If we vote for Brexit what happens

Herzlos

Rinoa wrote: »

Theresa May will lead UK Brexit negotiations.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-may-idUKKBN17Y11X?rpc=401&

I'm happy with that.

Has she actually said anything on substance yet?

We know she's hoping for a good deal for both, and the brexit means brexit, and that she's approaching it with goodwill. But none of that means anything.

Rinoa

Herzlos wrote: »

Has she actually said anything on substance yet?

Absolutely not.

If she had she'd be pretty useless as our chief negotiator.

mrginge

Rinoa wrote: »

Meanwhile.

Manufacturing growth at 3 year high.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39777755

Remember we haven't left yet.

gfplux

WengerIn wrote: »

Wasn't the accusation that he tried to block the EU from implementing tax avoidance policies? I don't recall Luxembourg breaking any rules although happy to be corrected.

You are corrected. OK?

gfplux

Filo25 wrote: »

The UK's best hope is that EU unity starts to crumble as we get into the nitty gritty of negotiating a deal, and we start to see clearer divisions between the various nations in how they approach the deal.

If that doesn't happen though people can talk about the trade surplus for the EU with the UK as much as they like, but in terms of size of economies the boot is very much on the EU's foot (we are more exposed to the EU economy than they are to the UK one) and due to the red lines we have drawn, it may come down to a choice between a bad deal and no deal, and I haven't seen much sign of realism from anyone on how disruptive no deal would be to the UK economy (and to a lesser extent parts of the EU economy as well).

Nobody is saying we won't continue to trade with the EU in the absence of a deal, but that trade will become more expensive and more bureaucratic, and current supply chains will be disrupted, Ireland is the obvious EU country which will suffer major negative consequences as well.

Just to reiterate, like pretty much everyone else here I am hoping we achieve a good deal, I have just never shared the optimism that it is likely to be achieved given the red lines we have seemingly drawn in negotiations.

I like it. It's like playing chess and hoping your opponent does not see the mate in two moves.

gfplux

Rinoa wrote: »

Were Luxembourg ever punished for the illegal sweetheart deals arranged whilst Juncker was in charge.

Never, just like Conservative MP who bought their election wins.

gfplux

vivatifosi wrote: »

OK... But if the scale is that impossible, why did the EU put a two year timescale on leaving?

Well you know why. It was never ever envisioned that a member would leave. Particularly a member (Britain) that had a better deal than any other of the 28!

gfplux

Herzlos wrote: »

1. The scale isn't impossible, it's likely doable but May is giving off the impression she can bang an agreement out in a couple of months.
2. There's no precedent; they had to go with something and 2 years seems reasonable.
3. There's a clause to extend it if agreed by both parties.

I live in mainland Europe and my impression is that it will be a HUGE VOTE LOSER to any European politicians who would want to extend the two years.
They all want Britain GONE. Just like a high temperature.

gfplux

mrginge wrote: »

I don't know whether it's doable in two years, because it's a very complicated process with many different issues to be addressed.

I do know though that deciding to throw away your principles because the other side has a cry before we've even sat down and got into any serious discussions isn't really the best way to demonstrate a position of strength.

Or perhaps it is?

gfplux

vivatifosi wrote: »

I didn't get the impression (rightly or wrongly on my part) from reading the notes from FAZ and Forbes that she was saying that she could get a deal in a couple of months, more that she would have liked to have solved one particular part: ie the rights of emigrants and immigrants, in June.

Given that there is supposedly willingness on both sides for this and comments by both that they would like it resolved sooner rather than later, I don't see why that is an unreasonable timescale

You are perfectly correct.
However IF YOU ARE IN CHARGE of the negotiations and you SPECIFICALLY say "nothing is agreed until EVERYTHING is agreed" you don't let the other side of the negotiations knock a few sweet treats early on.