amber Rudd as home secretary... The only one I think is unequivocally not a dickhead or bugman in some way is Philip Hammond, who has made some meaningful reforms in the UK, but his willingness to make nonsensical cuts to our armed forces, his willingness to accept Saudi donations (of such pathetically small sums!) in exchange for complicitness of their siege in Yemen, means I am eager to see him replaced by someone serious. Corbyn I like personally, but our politics diverge on critical issues.
I recall when May's campaign mouthpiece said the Tory track record on healthcare speaks for itself in showing they care about the NHS, and the audience burst out in incredulous laughter.

Believe you me, I do not think things are ok, it is because I believe everything is so unnecessarily fucked that we are compelled to unfuck it with all haste.

In regards to the latter, this attitude is only known by me through other people, for I hold it in no parts. Reminds me of how throughout history, there have been various instances of this senseless surrender advised by peoples of various motives and fears. When the warlord Cao Cao annexed Jing province without a fight, he was stunned - he found it had a quarter of a million men in its army, a powerful navy, a full treasury, hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain stockpiled, bountiful fields, a safe and benevolent regime ruling over a pleased and populous populace. He thought it so amusing that with all of these forces, the governor of Jing had surrendered without a fight, while the governor's relative Liu Bei continued to fight despite having only 3,000 men and no land. When Lie Bei's prime minister arrived in the southland, he too was shocked that the southland's civil service advocated surrender, when they had an army of 100,000, the strongest and most experienced navy, a formidable river in between them and their foes, numerous capable generals and civil servants - yet advocated surrender, because warfare jeopardized their civil careers, whilst surrender guaranteed it, for they knew their conqueror would continue employing them if they subjugated their own state on their behalf. The southland's Lord ignored their civil service and entirely annihilated Cao Cao's army, with the high estimate of their casualties being a million men, incinerated in a naval battle!

Thus whoever has told you these things, they are giving into a despair which has little reason to exist. The British are like a lion that has become obese, contracted depression and replaced virtue with drinking, convinced it is useless and should schedule its own suicide in a Swiss clinic. Too often I see young adults, so intelligent, yet so useless, not for a lack of skills, training or inherent usefulness, but for a lack of conviction in their own usefulness. Someone who believes they are useless will never be useful, no matter how useful they actually are. They are demoralized and will not stir from their sleepless cots.

Isolated, it seems to too many. New York, Tokyo, London, such names are branded in the world, indisputably. Of the world's nations, few can boast the interconnectedness of the innumerable families of the UK spread throughout the world. Everywhere British ships ply the oceans with their flags held high, Britain goes with them, and it is not just on the traditional traffic lanes that the UK is omnidirectional - how can it be, that so many globalist liberals like my dear Cleggers, now turn around to the country that invented the world wide web, and say it is isolated and alone? Even the most remote Australian can shitpost all over the globe with such an invention.

And of bullying?!! How many centuries have greater powers tried to subdue Britain and fail?!! No, conquerors of the British isles have always had most success when invited to the isles. I can just imagine Elizabeth, Nelson or Churchill going out and saying with our brave hearts of oak, we shall never, never, - we've surrendered, oops, no bully pls.
Surrendered in peacetime, against no enemies, because of bullying by friends. You can see why I am troubled at the lack of imagination by people like my Cleggers.

And international actors? USA remains the linchpin of the Anglosphere, and we do not need to fear becoming the newest US state unwillingly, at a time where US world hegemony has declined due to its own overextension.
China will be proud over us, will do their best to steal our technology and benefit from our services, but that is no different from any other nation - it would be silly to expect them to desire languishing. When it comes to bullying, our geographical distance means we will only be in conflict with China if we choose to send intelligence or naval assets to counter China, and I do not fear these assets being bullied, but rather China's weaker neighbours in Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, of which, I believe we should support Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Japan with indirect support at the very least, but that's another topic entirely. Point is, worst case scenario that the US Navy is undone in the future and fails to contain Chinese pacific ambitions, the UK will not be affected in any case.
Russia? I'm actually concerned that Russia will become a failed state in the future, at which point the UK must step in not to contain Russia, but ensure it does not collapse, lest more of its nuclear weapons end up gods knows where. I would rather have more friendly relations between UK and Russia, but it seems the prospects of this must wait until after Putin leaves power, because Putin is disinterested in alleviating Russia's strategic burdens.
India? Here lies UK: Bullied to death by a recipient of its foreign aid.
EU? Here lies UK: Bullied to death by President Tony Blair and Emperor Macron. Slightly more believable. Clearly the only answer to being bullied to death by the EU, is to dissolve your nation and subject yourself to EU administration. That will solve EU bullying?

I am really rather glad a great power did not delude itself into being bullied to death by its own anxieties, at least I hope so, for we are still yet to leave the EU. Hammond has yet to scuttle our maritime capabilties, May yet to scuttle our state, I don't know what Boris is doing, but for the time being I am certain the UK will continue to rise in prosperity and power provided it can give reasons for its young uns to live. It is rather like the Falklands War, wherein one does not need overwhelming superiority in order to succeed, as one can indeed succeed with parity and even with inferiority. Provided we acquire more imaginative and serious leaders!

I'm arguing that no matter what you think of the EU, the fact is that doing all that was done through the EU and organizing for it is, and was always going to be, a massively complex affair.

Yes

I'm not saying the UK couldn't do it, I'm saying it's bonkers to think the UK could have organized to do it in a few weeks.

Bonkers, yes, impossible - no, but also, not my point. Consider that the UK's current repeal bill has simply incorporated EU law into British legislature, thus meaning no changes have been made. The changes the EU has made can be modified, undone, retained and so on at political leisure, as could be done with a unilateral withdrawal, this is a point separate from the timeframe of leaving itself.

I also totally don't get your argument of "We could be negotiating with our other partners already". You'll be able to as soon as the UK officially exit Europe.

Argument distilled: We will be able to as soon as the UK officially exits Europe.

AS SOON

Minor note, we have not left Europe, tectonic shift happens very slowly. Unless Icelandic magma harvesting has fucked shit up

Waiting for the current negotiations period just mean that you won't be trying to do so while also negotiating with the EU and trying to manage the chaos of a quick, no-deal Brexit. Especially since for a lot of other countries, it doesn't make sense to negotiate stuff like trade deals until the status of things like the sharing of import quotas between the UK and the rEU.

When the results were called and May's cabinet assembled, May, Hammond and Boris were all shipped from country to country, USA to Turkey to South Korea, doing nothing. Even with the USA saying we'd be front of the queue, their till was open but there was no customer. Our government certainly thought it imperative to manage our relations during the negotiations with the EU, during the first legal transitionary period (lmao) and it all got topped off with managing the blowout of May's happy snap election fun time.
Thus going the long route, we have already had to do everything at the same time, now we're just going to have to do it all again. How many times do we have to offend countries by sending them Boris? Is once not enough?

[TD1]

Ah, melodrama. The remoaner's calling card

Are you talking to me?

Em, no.
I was referring to the "some men just want to watch the world burn" GIF.