- xperts estimated the bare minimum amount of time for negotiating and consummating new trade deals was five years, and that that would be very unlikely to be achieved in practice. Moreover, trade negotiations can fail, which means there is a a possibility of it taking much longer.
So the UK was already faced with a gap of at least three years, and more likely longer than that, between when it left the EU and had a new trade regime in place, particularly with its most important trading partners on the Continent.
But the BBC interview with the EU’s most senior trade official reveals it’s even worse than that. The negotiations of the UK’s departure from the EU and new EU trade arrangements cannot take place in parallel. They must be sequential. No new deal talks with the EU until the exit is completed.
And the EU Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, also said the closest analogue was the negotiations with Canada (and recall that Canada is held out as one of the models for a post-Brexit relationship), took seven years to negotiate and will take an additional one or two years to ratify.
AND the thing everyone keeps forgetting is that the European Commission is currently busy. One of the complaints the Brits had about the EC was the glacial pace. Well, that's because they are doing an enormous number of things already. And what priority are they going to give renegotiating trade deals with a rogue state that split away from their union? And, when pressed to accelerate the renegotiation of contracts and terms with Britain, which member states' current business will be put aside to make room in the schedule? Is the EC really going to tell Spain and Greece and Hungary and France that the legislation they are waiting for is going to be delayed for another 5 years because we have to deal with breaking up with Britain? Yeah, right. That ain't gonna happen. That would just accelerate the defection of other member states. "WHAT?!? You are dealing with that bunch of splitters first, instead of dealing with Member State issues first?!?" That's just not gonna happen. Britain is fucked.
Oh man, if only that were the worst of it. Currently the headline figure in the Leave campaign (Boris) apparently only campaigned to leave as he felt it would bolster his leadership bid until he realised in terror that he accidentally won. Partly by choice, and partly by being denounced by his campaign running mate Gove, he ruled himself out of the leadership campaign. Gove himself, a human glove puppet who is known by fans of children's TV over here as Pob, has spent the last few years going on the record denying he has the capacity, skill or desire to lead, and now has thrown his hat into the ring along with four others. Of those four the only credible frontrunner voted remain, before changing her mind once she tasted a whiff of a chance of power. She's fun. A while back she campaigned to repeal the EU convention on human rights. She implemented a selection of draconian immigration laws. Whilst this naked scramble for power happens on the right wing, the left is undergoing an internal coup which is tearing their only viable party apart. I'm starting to think that voting to leave was a much more inventive act of civil disobedience by underrepresented strata of society than veen's cited 2011 riots.
It was super close the last time they had a referendum for that, though. 94% turnout, 50.58% vs 49.42%.
Yeah, the separatist's loss was attributed (probably rightly) to the "ethnic vote" which caused a whole debacle about the Quebecers being a bunch of racist xenophobes. A reputation that still stands to this day. I don't think they'll ever get as close again, the youth mostly doesn't really care about politics, and there are a lot more immigrants now that there were back then. But it kind of sucks our provincial politics are still divided by separatist/federalist policies. I'm stuck voting for ONE party because everyone else it at least somewhat separatist and I refuse to fuel their shitty fire. Provincial elections suck.
That's why I called it stray talk. But it's there. Hell, even The Guardian entertained the idea a few weeks back.
Yeah. But I mean, you're still doing it too much credit, right? It's not anywhere near the same process. I guess you probably live in Texas? I used to as well. No one thinks about that on any meaningful level except Perry's idiots when they're trying to garner kneejerk votes from people who think it's funny to say that Lone Star is the national beer of Texas.
Honestly? I don't think I'm giving it much credit at all. First I admitted it was stray talk, then I linked to a Wikipedia article showing how the people who take the subject seriously are a half bit loony. Even in my original comment I said such a thing would "be a bad idea." We're honestly in total agreement here from the get go.
Lesser of two evils. I can't imagine ignoring 17 million Britons is going to be easy for anyone involved. Remember the 2011 riots?
I shit you not, Europe's love of rioting is one of the most common things I hear from conservatives in America who hate liberal ideas where I live. I'm neither so I end up playing all fences and see everyone's different views, and I hear way more details about European rioting than I see on TV. Usually links to YouTube and Twitter feeds and crap and it drives me up the wall.
I have never heard of something like that! It's true we have hooligans who occasionally riot for fun / as an outlet for aggression, but regular riots are hardly a European thing. I think it's more true that the US has few riots. But you guys have more mass shootings in a month than Europe has (not-soccer-related) riots in a year.
2011, when people made off with mad swag and certainly didn't implicate themselves on social media for later arrest.