> 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)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2016/09/05/the-eu-ca...

> 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.

So sad. If you had left out your last sentence, you could have actually made a valuable contribution to this discussion.

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.

She a Conservative traditionalist and most definitely a right-winger. How is that communist?

I swear I have no clue how so many people don't know basic enough history that they are so mistaken by what communism is.

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/05/no-prime-mini...

You must be one of those delusional Brexiters I've heard so much about.

> 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.

> That would hurt the EU a lot and I bet they'd be more open for discussions after that.

Or they would just boot them out. Article 7 TFEU does exist.

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.

You seem a resentful, agitated and vengeful as some of your statements border on the insane. ("UK openly promotes xenophobia" -> ????)

I doubt it makes sense for me to engage in a discussion with you.

> border on the insane. ("UK openly promotes xenophobia"

Yeah, remember this News, where the UK government essentially encouraged those damn pesky foreigners to Keep their trap shut?

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37590044

I agree, that's pretty insane - and it is rather xenophobic, if not encouraging xenophobia.

"The university said the leader of a project had been told only UK passport-holders should be involved in talks on national security and foreign trade."

Well, it states it is a national security / foreign trade issue which I feel is accurate regarding Brexit. I don't view it as racist to not allow foreigners to influence the government on national security issues since the UK is a sovereign country that has interests which clearly conflict with the interests of many EU countries.

Most Western countries have laws to prevent that from happening, including the US. (even accepting foreign donations for election campaigns is limited or forbidden in some cases)

One of the characteristics of an emerging protofascist society is that suddenly people are being disenfranchised because of the blanket reason of "national security".

Another characteristic, by the way, is the thought of forcing neighbors to appease the country by means of economic or military force.

History shows us that these things usually don't work out too well.