Seriously? The people pointing out how the country is heading down a massively idiotic path because Rupert Murdoch would like us to are the UK's biggest problem?
I'm going to list a few other candidates for the UK's biggest problem:
* The pound plummeting like a rock.
* Xenophobia, bordering on fascism, being advocated by the press.
* The gradual, quiet, handing of the NHS to private companies.
* Ever growing demand for food banks, most notably by people working jobs that don't pay enough to fulfil basic needs.
* The only vaguely viable opposition to the government self-destructing right when they're needed most.
But sure, its definitely people complaining that are the problem.
How much of the potential benefits were discussed during the Brexit campaign? I thought the campaign mainly focused on the (perceived) negatives of the current arrangement?
Brexit doesn't give £350m to the NHS. Brexit doesn't get us out of ECHR (and that wouldn't be a benefit anyway, since ECHR agrees with UK on over 99% of cases). Brexit doesn't give us control over our spending. Brexit doesn't give us control over immigration.
Theresa May could have done all kinds of things to force favourable Brexit terms for the UK.
For example she could continuously lower corporate taxes for foreign investment for while not activating Article 50 and simply wait until it really hurts the EU. If the EU doesn't give in the UK continues to wait and makes a lot of money in the process, if it does then the UK also wins.
I suspect that the UK's prime minister actually wants to tank the economy to do another Brexit vote. (the EU loves this, just repeat until you get the desired result - that's one of the reasons why the EU will fail)
She really wants to join her friends at the Soviet High Command in Brussels again.
> For example she could continuously lower corporate taxes for foreign investment for while not activating Article 50 and simply wait until it really hurts the EU. If the EU doesn't give in the UK continues to wait and makes a lot of money in the process, if it does then the UK also wins.
As the irish figured out, arbitrarily low corporate taxes are just not possible in the EU. This approach would also alienate all partners that she needs to work with later in the process, so that's probably a pretty bad idea. Additionally, it would put her under massive pressure from the brexit fraction that wants migration control yesterday, no matter the costs. Last but not least, the EU could just take the stance that the continued announcements of the legal government to invoke article 50 constitute sufficient grounds to start the proceedings. The UK could certainly fight this, but well, there's sufficient ways for the EU to make the UK sufficiently miserable in turn. All in all, negotiation tactics that alienate the people on the other side are not a good idea if you're an island and the economy right across the channel is bigger than yours.
> As the irish figured out, arbitrarily low corporate taxes are just not possible in the EU.
Well but sorry, you are wrong here. The Irish selectively made deals with companies, that was ruled illegal. Not having low taxes, which works great in case of Malta. (5% tax for foreign investors)
> Last but not least, the EU could just take the stance that the continued announcements of the legal government to invoke article 50 constitute sufficient grounds to start the proceedings.
I suspect more countries would leave the EU if it did something highly illegal like that, but can't be ruled out. The EU is like the Soviet Union so criminality is part of its nature.
Don't really think that's realistic. In all honesty, the easiest way to tank the Brexit vote would have been to allow MP's a vote in Parliament - which would have been perfectly constitutionally valid - since the majority of politicians "appear" to be against Brexit. If anything, I see a firmer commitment to Brexit over time - as demonstrated by allowing the banks to leave London by not closing down "hard" Brexit.
I didn't mean it in the literal sense that she actually wants government to own and direct 100% of the economy, but she is in my view closer to a Socialist than to a right winger.
A right winger would not want to expand an already bloated government to direct even more of the economy, that just doesn't make sense.
> A right winger would not want to expand an already bloated government to direct even more of the economy, that just doesn't make sense.
Bismarck, who was right wing under the original definition - as a monarchist, and loyal servant of of the Prussian crown - massively expanded the German government by creating the first part-public welfare state, so clearly it's not that clear cut.
Meanwhile the Tories under Theresa May are doing her best to tear down the UK welfare sector. I don't know from where you got the idea she wants to expand government.
Right wingers and conservatives wanting smaller government and fewer powers is a complete myth in my opinion, especially looking at the last few decades of western democracies and republics.
Abortion laws, vice laws, surveillance laws and increased law enforcement powers to name a few things. Just look at the Republicans in the US. They are the antithesis of 'small government'.
> Bismarck, who was right wing under the original definition
No right winger alive today holds Bismarck or the original right wingers in French monarchy as his ideal. I see that people often cite this but I'm really mystified why they do as it adds nothing to the discussion.
Maybe you hope to convince others to like the welfare state because Bismarck did too?
> Meanwhile the Tories under Theresa May are doing her best to tear down the UK welfare sector.
Her attempts are very weak for a right winger.
> I don't know from where you got the idea she wants to expand government.
> For example she could continuously lower corporate taxes for foreign investment
The UK already has very low corporate taxes. If corporate tax rates was sufficient, we should have a steady stream of companies moving from the US, which has nearly twice as high corporation tax, for example.
But as it happens, low corporation tax is not sufficient.
And certainly not while uncertainty over Brexit terms is wreaking havoc on confidence, and many companies are already planning to move.
Funny how people suddenly loose all creativity, Brits are known to be one of the best in making others suffer with legalese moves so I'd definitely expect better.
She could for example say the EU is not cooperative, the UK will stay for the next 5 years and lower taxes for foreign investments to 5% like Malta does. That would hurt the EU a lot and I bet they'd be more open for discussions after that. If not then continue with other creative ideas, the EU can't survive a remaining UK that is actively working towards hurting the EU. (the EU probably will not be able to survive anyway the way things stand right now)
From a moral perspective you couldn't even argue that it's immoral if the UK did this as highest EU officials have publicly proclaimed that they will make the UK suffer so it'll be an example for others.
Or you could actually try and read Article 7. It does nowhere state that you can sanction a country without breach of fundamental laws like basic human rights.
And the most you could do with this Article is take the UK's voting rights.
I'm sure the UK can come up with ways to punish the EU into submission without breaching any laws. (5% tax would be legal) Also how about vetoing almost everything. That's a political tool that has shown to be very effective for centuries.
Either way you slice it, if the UK wants access to the market at advantageous terms she will get it. The question is only how much does she want it.
> It does nowhere state that you can sanction a country without breach of fundamental laws like basic human rights.
Actually, "the risk of a breach" is sufficient. And given that the UK openly promotes xenophobia and racist attacks are on the rise and have been since the Referendum...
Do not expect Europe to play fairly when the UK decides to play dirty, e.g. by trying to actively damage EU member states while being an EU member state..
> And the most you could do with this Article is take the UK's voting rights.
Actually, the EU can take it all, including voting rights.
> I'm sure the UK can come up with ways to punish the EU into submission without breaching any laws.
And I am sure the EU can very easily destroy the UK's economy for the next few decades without much effort, should the need arise. All they need to do is to invoke trading sanctions with any non-EU state that trades with the EU. Let's see if China or the US would rather trade with 40-odd million Britons, or 500 Million EU citizens.
> Also how about vetoing almost everything.
Aka. "the trantruming toddler in the supermarket" - it doesn't work.
> if the UK wants access to the market at advantageous terms she will get it. The question is only how much does she want it.
I agree - and it will cost the UK dearly. After fourty years of special deals with London, the EU is fed up.