Brexit: UK to leave single market, says Theresa May

[K. A. Pital]

Likewise, an 'empire' whose territories consist of a list like "Malta, Gibraltar, the Falklands..." is so unlike historical empires that using the same word for it devalues the word.

Even Malta kicked the British out. Are you sure you're not confusing something?

[Tribble]

Likewise, an 'empire' whose territories consist of a list like "Malta, Gibraltar, the Falklands..." is so unlike historical empires that using the same word for it devalues the word.

Even Malta kicked the British out. Are you sure you're not confusing something?

While K. A. Pital is correct in that Malta is currently a Republic and not part of the UK's overseas territories, it should be noted that Post-WW2 Malta was originally aiming for full integration with the U.K., not independence. It was only after the U.K. dragged their heels (partly because they didn't want other territories and Dominions seeking full integration) and started closing their naval bases that Malta chose to head towards independence instead.

That would have been an interesting scenario - I wonder what would have happened had Malta, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc were fully integrated into the U.K. (including MPs in Westminster) as opposed to going their separate ways? Maybe I should start a thread.

[ray245]

Likewise, an 'empire' whose territories consist of a list like "Malta, Gibraltar, the Falklands..." is so unlike historical empires that using the same word for it devalues the word.

Even Malta kicked the British out. Are you sure you're not confusing something?

While K. A. Pital is correct in that Malta is currently a Republic and not part of the UK's overseas territories, it should be noted that Post-WW2 Malta was originally aiming for full integration with the U.K., not independence. It was only after the U.K. dragged their heels (partly because they didn't want other territories and Dominions seeking full integration) and started closing their naval bases that Malta chose to head towards independence instead.

That would have been an interesting scenario - I wonder what would have happened had Malta, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc were fully integrated into the U.K. (including MPs in Westminster) as opposed to going their separate ways? Maybe I should start a thread.

The dynamics of politics would radically shift to different regions. Immigration would potentially be an even bigger concern.

[Gandalf]

That would have been an interesting scenario - I wonder what would have happened had Malta, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc were fully integrated into the U.K. (including MPs in Westminster) as opposed to going their separate ways? Maybe I should start a thread.

India has over a billion people. Australia and Canada have a combined population of a little under sixty million.

That's a lot of seats in parliament that could be used to right some historical wrongs, such as getting some of our stuff back from the British Museum.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

That would have been an interesting scenario - I wonder what would have happened had Malta, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc were fully integrated into the U.K. (including MPs in Westminster) as opposed to going their separate ways? Maybe I should start a thread.

India has over a billion people. Australia and Canada have a combined population of a little under sixty million.

That's a lot of seats in parliament that could be used to right some historical wrongs, such as getting some of our stuff back from the British Museum.

The UK pop. is about 60M as well- instead what we have instead of the Empire is the Commonwealth.

[The Romulan Republic]

Integrate the Commonwealth, and given its huge population disparity, wouldn't it become entirely dominated by India by default?

You'd need something like the US Senate- a second house of the legislature with an equal number of votes per member state, to off-set that. Or get some other countries with larger populations to join, though the only formerly British one I can think of big enough to even begin to off-set India is American, and even then not really.

[Zaune]

There's also the small problem that you probably couldn't get the British public to go along with any system that doesn't put their boot firmly on everyone else's necks.

[Gandalf]

Integrate the Commonwealth, and given its huge population disparity, wouldn't it become entirely dominated by India by default?

The sight of Britain being colonised by India is... more than amusing. One must form the Indian West Europe Company.

You'd need something like the US Senate- a second house of the legislature with an equal number of votes per member state, to off-set that. Or get some other countries with larger populations to join, though the only formerly British one I can think of big enough to even begin to off-set India is American, and even then not really.

Yeah, I wager somehow a system would emerge where an Indian/Canadian/Australian voter is worth a fraction of a UK one.

[mr friendly guy]

Integrate the Commonwealth, and given its huge population disparity, wouldn't it become entirely dominated by India by default?

You'd need something like the US Senate- a second house of the legislature with an equal number of votes per member state, to off-set that. Or get some other countries with larger populations to join, though the only formerly British one I can think of big enough to even begin to off-set India is American, and even then not really.

We will have the same problems the Euro had. Having a common currency between members with such different economic strength. Did Greece deserved the same rates of interest for credit as Germany even though the latter had a much stronger (and hence safer) economy? We all know the answer to that.

Would India deserve the same as the UK given its GDP / capita is much lower. Actually a better question would Australia with our higher GDP /capita be asked to subsidised UK dole bludgers which UK television love to show on documentaries where the narrator uses a patronising tone, which is then shown on youtube for our entertainment. Or will we be flooded by UK doctors since we pay our doctors better. They already come here, but if we have free movement within this commonwealth....

[Simon_Jester]

Likewise, an 'empire' whose territories consist of a list like "Malta, Gibraltar, the Falklands..." is so unlike historical empires that using the same word for it devalues the word.

Even Malta kicked the British out. Are you sure you're not confusing something?

I was, in fact, confused and incorrect on a matter of fact here. However, I do not think my error invalidates my point.

The list of overseas possessions remaining in British hands is such a shrunken list, and the remaining territories are such shriveled remnants compared to the vast domains Britain once controlled, that using "empire" to describe that list of possessions makes "empire" a word without a meaning.

[K. A. Pital]

It's more like remnants of the empire. Or imperial remnant.

But the British are much less competent than Thrawn and Pellaeon.

[Tribble]

It's more like remnants of the empire. Or imperial remnant.

But the British are much less competent than Thrawn and Pellaeon.

Yes it's such a land full of evil, with all those nasty little places like Gibraltar and the Falklands voting to remain a part of it; they may as well be continuing to vote for Palpatine

[K. A. Pital]

Yes it's such a land full of evil, with all those nasty little places like Gibraltar and the Falklands voting to remain a part of it; they may as well be continuing to vote for Palpatine

But what are they supposed to vote for, if they're actually not populated by the same people as the locals?

I've had this argument before regarding Northern Ireland, the taking of land from American natives and other historical types of settle-and-replace activity: if you successfully colonize a patch of land, does this give you the right to this? It would actually mean that if you take some land, the only way to keep it in a legitimate manner is to replace the locals - who may at some point see you as the colonizer - with your colonists/settlers, and thereby have a population that is always loyal to the metropole and willing to remain a part of it.

It is not a land of evil, and people inhabiting the remnants are not evil either. Evil was done in the past, when expanding this empire.

Now that it is contracting, even the tiniest remaining bits come under assault. It is regrettable, but an expected development. Not having splinter territories, against which other nations have territorial claims, is one of the few long term solutions to this problem. The other solution is being in a territorial union with the nations that have such claims, making the matter a non-issue most of the time, but this has flown out of the window with Brexit.

[Tribble]

But what are they supposed to vote for, if they're actually not populated by the same people as the locals?

To focus on Gibraltar, they could vote to join Spain, or vote for independence. They chose overwhelmingly instead to remain in the U.K., though this may change after Brexit. I don't see this as being illegitimate merely because they were not the "original inhabitants" (neither are the Spanish; Gibraltar's recorded history starts with the Phoenicians and was known to have been settled even before then, good luck finding any of those people to make a claim).

I've had this argument before regarding Northern Ireland, the taking of land from American natives and other historical types of settle-and-replace activity: if you successfully colonize a patch of land, does this give you the right to this?

Which is applicable to practically every civilization on Earth (yes including Native Americans who fought and raided each other over territory just as much as every one else). From that perspective no one really has a legitimate claim to the area that they live in... while there may some truth to that it's pretty impractical.

In the case of Gibraltar, it's been over 300 years... how many Spanish inhabitants do you think are still around who should legitimately be allowed claim it back? Or Moors? Visigoths? Vanadals? Romans? Carthagians? Phoenicians? Should Gibraltar be returned to Spain against the wishes of the people currently living there simply because over 300 years ago it belonged to someone else? If so, how do you reconcile them? Do you kick them out as historical squatters or something?

Aso, if you are born and raised in a place, should you be allowed to have a say about its governance? Or should you be denied if you / your ancestors are not "original inhabitants"?

It would actually mean that if you take some land, the only way to keep it in a legitimate manner is to replace the locals - who may at some point see you as the colonizer - with your colonists/settlers, and thereby have a population that is always loyal to the metropole and willing to remain a part of it.

"Always loyal" is rather stretching it- just to use the U.K., a pretty big chunk of their colonists/settlers decided to violently split off (aka the USA), and most other places have gradually moved towards full independence.

Just because you / your ancestors came from some place, it doesn't mean that you are automatically 100% loyal to it for all time.

It is not a land of evil, and people inhabiting the remnants are not evil either. Evil was done in the past, when expanding this empire.

Glad to hear that you think so, as some of your posts seem to indicate otherwise.

Now that it is contracting, even the tiniest remaining bits come under assault. It is regrettable, but an expected development. Not having splinter territories, against which other nations have territorial claims, is one of the few long term solutions to this problem. The other solution is being in a territorial union with the nations that have such claims, making the matter a non-issue most of the time, but this has flown out of the window with Brexit.

As far as I am concerned, if a population of an area wishes to remain a part of another country / union, they should be allowed to do so. If they want to leave, and/ or join somewhere else, then that's their choice. Forcing a population to do something it is overwhelmingly against would cause more problems than it solves IMO.

Saying that their decision to stay is similar to someone choosing to side with Empire in Star Wars is asinine.

[madd0ct0r]

As far as I am concerned, if a population of an area wishes to remain a part of another country / union, they should be allowed to do so. If they want to leave, and/ or join somewhere else, then that's their choice. Forcing a population to do something it is overwhelmingly against would cause more problems than it solves IMO.

Ironic, given gibraltar voted to remain in the EU

[Tribble]

As far as I am concerned, if a population of an area wishes to remain a part of another country / union, they should be allowed to do so. If they want to leave, and/ or join somewhere else, then that's their choice. Forcing a population to do something it is overwhelmingly against would cause more problems than it solves IMO.

Ironic, given gibraltar voted to remain in the EU

Not really, I already said they might change their mind about staying with the UK now that Brexit is happening and either seek independence and/or seek closer ties with Spain to stay close to the EU. I'm not sure what the public opinion is on that atm, though a cursory glance at the news suggests that not much has changed.

Spain sending warships off the coast isn't exactly helping their cause.

[Bedlam]

Personally I really don't support the idea of a part of a country splitting off from the rest on the basis that the majority voted a different way to them, it seems to go against the general democratic principle.

However, anyone who does support this in general principle do you have a minimal area it should be available to and how is it decided? If there is a vote on a new law and the majority decide one thing and I decide another should I be free to declare myself a new country where that law doesn't apply? Of would the majority of my city have to be against the new law? Or a larger geographical area? If its an area that was historically separate how far back do we go? I'm sure if I've given all of history I can find evidence that any area was once separate from any other area.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

As far as I am concerned, if a population of an area wishes to remain a part of another country / union, they should be allowed to do so. If they want to leave, and/ or join somewhere else, then that's their choice. Forcing a population to do something it is overwhelmingly against would cause more problems than it solves IMO.

Ironic, given gibraltar voted to remain in the EU

Not really, I already said they might change their mind about staying with the UK now that Brexit is happening and either seek independence and/or seek closer ties with Spain to stay close to the EU. I'm not sure what the public opinion is on that atm, though a cursory glance at the news suggests that not much has changed.

Spain sending warships off the coast isn't exactly helping their cause.

We all know how much Sturgeon is pushing for a second Scottish Independence referendum, I doubt that Gibraltar is large enough to make it on its own, unless they decided to throw their lot in with the Scots should they vote to leave the UK.

[Tribble]

Ironic, given gibraltar voted to remain in the EU

Not really, I already said they might change their mind about staying with the UK now that Brexit is happening and either seek independence and/or seek closer ties with Spain to stay close to the EU. I'm not sure what the public opinion is on that atm, though a cursory glance at the news suggests that not much has changed.

Spain sending warships off the coast isn't exactly helping their cause.

We all know how much Sturgeon is pushing for a second Scottish Independence referendum, I doubt that Gibraltar is large enough to make it on its own, unless they decided to throw their lot in with the Scots should they vote to leave the UK.

True, but they might be able to pull something off like an EEA membership.

[Starglider]

Interesting parallel with the Turkish referendum result. 52% / 48% split with the coastal, urban and younger voters (and the preference of the EU beurecrats) just losing to the inland, rural and older voters (based on polling).

[Thanas]

So the UK is getting some blows delivered to them.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... own-jewels

The EU is set to inflict a double humiliation on Theresa May, stripping Britain of its European agencies within weeks, while formally rejecting the prime minister’s calls for early trade talks.

The Observer has learned that EU diplomats agreed their uncompromising position at a crunch meeting on Tuesday, held to set out the union’s strategy in the talks due to start next month.

A beauty contest between member states who want the European banking and medicine agencies, currently located in London, will begin within two weeks, with selection criteria to be unveiled by the president of the European council, Donald Tusk.

The European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency employ about 1,000 people, many of them British, and provide a hub for businesses in the UK. It is understood that the EU’s chief negotiator hopes the agencies will know their new locations by June, although the process may take longer. Cities such as Frankfurt, Milan, Amsterdam and Paris are competing to take the agencies, which are regarded as among the EU’s crown jewels.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that Britain failed to secure the backing of any of the 27 countries for its case that trade talks should start early in the two years of negotiations allowed by article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. The position will be announced at a Brussels summit on 29 April.

Despite a recent whistlestop tour of EU capitals by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, diplomats concluded unanimously that the European commission was right to block any talks about a future comprehensive trade deal until the UK agrees to settle its divorce bill – which some estimate could be as high as €60bn – and comes to a settlement on the rights of EU citizens.

May will have hoped that draft European council guidelines, leaked last month, which took a tough line on the negotiations, including a clause ruling out a trade deal within two years, would have been softened during consultation with the member states. However, the lack of any questioning of the European commission’s position on the timeline surprised Brussels veterans, wearily used to displays of EU disunity.

Senior EU sources claimed that Britain’s aggressive approach to the talks, including threats of becoming a low-tax, low-regulation state unless it was given a good deal, had backfired. “However realistic the threats were, or not, they were noticed,” one senior EU source said. “The future prosperity of the single market was challenged. That had an impact – it pushed people together.”

Another senior diplomat said initial sympathy with Britain had fallen away in many capitals, due to the approach of Theresa May’s government. “Of course, we want to protect trade with Britain, but maintaining the single market, keeping trade flowing there, is the priority, and so we will work through [the EU’s chief negotiator] Michel Barnier,” the source said. “Britain used to be pragmatic. That doesn’t seem to be the case any more, and we need to protect our interests.”

It is understood that diplomats representing the right-wing Polish government voiced concerns about the rigid timetable for the talks in the private meeting on Tuesday, suggesting there were grounds for “flexibility”. Even then the intervention fell far short of backing the UK’s position that there could be parallel negotiations on the terms of withdrawal and the future relationship. A senior EU source said: “No one questioned the phased approach.”

In a further sign of Britain’s isolation, Spain’s right of veto over any future EU-UK deal applying to Gibraltar was not discussed on Tuesday, despite the UK’s anger over the issue, EU sources said. The contentious position is set to be waved into the final EU negotiating position by consensus.

From a commentator on the guardian:

The EU believes it is negotiating with irrational idiots (and on evidence thus far, they're absolutely correct) - the only way to negotiate with an idiot is to do so by limiting damage to yourself, because the idiot doesn't know what they're doing, nor do they understand the damage they're inflicting on themselves.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The EU believes it is negotiating with irrational idiots (and on evidence thus far, they're absolutely correct) - the only way to negotiate with an idiot is to do so by limiting damage to yourself, because the idiot doesn't know what they're doing, nor do they understand the damage they're inflicting on themselves.

Which sums up every single Brexiteer, but it's not just themselves but everyone else in the country that suffers. May isn't just steering the ship onto the rocks, she's crashing into them at full speed. She'll make the second mistake wreckmasters make by backing off of the submerged mountain peak they discovered with their bottom of their ships, thereby sinking in two miles of water.

[jwl]

Personally I really don't support the idea of a part of a country splitting off from the rest on the basis that the majority voted a different way to them, it seems to go against the general democratic principle.

However, anyone who does support this in general principle do you have a minimal area it should be available to and how is it decided? If there is a vote on a new law and the majority decide one thing and I decide another should I be free to declare myself a new country where that law doesn't apply? Of would the majority of my city have to be against the new law? Or a larger geographical area? If its an area that was historically separate how far back do we go? I'm sure if I've given all of history I can find evidence that any area was once separate from any other area.

Gibraltar is not part of Britain, it is part of the British Empire (overseas territories), as I said previously.

That said, I don't think they should just be granted the right to leave automatically. If it benefits our relationship with the EU to eject them, they should be ejected (and perhaps compensated a bit to stop them moaning about it). If it doesn't they should get some of their autonomy taken back and clamped down on for being a tax haven, along with a lot of the rest of the empire.

Right now they may be paying their way in taxes, but that's partially done because they are taking business from Britain with their tax loopholes.

[Alkaloid]

That said, I don't think they should just be granted the right to leave automatically. If it benefits our relationship with the EU to eject them, they should be ejected (and perhaps compensated a bit to stop them moaning about it). If it doesn't they should get some of their autonomy taken back and clamped down on for being a tax haven, along with a lot of the rest of the empire.

Do you feel the same way about, say, Wales? Scotland? The Orkney Islands? Essex? Because if London just starts forcing chunks of land and their populations into or out of the empire based on what's advantageous to 'them', all of those populations have to start thinking about what they could be bought for, and they very likely will do something other than allow themselves to be sold off as soon as is convenient.

[Zaune]

Do you feel the same way about, say, Wales? Scotland? The Orkney Islands? Essex? Because if London just starts forcing chunks of land and their populations into or out of the empire based on what's advantageous to 'them', all of those populations have to start thinking about what they could be bought for, and they very likely will do something other than allow themselves to be sold off as soon as is convenient.

Whitehall setting policy that benefits London and the south-east and either neglects or actively sacrifices the needs of the rest of the country is par for the course, really.