Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So Theresa May has said that Article 50, which will allow the UK to leave the European Union, will be triggered before the end of March next year. Is this soon enough/too soon? Thoughts?

(article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-theresa-may-march-2017-brexit-a7341236.html)

It has to happen eventually. As long as all the details can be ironed out and made as beneficial as possible for all parties involved, I don't mind when it is invoked.

But hey, I have very little wisdom of this whole process.

Sounds rather sound. But I guess Britain will not get the deal they want (free access to European market without restrictions). The deals of Norway, Swiss, Russia and others are rather bad if you ask me.

While I approach this from an American point of view, ultimately if the UK is determined to do this, the sooner the better.

That said, I dont think the pro Brexit people are going to get what they really wanted or promised out of this and I dont think it will be beneficial in the long run for them, though I also dont think it will be as bad as some Remain people have claimed. I think ultimately it will be a very costly nativist reshuffle driven by internal self interested politics that gives the nationalist crowd their bone and ultimately maintaining a similar trade status quo, at the cost of a diminished voice and lack of input on greater European affairs and a few years of economic shakes and wasted resources shuffling everything around.

That would be my guess anyway

EU is struggling to hold some of its weaker nations like Greece together.
Brexit and article 50 have to be invoked. However it does not mean we have to cut all EU trade, they need our money as much as we need there's.

The trade hoes both ways and UK spends alot on German cars, French cars and such.

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I approach this from an American point of view, ultimately if the UK is determined to do this, the sooner the better.

That said, I dont think the pro Brexit people are going to get what they really wanted or promised out of this and I dont think it will be beneficial in the long run for them, though I also dont think it will be as bad as some Remain people have claimed. I think ultimately it will be a very costly nativist reshuffle driven by internal self interested politics that gives the nationalist crowd their bone and ultimately maintaining a similar trade status quo, at the cost of a diminished voice and lack of input on greater European affairs and a few years of economic shakes and wasted resources shuffling everything around.

That would be my guess anyway

Probably right. But as long as the flip side of the coin on that diminished voice in Europe is a greater one at home, you know something? I'd be satisfied with that outcome. It's basically what I was after when I voted.

 jhe90 wrote:
EU is struggling to hold some of its weaker nations like Greece together.
Brexit and article 50 have to be invoked. However it does not mean we have to cut all EU trade, they need our money as much as we need there's.

The trade hoes both ways and UK spends alot on German cars, French cars and such.

It's precicely because of Greece etc UK won't be given too good deal. Access to market without free movement of people? Forget it. UK won't be allowed to cherry pick what they want.

And exit without deal is hurting UK more than EU so EU side isn't even too much under pressure.

Then there's stuff like French very happily taking banking business from London...UK decided to leave so now it's EU don't have any particular reason to consider what's good for UK. Since economy is not "everybody gets rich" you could even say less for UK, more for EU.

UK should put 1,000% tariffs on all EU goods immediately, and then invite the EU to discuss terms of the exit.

 Ketara wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I approach this from an American point of view, ultimately if the UK is determined to do this, the sooner the better.

That said, I dont think the pro Brexit people are going to get what they really wanted or promised out of this and I dont think it will be beneficial in the long run for them, though I also dont think it will be as bad as some Remain people have claimed. I think ultimately it will be a very costly nativist reshuffle driven by internal self interested politics that gives the nationalist crowd their bone and ultimately maintaining a similar trade status quo, at the cost of a diminished voice and lack of input on greater European affairs and a few years of economic shakes and wasted resources shuffling everything around.

That would be my guess anyway

Probably right. But as long as the flip side of the coin on that diminished voice in Europe is a greater one at home, you know something? I'd be satisfied with that outcome. It's basically what I was after when I voted.

The problem will be if the UK becomes obligated to conform to EU regulations and policies to maintain trade access. At that point the UK just has to go along with whatever the EU puts forth to maintain trade..but without having a say in those regulations and policies. In general, economic success has been lead by greater integration, not a distancing from it, and to maintain that economic strength, it may result in a loss of actual sovereignty if the UK just ends up having to adopt for itself whatever the EU does to maintain competitiveness but without having a vote. That would be the great fear I would have were I a Brit.

 Frazzled wrote:
UK should put 1,000% tariffs on all EU goods immediately, and then invite the EU to discuss terms of the exit.

I'm not sure a nation with an estimated 2.7 trillion GDP wants to get into an economic war with an estimated 13.8 trillion GDP conglomerate.

Its not war. Its business. ;-)
Trade only if its beneficial.

 Vaktathi wrote:

The problem will be if the UK becomes obligated to conform to EU regulations and policies to maintain trade access. At that point the UK just has to go along with whatever the EU puts forth to maintain trade..but without having a say in those regulations and policies. In general, economic success has been lead by greater integration, not a distancing from it, and to maintain that economic strength, it may result in a loss of actual sovereignty if the UK just ends up having to adopt for itself whatever the EU does to maintain competitiveness but without having a vote. That would be the great fear I would have were I a Brit.

There's always been something of an obsession within American politics, and more lately, within British politics, of prioritising economic concerns above all others. But whilst the economy is massively important, every once in a while, something comes along which over-rules it. I believe/speculate that it was a case of leaving the EU now or never, and voted accordingly, determining to accept the short-term economic pain as the price.

Ultimately, any economic agreement signed can be re-negotiated or re-approached later on if you retain sovereign power, and as America has started to find out when they tried to apply sanctions to Russia recently, there's a big world outside America and Europe these days. I don't think we'll be compelled to accept whatever crumbs the EU throws our way,any more than Japan has to do so. I suppose we'll find out which of us is right in a decade.

 Frazzled wrote:
UK should put 1,000% tariffs on all EU goods immediately, and then invite the EU to discuss terms of the exit.

That wouldn't seem wise given that 44% of our exports go to the EU whereas we only make up 17% of the EU's imports (although still what would be the single largest market for them). However a trade war is only going to end badly for the UK.

I would not assume the EU will be around in a decade. It substantially overstepped beyond being a free trade zone to being a defacto united government. Germany cannot support so many client states. It just wanted a market to sell them a bunch of stuff, not have to like be responsible for them and maintain a single currency. . .

With the influence of Africans/MEs the immigration portion has impacted heavily. Welcome to the joy of trying to maintain a welfare state with defacto open borders...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
UK should put 1,000% tariffs on all EU goods immediately, and then invite the EU to discuss terms of the exit.

That wouldn't seem wise given that 44% of our exports go to the EU whereas we only make up 17% of the EU's imports (although still what would be the single largest market for them). However a trade war is only going to end badly for the UK.

Well, the UK does have another option. Something about trade negotiations done by a bunch of guys dressed in red...

(hey France hasn't been invaded since the Beatles, its about time).

 Ketara wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

The problem will be if the UK becomes obligated to conform to EU regulations and policies to maintain trade access. At that point the UK just has to go along with whatever the EU puts forth to maintain trade..but without having a say in those regulations and policies. In general, economic success has been lead by greater integration, not a distancing from it, and to maintain that economic strength, it may result in a loss of actual sovereignty if the UK just ends up having to adopt for itself whatever the EU does to maintain competitiveness but without having a vote. That would be the great fear I would have were I a Brit.

There's always been something of an obsession within American politics, and more lately, within British politics, of prioritising economic concerns above all others. But whilst the economy is massively important, every once in a while, something comes along which over-rules it. I believe/speculate that it was a case of leaving the EU now or never, and voted accordingly, determining to accept the short-term economic pain as the price.

Ultimately, any economic agreement signed can be re-negotiated or re-approached later on if you retain sovereign power, and as America has started to find out when they tried to apply sanctions to Russia recently, there's a big world outside America and Europe these days. I don't think we'll be compelled to accept whatever crumbs the EU throws our way,any more than Japan has to do so. I suppose we'll find out which of us is right in a decade.

All true, and I'm not saying anything for sure will happen one way or another, only what I think are potential scenarios, but there's a real chance of this all basically ending up being a big flop that costs a lot of money for some symbolic but ultimately irrelevant internal sovereignty in exchange for a loss of actual international (and by extension, internal) sovereignty.

Japan's position is different. She doesnt have a bad deal, but her economic interest also isnt as high in the EU as Britain's, and her trade is emphasized in different sectors, most of which dont have quite as much regulation and deep integration the way the UK's do. Japan exporting PS4's and cars isnt the same as Britain's financial services, so there's some wonkiness in the comparison.

 Frazzled wrote:
I would not assume the EU will be around in a decade. It substantially overstepped beyond being a free trade zone to being a defacto united government. Germany cannot support so many client states. It just wanted a market to sell them a bunch of stuff, not have to like be responsible for them and maintain a single currency. . .

With the influence of Africans/MEs the immigration portion has impacted heavily. Welcome to the joy of trying to maintain a welfare state with defacto open borders...

I'm not so pessimistic. Yes there are growing pains but the principle of a united set of nations working under a common framework for the betterment of the group as whole is not such a bad thing. It's not really that far from being the same principles of states in the US, but with a more guidance legislative body through the use of Directives leaving the details up to each member state.

I don't think its reasonable to say Germany is supporting all the states. Both France and Italy have substantial economies and others also have reasonable economies. It's just they are more use to working together.

It is a UKIP 'trap' to fall into the Africa/ME asylum issue as being an EU immigration issue. Free movement only applies to EU citizens, the question being whether we retain this open movement approach (which I hope they do as I don't believe that the piece of rock you were born on should constrain your prospects).

Didn't Italy almost go bankrupt a few years back?

Who's actually in charge in the EU?

 Frazzled wrote:


Well, the UK does have another option. Something about trade negotiations done by a bunch of guys dressed in red...

What, you mean this lot????

Sorry can't get social media here. But if its helpful:
From the negotiation firm of Wellington and Howe:
http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/topic/32165-red-coat-army-577-and-counting/

 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't Italy almost go bankrupt a few years back?

Who's actually in charge in the EU?

Well it was more their banks, but Italy (and Spain) didn't really have the resources to bail them out (unlike the UK). Effectively the EU provided a conditioned loan (bailout) to ensure this didn't happen but did require them to reform their methods of operation to more modern standards.

There is no particular person or group in charge of the EU. Each member state, generally has an equal say and has a parliament based on the proportional representation of the whole populace (who vote through Directives and legislation). Presidency rotates every year or so to each of the member nations but are little more than figure heads in reality (they have no direct control, but can set policy direction for their tenure). Nominally Jean-Claude Juncker is one of the most influential people as like all parliaments it is split into different groups and Juncker is well supported by the European's Peoples Party (which is a conglomeration of a fair number of liberal-conservative national parties) and also the largest such party. The country they have no representation is the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry can't get social media here. But if its helpful:
From the negotiation firm of Wellington and Howe:
http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/topic/32165-red-coat-army-577-and-counting/

Ah that's unfortunate. Anyway it was a video of morris dancers in red.

As I recall the EU Parliament doesn't decide what laws it votes on so you missed out a significant part of how the EU is run; the Commission which is what initiates legislation.

Also there's the Council.

This thread is part of the general UK Politics thread so I shall lock it to avoid duplication.