Right. I think the next election will happen before 2019.
These confidence-and-supply talks sure are taking a long time. I was expecting it to be all sorted by now. And the State Opening’s Wednesday instead of Monday.
The formal Brexit negotiations start on Monday, on a remarkably strong and stable footing on the Team UK side.
Twitter had a nice gif of Verhoevens five questions, like “Do they understand that it’s not the Tories exiting the EU, but the GB” and “Are the Tories speaking for the whole Population” and “Do the Tories still want a hard Brexit given the election results”?
It’s not making already difficult negotations - by narrow timeframe and shit-tons of treaties to start from scratch - any easier when the EU side doesn’t know how much work will have to be re-done in October/ Nov./ Jan. because of another election.
Whatever about "remarkable strong and stable’, there are fears that they may not be quite as well prepared for the off as might be desirable.
Given that the opening had to be delayed - inconvencieng her Majesty the Queen! (I thought that is really bad manners / Close to blasphemy?) - that is not that much surprising.
Disappointing and difficult, of course, but not a surprise.
GB is also staying in the current trend of “Let’s how Little competent govt. a Country really Needs!” - Trump; NL not having finished their coalition yet: you are all trying to break Belgian’s record of Close to 2 years without a govt., aren’t you?
It’s the state opening of Parliament that had to be delayed. The Brexit talks are starting on the date that was discussed last December, and agreed in March.
It’s no suprise to anyone that the talks are starting on Monday. Everybody has known that for months.
It’s also no surprise that the British aren’t ready. But I don’t mean that in a good way.
I wonder if ironically the hung parliament might strengthen the Hard Brexiteers’ hands? If nothing can be agreed then the UK exits the EU with only WTA agreements, which is fine by them, so the soft Brexiteers will have to make major concessions to get their agreement. Or have I not had sufficient tea this morning?
Well - given that the Hard Brexiters repeadetly said that “No Deal is better than a bad deal” - and given that the EU said before this Statement that the timeframe for a hard Brexit wouldn’t fit anyway (several experts said that the British side is severely underestimating how many treaties have to re-drawn basically from scratch, and how Long just one treaty usually takes, let alone a hundred plus - it’s more like “No deal = Standard WTA Agreements happen as Default because everything else requires competent work and time, which are in short supply”.
That the Default will make the “Keep pie and eat it” promise even less likely than a soft Brexit; and that by insisting/ defaulting on hard Brexit, the EU doesn’t have to appear as “bad bully who punishes GB to Keep the others in line” (aka “who doesn’t pay the member fee doesn’t get to Play on the lawn”), but rather as “These guys are so incompetent they can’t find their own line”, is another Problem for the Tories.
Maybe you Need something stronger than tea?
Yes, that’s what I meant. Sorry for not being clear enough.
The Remainers in GB and on the continent have said so since before the Referendum: where’s the plan? What steps and Agreements are you actually voting on?
I remember one article right after the Referendum pointing out that, since GB entered the EU, all international treaties had been negotiated through Brussels, that GB didn’t have any lawyers (not: not enough, not any) specialized enough in international law to actually do this treaty negotiation stuff (which is Kind of important when negotiating treaties for Leaving) and were looking to borrow them from Canada, along with the CEFTA treaty just ratified. (Given how contested in the Population the CEFTA is, whether this is a good idea is another question).
So yes, hardly anybody following in the News is surprised.
It’s still a trainwreck in Progress: fascinating to watch in morbid Horror, waiting how much worse it can get. (Maybe you get Boris Johnson = British Trump as candidate for next elections if the Tories do successfully backstab May?)
Plenty of countries - mainly ex British Empire - are lining up for post-Brexit.
Maybe, but I’m driving later today, and the sun has yet to pass the yard-arm. 
Is this one of those empty phrases? Which ones? On what basis? Will the trade deals be better than what we already have?
Because that’s the important thing here - is all this pain, division and misery worthwhile? Simply saying ‘other countries want to trade with us’ means nothing. Duh, we know. Remainers know other countries exist.
It’s whether they were gasping for the UK to leave the EU because for some reason the EU hampered UK trade - that was a Leave claim in the referendum, but entirely not backed up by any facts or examples.
India, NZ, Oz, for starters.
That will be up for negotiation, of course.
A lot of people to whom I spoke before the referendum said that yes, it would be painful, but worthwhile in the end. You may disagree with it, but we are a democracy, we had a democratic vote, and must live with and make the best of the consequences.
This has already been anticipated, last week they sprang into action:
2010 AD. As Mayor of London Boris ordered/allowed/signed some paper in front of him, taking down guard railings on the current London Bridge.
A mere 7 years later terrorists started murdering people on London Bridge.
Ergo: Boris is to blame. Support Teresa May !
India says UK free trade deal will take years, no negotiations until Brexit complete
But perhaps quick deals with New Zealand (pop 5million) and Australia (pop 24 million) can mitigate the loss of a market of some 700 million people.
So you’ve proven my point - there’s nothing planned, it’s all assumed to be better. As I said, Remainers never disputed other countries will trade with us, but there’s zero evidence that they will be better. IN fact, I’d argue they will be worse.
Balloney. Votes aren’t some sacred cows that can’t be overruled or ignored or re-done. Especially when they harm people in the face of evidence.
If this were a vote on whether or not climate change existed, it would rightly be canned as insane.
It was more that the prominent spokespeople for the Leave side were found - during the campaign! - to be lying about figures, using hate and fear-mongering towards foreigners, and not have any plans or figures on how the Brexit would look like, how to make the “GB will be off better” true.
That’s not a question where both sides agree on the Facts but have different opinions on what strategy is better to adress the Problem. It’s that one side is saying “everything but the weather is terrible terrible because of EU, but if we leave, we will have unicorns and rainbows” (because no plan, but sky-in-the-pie promises), while the Remainers said “Look, here and here and here they are lying, they are doing this for themselves, most of the Problems in GB are because of Thatcher and Tories politics, cutting of our own foot will not make us better at running”
That right after the Referendum was won all the leaders of the Leave Campaign scattered because it was about winning, not about the subject or the Country, doesn’t really help that (or give an Image of competent leadership with just a difference in opinion to the rest of the world: instead, GB is looking like US light, where toddlers Show each other who’s better at jerking the strings of hate-believing Daily-Mail-Readers).
There’s a reason that other countries have rules on Referenda, like that it must be a working draft of a law that gets voted on (and if the ruling Party thinks it’s bad idea, they can provide an opposite draft), so the Population knows what will happen when the majority votes Yes or No.
I mean, if the majority votes for a unicorn*, you still can’t get one, no matter how democractic the vote was.
- Not as national Icon, but “we want a unicorn in our zoo”
Australia has entered into talks for an Aus/EU trade deal (which of course the UK won’t benefit from, as it’s leaving the EU). Aus/UK talks can’t start until 2019 at the earliest, and of course even when they do start Australia’s first priority will be the EU deal, since the EU is much the larger trade partner, and much the larger market. So the net effect of Brexit seems to be that it will delay an Australian trade deal governing UK trade, not accelerate it. Plus, Australia has indicated that one of things it wants out of a UK trade deal is a relaxation of UK migration law to make immigration easier, which is not the kind of thing the Brexiteers have been cheerleading for.
I was mocked for saying November in the last UK election thread, but that’s about the right timeframe I think.
The 4th Thursday in November would give us in the States something to watch on TV besides football or parades.