4 ms·

Yeah, but she's just posing and is not credible in this respect. It's a bit like hitting the nuclear self-destruct button or something. Germany and France are m

Yeah, but she's just posing and is not credible in this respect. It's a bit like hitting the nuclear self-destruct button or something. Germany and France are making it quite clear that access to the common market includes reasonably free movement of people, compliance with EU law, paying into the pot, and sorting out the situation of UK residents in the EU (also a problem) and EU residents in the UK. Methinks the chance that EU residents will lose the right to legally reside in the UK is close to nil - at the very least those that are there already. What will more likely happen is that the UK will get a deal a bit like Norway or Switzerland where they basically apply EU laws and without having a say on what they are, and business as usual will resume in the name of keeping the City intact - with UK voters more disgruntled than ever.

jonknee 10y ago
> Germany and France are making it quite clear that access to the common market includes reasonably free movement of people, compliance with EU law, paying into the pot, and sorting out the situation of UK residents in the EU (also a problem) and EU residents in the UK. That's all well and good, but all of those things are what people were voting to get rid of with a Brexit vote. It will be a tough sell.
- ddebernardy 10y ago
  Indeed, but that's what awaits them. Hell will freeze before the UK gets the EU perks without the costs, if only because the EU leaders are adamantly determined to set an example to flush any "let's leave the EU" incentives in other countries. For better or worse the UK will serve as an example that other nationalists will turn to and say "hell no we don't want this after all". The deal the UK will get will not be something to be looking forward to. I for one am fully in support of putting them in the same position as Norway, and that's probably more than EU politicians will be happy to accept. That is: UK pays EU fees without the discounts they've negotiated for years on end, complies with EU laws, and gets free market access in exchange for freedom of movement. And without voting rights. There has been no shortage of walking on eggs since the UK has been around in the EU. And the voters were still unhappy, so if anything, good riddance. Then again EU leaders aren't very open to this idea insofar as I understood, because it's a great deal. Another scenario would be to give them the same deal as Canada: apply EU laws just like Norway, and pay into the EU, without any vote. Oh wait! Yeah, voters will not be happy. But hey, they're the ones accepting that their politicians lie to them. Yet another scenario is that the UK does not leave the EU. It might happen, after all. Will that be democratic? No. But it will be "constitutional", if one can use that word for a country that has none. Yet it certainly might be the lesser of all evils. Truth is we don't know, and "tough sell" is not part of the equation. The UK is not in much of a position to negotiate. Especially with the quack they put at the top of their Foreign Office - who somehow managed to insult just about every foreign nation out there before even getting his new job. Credit to the new PM in this respect: she's making the chap own it.
  - kyriakos 10y ago
    currently the most likely scenario is that UK will prolong the uncertainty as long as it benefits them, ideally until the market stabilises.
midgetjones 10y ago
> It's a bit like hitting the nuclear self-destruct button or something. The words you picked show in a despairingly ironic way that she's not afraid to push the button https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-takes-aim-at-jeremy-corbyn-over-trident-renewal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-... This is the most right-wing government we've had for a long time.
- ddebernardy 10y ago
  Dunno about the most right-wing bit, but this much I can suggest: if you're a nuclear power and openly boast that you'd hesitate to use it if needed your nuclear deterrance policy goes down the drain. And that basically is what she said insofar as I could tell. Also: what kind of funky debate thing is there in the UK that brings MPs to say "she" before the person they're speaking to? Do they do the same when it's a "he" or do they then use "you" to actually acknowledge that the person they're speaking to is actually present in the room? (I'm genuinely asking; this is not merely rethorical... Though admittedly, I can't imagine Thatcher accepting this type of being ignored as a doormat if it's reserved for women.)
  - DanBC 10y ago
    In the commons MPs talk to the Speaker, not to each other. It's a bit weird.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Also: what kind of funky debate thing is there in the UK that brings MPs to say "she" before the person they're speaking to? The person they are speaking to is the Speaker of the House of Commons. The questions are to be answered by a third person, the Prime Minister. You will note that May also follows the same rules, referring to the people to whom she is (apparently) responding in the third person. (Because, in theory, she is actually, again, responding to the Speaker as to what she would say to the questioner.) > Do they do the same when it's a "he" or do they then use "you" to actually acknowledge that the person they're speaking to is actually present in the room? Absolutely. Indeed, were they not to do so, they would be called out for violating the rules of the House. Incidentally, this isn't actually a funky debate thing that is specific to the UK; if you watch the US Congress you will note that members also refer to each other (except the presiding officer) in the third person even when making what appear to be direct requests like "Will the gentleman yield for a question?" This is because members are generally prohibited from directly addressing each other, they formally address the presiding officer.

jonknee 10y ago

> Germany and France are making it quite clear that access to the common market includes reasonably free movement of people, compliance with EU law, paying into the pot, and sorting out the situation of UK residents in the EU (also a problem) and EU residents in the UK. That's all well and good, but all of those things are what people were voting to get rid of with a Brexit vote. It will be a tough sell.

ddebernardy 10y ago
Indeed, but that's what awaits them. Hell will freeze before the UK gets the EU perks without the costs, if only because the EU leaders are adamantly determined to set an example to flush any "let's leave the EU" incentives in other countries. For better or worse the UK will serve as an example that other nationalists will turn to and say "hell no we don't want this after all". The deal the UK will get will not be something to be looking forward to. I for one am fully in support of putting them in the same position as Norway, and that's probably more than EU politicians will be happy to accept. That is: UK pays EU fees without the discounts they've negotiated for years on end, complies with EU laws, and gets free market access in exchange for freedom of movement. And without voting rights. There has been no shortage of walking on eggs since the UK has been around in the EU. And the voters were still unhappy, so if anything, good riddance. Then again EU leaders aren't very open to this idea insofar as I understood, because it's a great deal. Another scenario would be to give them the same deal as Canada: apply EU laws just like Norway, and pay into the EU, without any vote. Oh wait! Yeah, voters will not be happy. But hey, they're the ones accepting that their politicians lie to them. Yet another scenario is that the UK does not leave the EU. It might happen, after all. Will that be democratic? No. But it will be "constitutional", if one can use that word for a country that has none. Yet it certainly might be the lesser of all evils. Truth is we don't know, and "tough sell" is not part of the equation. The UK is not in much of a position to negotiate. Especially with the quack they put at the top of their Foreign Office - who somehow managed to insult just about every foreign nation out there before even getting his new job. Credit to the new PM in this respect: she's making the chap own it.
- kyriakos 10y ago
  currently the most likely scenario is that UK will prolong the uncertainty as long as it benefits them, ideally until the market stabilises.

midgetjones 10y ago

> It's a bit like hitting the nuclear self-destruct button or something. The words you picked show in a despairingly ironic way that she's not afraid to push the button https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-takes-aim-at-jeremy-corbyn-over-trident-renewal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/18/theresa-may-... This is the most right-wing government we've had for a long time.

ddebernardy 10y ago
Dunno about the most right-wing bit, but this much I can suggest: if you're a nuclear power and openly boast that you'd hesitate to use it if needed your nuclear deterrance policy goes down the drain. And that basically is what she said insofar as I could tell. Also: what kind of funky debate thing is there in the UK that brings MPs to say "she" before the person they're speaking to? Do they do the same when it's a "he" or do they then use "you" to actually acknowledge that the person they're speaking to is actually present in the room? (I'm genuinely asking; this is not merely rethorical... Though admittedly, I can't imagine Thatcher accepting this type of being ignored as a doormat if it's reserved for women.)
- DanBC 10y ago
  In the commons MPs talk to the Speaker, not to each other. It's a bit weird.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Also: what kind of funky debate thing is there in the UK that brings MPs to say "she" before the person they're speaking to? The person they are speaking to is the Speaker of the House of Commons. The questions are to be answered by a third person, the Prime Minister. You will note that May also follows the same rules, referring to the people to whom she is (apparently) responding in the third person. (Because, in theory, she is actually, again, responding to the Speaker as to what she would say to the questioner.) > Do they do the same when it's a "he" or do they then use "you" to actually acknowledge that the person they're speaking to is actually present in the room? Absolutely. Indeed, were they not to do so, they would be called out for violating the rules of the House. Incidentally, this isn't actually a funky debate thing that is specific to the UK; if you watch the US Congress you will note that members also refer to each other (except the presiding officer) in the third person even when making what appear to be direct requests like "Will the gentleman yield for a question?" This is because members are generally prohibited from directly addressing each other, they formally address the presiding officer.