Pihero wrote:

BTW, Mr Brimlley, you have my apologies for the rather aggressive tone of some of my posts. T'was uncalled for, and certainly unfair to you.

Regards

No problem. I've probably said things on this topic in the heat of the moment as well. Passions have been aroused.

Pihero wrote:

It's only after the two year period , the divorce being agreed to, that both parties will have to start the negs for trade partnership...

That would cause massive disruptions and major harm to the UK economy first and foremost.

It is practically certain that the common market access treaty will be negotiated well before the membership will end, with provisions specifically for the transition between the expiring voting membership and the upcoming voteless external status.

It will most probably be a package negotiation with the two treaties constructed to fit together as well as feasible.

But that is one more reason why goodwill on the EU side is crucial for Britain: Britain absolutely needs the access treaty to be ready when its membership ends.

The EU side won't categorically dictate to Cameron when exactly he is to hand in his official Brexit notice, but it would likely have repercussions for the negotiations themselves if he seriously attempted to string the EU partners along until October.

It actually is primarily in Britain's interest to get both treaties tucked in well before the two-year period, since Britain's primary foe now is uncertainty about what its course will be. Whether the inevitable infighting in London (and between the british regions) will actually allow for that is the relevant question there.

But while Britain will certainly want to exploit its membership benefits to their fullest extent and to the last possible minute, there will be pressure from the continental side to get on with it much earlier than these two years. It is likely that at least some EU members will make any substantive concessions dependent on an earlier exit.

In line with the british EU commissioner resigning from his post it will also be expected that Britain should stop all its voting participation as soon as possible since they don't intend to stay a member. At the very least there will be one positive outcome: At the latest in two years Nigel Farage will lose his seat in the European Parliament and will be shipped back home to the indubitable delight of the british people.

Aesma wrote:

It's more than likely that the immigration talk convinced mostly white people rather than immigrants.

Now the economic situation of many certainly played a role, for the lower middle class, unemployed, and that includes lots of immigrants, however if they have voted leave they have voted against their interests, at least as long as Tories elitists are in power.

So if I emigrate to the UK I'm a "white person" rather than an immigrant?

Seriously people, go study the meaning of words "white", "race", "immigrant", and "racism" before you use them. Immigrants are people of all races and different backgrounds. Also regarding calling Farage a racist in some other posts, even if I wanted to kick every single immigrant out of Finland I wouldn't be racist if I didn't have some kind of a racial discrimination based reason to back my opinion. Most of the time word "xenophobia" is much more appropriate, although even that is overused. If I had some logical (like economic) reason to kick out the immigrants rather than being afraid of differences, then I wouldn't be even xenophobic.

Klaus wrote:

Pihero wrote:

It's only after the two year period , the divorce being agreed to, that both parties will have to start the negs for trade partnership...

That would cause massive disruptions and major harm to the UK economy first and foremost.

It is practically certain that the common market access treaty will be negotiated well before the membership will end, with provisions specifically for the transition between the expiring voting membership and the upcoming voteless external status.

It will most probably be a package negotiation with the two treaties constructed to fit together as well as feasible.

But that is one more reason why goodwill on the EU side is crucial for Britain: Britain absolutely needs the access treaty to be ready when its membership ends.

The EU side won't categorically dictate to Cameron when exactly he is to hand in his official Brexit notice, but it would likely have repercussions for the negotiations themselves if he seriously attempted to string the EU partners along until October.

It actually is primarily in Britain's interest to get both treaties tucked in well before the two-year period, since Britain's primary foe now is uncertainty about what its course will be. Whether the inevitable infighting in London (and between the british regions) will actually allow for that is the relevant question there.

But while Britain will certainly want to exploit its membership benefits to their fullest extent and to the last possible minute, there will be pressure from the continental side to get on with it much earlier than these two years. It is likely that at least some EU members will make any substantive concessions dependent on an earlier exit.

In line with the british EU commissioner resigning from his post it will also be expected that Britain should stop all its voting participation as soon as possible since they don't intend to stay a member. At the very least there will be one positive outcome: At the latest in two years Nigel Farage will lose his seat in the European Parliament and will be shipped back home to the indubitable delight of the british people.

That's not what Mr Tusk is saying - He wants to start the ball rolling in two days.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault want's the conservatives to fill the PM roll in days

The one calming influence in all this debacle has been Angela Merkel.

For the record - I was a Brexiteer and intended to vote that way. But when I reached the ballot box, I voted REMAIN. - Better the devil you know

This petition for second referendum seems rather useless as anyone from any part of the world can sign it without any real method identification. Here in Finland we have a system where you use your bank account to verify yourself. I wonder how many of those 3M votes are fake ones?

pvjin wrote:

I seriously don't get what's wrong with modern neoliberals who are willing to give away their country's independence and abandon all values from democracy to freedom of speech in name of economic growth.

Em . . . you obviously don't see the irony of using a picture of that well-known democrat and champion of free speech, Vladimir Putin, in your profile . . .

A question, how could Theresa May agree to run for the head of the party and ultimately be the PM of a nation going to leave the EU when she was an active member of the remain government mechanism? If she is serious and members agree then David Cameron quit to spite the people?
How would his remaining as PM be any different than May being elevated to the PM position?

Dreadnought wrote:

The anti-Brexit crowd simply cannot acknowledge that those who voted to leave may have done so out of legitimate concerns about sovereignty or economic opportunity or security - that is, that they may have drawn rational conclusions and voted accordingly.

I'm heading into a Birmingham inner-city mosque to break my fast in the next 30 minutes.

I wonder how many of the taxi drivers and restaurant owners there will even know what the word 'sovereignty' means.

Dreadnought wrote:

The anti-Brexit crowd simply cannot acknowledge that those who voted to leave may have done so out of legitimate concerns about sovereignty or economic opportunity or security - that is, that they may have drawn rational conclusions and voted accordingly.

Well that's the thing. I think that pretty much every criticism leveled at the EU is entirely legitimate, just that simply leaving is the wrong way to go about dealing with it.

One thing that popped into my head is that since the UK has to redo their trade deals, it would be wise to approach the UK about entering NAFTA, in spite of the name.

For those from Europe clapping their hands at the UK leaving.... F**K you.
To the people who voted in the UK to leave.... F**k you
For the rest of us, we're just F**ked

pvjivn wrote:

So if I emigrate to the UK I'm a "white person" rather than an immigrant?

No, to those that care, you'd be an immigrant. Just like the Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, etc.

Danno1997 wrote:

That's not what Mr Tusk is saying - He wants to start the ball rolling in two days.

It really doesn't matter what he wants. The ball will start rolling when the UK says.

Danno1997 wrote:

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault want's the conservatives to fill the PM roll in days

It will happen in days. About 100 or so of them.

par13del wrote:

A question, how could Theresa May agree to run for the head of the party and ultimately be the PM of a nation going to leave the EU when she was an active member of the remain government mechanism?

While she was openly in favour of remaining, she maintained a low profile during the referendum, so isn't 'tainted' like most of the protagonists. The election of a replacement for Cameron is a matter for the Conservative party and she's a respected senior politician who will garner a lot of support, not least because she's "not Boris".

IMHO, all the main Leave candidates would be far too divisive to be PM and lead the exit negotiations.

scbriml wrote:

Danno1997 wrote:

That's not what Mr Tusk is saying - He wants to start the ball rolling in two days.

It really doesn't matter what he wants. The ball will start rolling when the UK says.

If the UK tries to exploit that theoretical option, they may find that the path has substantially changed in the interim and various doors have fallen shut due to the delay.

Klaus wrote:

If the UK tries to exploit that theoretical option, they may find that the path has substantially changed in the interim and various doors have fallen shut due to the delay.

So you keep saying. Angela Merkel disagrees with you.

scbriml wrote:

Klaus wrote:

If the UK tries to exploit that theoretical option, they may find that the path has substantially changed in the interim and various doors have fallen shut due to the delay.

So you keep saying. Angela Merkel disagrees with you.

No, she does not.

She has only said that she doesn't insist on an especially short term declaration and that she doesn't want Britain to be treated especially harshly.

That does not mean what you think it does – that she will sit idly by until October while the tories keep playing their internal games in London.

It merely means that she wants no public interference before the EU meeting on Tuesday where she will consult with her EU colleagues (without David Cameron after the initial meeting where he will still be present). There the (non-british) EU leaders will decide on the approach they will take together.

Expect the first positions leaking out on Tuesday evening, then increasingly in the days thereafter.

Angela Merkel may very well just be taking the "good cop" role – it doesn't mean that there won't be a "bad cop" as well – or 26. And Britain absolutely needs to keep good relations with all 27 partners to get favourable treaties into place.

This can be traced right back to the terrorist attacks in New York in September 2001: following on from that there was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which began the period of unrest and destabilisation of the regimes in the Middle East. That led to the Arab Spring in 2011, which led to the fall of Gadaffi and the war in Syria, which in turn led to the refugee/migrant crisis of the last few years. This has fuelled the rise of far right parties in Europe. I have no doubt that a number of percentage points would have been shaved off the Leave vote in the UK had there been no migrant/refugee crisis.

Al Qaeda have blazed a trail of mayhem and destruction more than they ever would have hoped, or believed. And it isn't over yet . . .

"Well that's the thing. I think that pretty much every criticism leveled at the EU is entirely legitimate, just that simply leaving is the wrong way to go about dealing with it."

The problem here is that those criticism's are nothing new and have been around for a number of years, nothing has been done.
The EU MP's are elected, not by the people but the people's representatives, who may not even mention any EU measure during their election. So when EU MP's are up for election, where do they campaign and to whom? Do the elected representatives consult the electorate or their "significant others" whoever they may be?
I am asking question, I am too far removed from the process.

There is uncertainty until negotiations are complete, at least complete enough to muddle through. EU is not going to tolerate any longer period of uncertainty than necessary. England needs to s**t, or get off the pot.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

It seems that Brexit has brought out the nutters in the UK to the fore.

Good luck, those who have voted to remain and the immigrants who thought Britain was a place to get a fresh start.

http://www.facebook.com/sarah.leblanc.7 ... 985&type=3

That is devastating. It is important for cynical politicians to realize that rhetoric has consequences to real people. There is no doubt that, even though they are a small percentage of the population, the truly racist nutters and bullies are now emboldened by the fact they believe that over 50% of the country "agrees with them"--and that for all the visible minorities (whether immigrants or not) and all the visible or audible foreigners (immigrants, temporary workers, possibly even tourists, whether white or note), this will create a climate of fear and anxiety for the indefinite future.

It will get worse too, because one of two things will happen, of necessity:

1.) A cynical neoliberal, capitalist will take over (Boris), and immigration will remain unchanged or will even grow as the UK have to consent to Schengen to stay in the common market. This will be seen as the ultimate betrayal by those who voted to leave in order to seal the border or even repatriate people. Tensions will get worse as these emboldened f&%^trumpets feel their "democratic" voices were quashed even more and that they need to "take matters into their own hands." (At the same time, they will be poorer and more will be newly unemployed--as the new government will give absolutely zero rats' asses about the working class voters they manipulated to get into power, and will not invest in communities the way the EU did at least somewhat to offset Tory austerity.)

2.) alternatively, or later as a consequence of scenario 1, a true populist demagogue takes over, seeming at first to quell the problems by creating fortress Britain, but ultimately exacerbating the problems even more by refusing EU trade agreements and completely destroying the economy of the UK (of England and Wales) , leading to long term mass unemployment, recession, and scapegoating. Some immigrants will probably leave in this scenario too, since the country will have become a miserable place for them. But so will all the young people who can leave, as the country will have become a miserable place for everyone. There will be a generation of young Brits trying to work abroad to send money home, the way the Poles that the Brexiters complain about now do...Of course, they might have trouble getting permission to do that in many countries.

I see no way around one or both of these scenarios, and it is horrible. If anyone sees what might be done to avoid them, let me know.

Braybuddy wrote:

Em . . . you obviously don't see the irony of using a picture of that well-known democrat and champion of free speech, Vladimir Putin, in your profile . . .

Logic is not the strong suit with that one...

par13del wrote:

The EU MP's are elected, not by the people but the people's representatives, who may not even mention any EU measure during their election. So when EU MP's are up for election, where do they campaign and to whom? Do the elected representatives consult the electorate or their "significant others" whoever they may be?
I am asking question, I am too far removed from the process.

EU MPs are directly elected by the people. It's all the other EU jobs that are not.

Interesting report from from an EU Briefing to the Brussels press:
http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-euro ... eferendum/

---
Senior EU official: Cameron will not trigger Article 50 negotiation on Tues night, and the other 27 member states broad understanding why."

Senior EU official: Cameron will not trigger Article 50 negotiation on Tues night, and the other 27 member states broad understanding why."

Senior EU official: "Tusk spoke to ever 27 member head of government on Tues/Weds/Thurs - the EU was prepared for negative outcome."

The 27 ‘sherpas’ met in Brussels on Sunday afternoon to discuss the summit – the UK sherpa was not invited.

There will be no negotiations between the 27 and UK “before legal notice is sent.”

My guess is EK , QR and other middle east will not be in a hurry to start any new flights to UK. If the dire predictions come true, many of the high paying bank jobs will leave London to other cities and there goes the business or first class yields.

Aesma wrote:

par13del wrote:

The EU MP's are elected, not by the people but the people's representatives, who may not even mention any EU measure during their election. So when EU MP's are up for election, where do they campaign and to whom? Do the elected representatives consult the electorate or their "significant others" whoever they may be?
I am asking question, I am too far removed from the process.

EU MPs are directly elected by the people. It's all the other EU jobs that are not.

That's actually pretty much the same as with any other government: The voters can only vote for their MPs, and the MPs then elect the head of government.

And the head of government nominates his cabinet.

The bureaucrats in the ministerial departments are simply employees of the state, temporarily subordinate to the (only indirectly!) elected government.

The EU is not really less democratic, there are just a few differences:

• The EU Commission is effectively nominated by the national governments of the member states and is effectively a cabinet shared among those national governments (which are all democratically elected).

• The (directly elected) European Parliament has actually gained more and more powers through recent years, but it is not some imaginary "bureaucracy" but actually again the national governments who are fighting against the EP gaining democratic control over the Commission such as electing its members (or at least its president) or having actual say about laws and regulations beyond some limited opportunities so far.

Ironically it's often been Britain which blocked democratic advancement due to the british insistence that the EU should never become more than just a "free trade zone", so Brexit will actually make it more likely that the missing democratic mechanisms can now be implemented in the years ahead (although that will still not be a walk in the park by any stretch).

But the idea that the EU was "completely undemocratic and only ruled by unaccountable bureaucrats" has always just been a lie, if an effective one as we can see in Britain.

Klaus wrote:

Ironically it's often been Britain which blocked democratic advancement due to the british insistence that the EU should never become more than just a "free trade zone", so Brexit will actually make it more likely that the missing democratic mechanisms can now be implemented in the years ahead (although that will still not be a walk in the park by any stretch)

Check ! Thius is one thing that has puzzled and bothered me most : The EU as we know it today is very much a construction ruled by the wishes of the UK and its various allies : the Poles... in particular.
It is just about only a free trade zone, divested of many of the social rules ( which anyway the UK had refused for most of them ) and the political idea that ultimately there would be some sort of common governance, at least on foreign policy and defence.
... And Tthat is what t-hey chose to leave ! {banghead}

Klaus wrote:

Pihero wrote:

It's only after the two year period , the divorce being agreed to, that both parties will have to start the negs for trade partnership...

That would cause massive disruptions and major harm to the UK economy first and foremost.

It is practically certain that the common market access treaty will be negotiated well before the membership will end, with provisions specifically for the transition between the expiring voting membership and the upcoming voteless external status.

It will most probably be a package negotiation with the two treaties constructed to fit together as well as feasible.

I'd agree with you if this were a normal, amicable negociation in good faith... unfortunatelky it is no longer the case ( has it ever been ? ).
Now the peoiple who were clamouring for a quick exit( remember *sovereignity* / *taking control* / ) are now saying that it could take years before they'd invoke article 50... the dream goes on.
It woulod be comical if it hadn't caused the most disgusting , hateful, hypocritical, racist and eventually murderous campaign I have ever seen... and just about everybody has forgoitten that one admirable woman had been murdered in the name of *Britain First*.

Why am I even participating in this discussion ?
I'm married to a girl born in London who now will be applying for a French passport tomorrow. ( she will have it, for reasons of marriage and residence )... and she hadn't slept for the past four days, having correctly forecast the exit vote.
That also reminds me : most of the British community here are quite livid for not being allowed to take part of in the vote... Did you say "Democracy" ?

Expats who were not allowed to vote can hold Mr. Cameron and his government responsible, as you say, democracy in action. One has to wonder how many protest votes were put up against both sides and their fear mongering.

Pihero wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Pihero wrote:

It's only after the two year period , the divorce being agreed to, that both parties will have to start the negs for trade partnership...

That would cause massive disruptions and major harm to the UK economy first and foremost.

It is practically certain that the common market access treaty will be negotiated well before the membership will end, with provisions specifically for the transition between the expiring voting membership and the upcoming voteless external status.

It will most probably be a package negotiation with the two treaties constructed to fit together as well as feasible.

I'd agree with you if this were a normal, amicable negociation in good faith... unfortunatelky it is no longer the case ( has it ever been ? ).

It is still in the EU's interest to minimize the disruptions caused by an actual gap between british membership exit and the beginning of the external access treaty. Such a gap would also harm many EU businesses and that would not serve the EU governments either.

Of course if the hard exit crowd should get handed the reins, they might actually want to go without an access treaty at all for fear of getting lynched by exit voters feeling betrayed by the undoubtedly attached freedom of movement provisions which they hold to be the devil incarnate.

But hey, all that had been known for a long time already, so they just could have stopped telling lies to their supporters before the vote...!

Why am I even participating in this discussion ?
I'm married to a girl born in London who now will be applying for a French passport tomorrow. ( she will have it, for reasons of marriage and residence )... and she hadn't slept for the past four days, having correctly forecast the exit vote.
That also reminds me : most of the British community here are quite livid for not being allowed to take part of in the vote... Did you say "Democracy" ?

Good luck to all of you! (Notably including the remain voters in the UK!)

par13del wrote:

Expats who were not allowed to vote can hold Mr. Cameron and his government responsible, as you say, democracy in action. One has to wonder how many protest votes were put up against both sides and their fear mongering.

If they are "ex-pats" I'm not sure why they should be able to vote.

I'm an ex-pat, I haven't lived in the UK for yonks. I don't expect to vote on decisions affecting a country in which I don't live.

mariner

mariner wrote:

par13del wrote:

Expats who were not allowed to vote can hold Mr. Cameron and his government responsible, as you say, democracy in action. One has to wonder how many protest votes were put up against both sides and their fear mongering.

If they are "ex-pats" I'm not sure why they should be able to vote.

I'm an ex-pat, I haven't lived in the UK for yonks. I don't expect to vote on decisions affecting a country in which I don't live.

mariner

If you're a UK citizen in Europe I daresay it'd be different.

coolian2 wrote:

If you're a UK citizen in Europe I daresay it'd be different.

I've been a UK citizen in Europe, I lived in Mallorca for some time.

mariner

Boris Johnson has reaffirmed that "there is no rush" and even goes so far as saying that the leave vote was “not entirely overwhelming”.

Arguing that the UK will seek closer co-operation with the EU, he went on to say, “I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be. There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment."

While Johnson argues that the UK will be able to introduce a points-based immigration policy, he nevertheless insists that “British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down." Why the EU should accept unrestricted immigration from the UK while the same right is denied to EU citizens isn't made clear.

Johnson seems to believe that the only difference is that the UK will be able to extricate itself from what he describes as the "extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice." Again, how he believes that treaties and trade arrangements made with the EU will not subject to the ECJ is not made clear.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... p-platform

It looks as if Britain has reached the top of the escalator and is undecided which way to turn, oblivious to the people coming up behind them. The longer Britain procrastinates the worse it will be. While no-one in Europe wishes the UK any ill-will, the remaining EU members will need to take steps to avoid falling in a heap while the UK dithers.

To take the escalator analogy further, I think the leavers stood at the foot of the escalator thinking it wasn't going to start, and now they want to go back down.

Braybuddy wrote:

pvjin wrote:

I seriously don't get what's wrong with modern neoliberals who are willing to give away their country's independence and abandon all values from democracy to freedom of speech in name of economic growth.

Em . . . you obviously don't see the irony of using a picture of that well-known democrat and champion of free speech, Vladimir Putin, in your profile . . .

I don't mind lack of democracy if I agree with the ruler, and I do very much agree with Putin on many issues. But if the elite is too irresponsible to rule, like in Europe where they are mostly either greedy neoliberals with no principles other than money or self hating commies, then democracy is a better option than any form of dictatorship or aristocracy.

coolian2 wrote:

To take the escalator analogy further, I think the leavers stood at the foot of the escalator thinking it wasn't going to start, and now they want to go back down.

Who says they want to go back down? The pro-EU mainstream media? That petition is worth nothing as anybody in the world can sign it using whatever information, I signed it myself as Kim Jong Un. What Boris Johnson says is irrelevant, he's just one man.

The people have chosen that Britain shall have a future of independence and prosperity rather than that of misery and poverty. If the government doesn't respect their will then there's no democracy.

The s**t show that this Brexit has become is laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous, and affected people's lives. The Pound Sterling is now down to $1.20 the lowest in nearly 50 years. Also, morons like Boris (Never Used An Iron or Gotten A Proper Haircut) Johnson, just shows what an imbecile he is. The "Leave" coalition never planned that it might succeed they planned on it simply being a protest vote that failed, much like the Trumpanzee campaign.

Now that it looks like Scotland will break off as well as a Northern Ireland reunification, it makes any Anglophile shake their head in what an embarrasment England has become. Only old, rural, Anglo, bigots voted for this bill. I saw a bigot being interviewed who voted to leave because he was pissed the barmaid serving him his pints was Polish. When asked if he would be willing to pay .50 pence more per pint he was almost apoplectic, and ranted and raved about how he was a fixed income pensioner and couldn't afford to pay more for his pint at the pub. *shakes head*


https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/usd/5 ... ate-222311

There is already a petition that demands that Nigel Farage should be included on the UK side when it comes to negotiations with the EU. Imho the debate with the EU will be the least problem for the UK, getting those nationalistic tendencies under control again will be much harder and those will change Britain much more than the EU ever could.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

The "Leave" coalition never planned that it might succeed they planned on it simply being a protest vote that failed, much like the Trumpanzee campaign.

It's like everyone's forgotten Farage conceded IMMEDIATELY when the polls closed.

mariner wrote:

par13del wrote:

If they are "ex-pats" I'm not sure why they should be able to vote.

I'm an ex-pat, I haven't lived in the UK for yonks. I don't expect to vote on decisions affecting a country in which I don't live.

mariner

First off all, not everyone that lives abroad has done so for years or decades.

On top of that: The outcome has very real consequences for those UK passport holders outside the UK. Not letting the people have a vote, that are probably among the most effected citizens you have, is about as undemocratic as you can get. It is after all about people deciding the faith of their own lives, and some 1.8 Million people have been excluded.
More importantly, how democratic is a system in which the government can handpick the electorate to fit the desired outcome? "Oh, young people rather want Scotland to be a part of the UK, let 16 and 17 years old vote".
People have been excluded from voting because of decisions they made for their private lives, like falling in love with a foreigner or, more devious, actually moves abroad because their, UK, company send them there and could, maybe even had to, do so because their country did join the EU.
They got their right to democratic representation stripped from them without doing anything wrong or breaking any laws. That is a slippery slope. Why not exclude people that have tax debt? Need welfare? Any reason to exclude a citizen from voting is wrong. That can clearly be seen by our philosophical progress, old democracies tend to exclude prisoners from voting, new democracies don´t.

On top of that, voters have been presented with only a binary option, when clearly more options are actually on the table:

1) stay in the EU
2) leave the political structure, but remain in the common market, immigration and all
3) leave the EU and the common market, be truly independent.

They lumped 2 and 3 together, and by that token "forced" themselves into doing something that will in all probability not get a majority vote. You can decide many things with a yes or no vote, but this issue is apparently unsuited for that much condensation.

In the end there will be a 2nd referendum, either because the government sees that they don´t have a clear mandate due to the above and make a new referendum with more options, or they put the negotiated treaty with the EU up for referendum, with the alternative being to apply to EU goodwill to take them back as a full member (no rebate, no special rules). Or something like that.

best regards
Thomas

pvjin wrote:

I don't mind lack of democracy if I agree with the ruler, and I do very much agree with Putin on many issues.

Who in their right minds says things like that??? You don't mind a dictator as long as he's your kind of dictator??

That's just mind boggling...

Klaus wrote:

The EU side won't categorically dictate to Cameron when exactly he is to hand in his official Brexit notice, but it would likely have repercussions for the negotiations themselves if he seriously attempted to string the EU partners along until October.

...where is the Checkmark Smiley when you need it...

Article 50 says *maximum* of two years. If they hand in the official notice in October, they may just hear "Good, now we have until June 22nd 2018 to make a deal". The membership probably won´t end until two years after notifications, but negotiations can very well.

best regards
Thomas

As if Cameron has a choice. At the next meeting of the PMs of the member states, he will be asked if the UK is leaving the EU or not. If he says they are leaving, Article 50 is invoked. And somebody will ask, as the EU will now be looking at reforms and they will want to know if they need to consider the Brits or not. There are already plenty of voices seeing this as a chance for a better integrated EU with more solidarity between the member states. I guess doing this without the Brits will not be unpopular.

seahawk wrote:

As if Cameron has a choice. At the next meeting of the PMs of the member states, he will be asked if the UK is leaving the EU or not. If he says they are leaving, Article 50 is invoked.

At least if all the others agree to that interpretation of Article 50. I have however a hard time seeing why anyone outside the UK wants to drag things out like that. I don´t really see a reason why the UK should draw it out as well. Maybe Cameron just hopes that he won´t go down in history as the PM that dealt the death knell to the United Kingdom and rather just be forgotten.

And somebody will ask, as the EU will now be looking at reforms and they will want to know if they need to consider the Brits or not. There are already plenty of voices seeing this as a chance for a better integrated EU with more solidarity between the member states. I guess doing this without the Brits will not be unpopular.

Since historically the UK was the prime force against further and closer integration, that is a pretty good guess.

For some linkage:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... --and-alw/

Boris Johnson wrote:

British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down.

best regards
Thomas

klaus wrote:

No she does not

Well, you clearly have a different interpretation of the words "there's no need to rush" than I do.

Her chief aide has just echoed her words.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -aide-says

Most EU leaders now recognize that British Prime Minister David Cameron can’t immediately activate the bloc’s exit clause, known as Article 50, because they see a major political crisis in the U.K., a top EU official said on Sunday.

Let's see what this week brings.

coolian2 wrote:

It's like everyone's forgotten Farage conceded IMMEDIATELY when the polls closed.

And demanded a second referendum if the result was 52-48% in favour of Remain!

seahawk wrote:

At the next meeting of the PMs of the member states, he will be asked if the UK is leaving the EU or not. If he says they are leaving, Article 50 is invoked.

It won't be, and Cameron could say "I've just resigned, you'll have to ask the next Prime Minister."

scbriml wrote:

klaus wrote:

No she does not

Well, you clearly have a different interpretation of the words "there's no need to rush" than I do.

Maybe its a matter of connotation in language. If a German says "no need to rush", it means usually "don´t rush making up your plan", not "lets postpone the date".

Let's see what this week brings.

in deed...

seahawk wrote:

At the next meeting of the PMs of the member states, he will be asked if the UK is leaving the EU or not. If he says they are leaving, Article 50 is invoked.

It won't be, and Cameron could say "I've just resigned, you'll have to ask the next Prime Minister."

So, he is just going there to score some free booze? He is the PM until he resigns, not until he announces his intention to resign.
Those private talks will in all likelihood set a deadline for the official notification, that the rest of the EU will agree on today.

best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

klaus wrote:

No she does not

Well, you clearly have a different interpretation of the words "there's no need to rush" than I do.

Her chief aide has just echoed her words.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -aide-says

Most EU leaders now recognize that British Prime Minister David Cameron can’t immediately activate the bloc’s exit clause, known as Article 50, because they see a major political crisis in the U.K., a top EU official said on Sunday.

Let's see what this week brings.

coolian2 wrote:

It's like everyone's forgotten Farage conceded IMMEDIATELY when the polls closed.

And demanded a second referendum if the result was 52-48% in favour of Remain!

seahawk wrote:

At the next meeting of the PMs of the member states, he will be asked if the UK is leaving the EU or not. If he says they are leaving, Article 50 is invoked.

It won't be, and Cameron could say "I've just resigned, you'll have to ask the next Prime Minister."

And it's possible that no PM will ever activate the article 50, leaving the UK where it is. Considering the mess on the financial markets and the number of regrexit voters ...

scbriml wrote:

klaus wrote:

No she does not

Well, you clearly have a different interpretation of the words "there's no need to rush" than I do.

Her chief aide has just echoed her words.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -aide-says

Most EU leaders now recognize that British Prime Minister David Cameron can’t immediately activate the bloc’s exit clause, known as Article 50, because they see a major political crisis in the U.K., a top EU official said on Sunday.

Let's see what this week brings.

Sure.

But Merkel and Hollande have also just stated that Britain will have to exit "quickly".

Merkel is not insisting on unproductive haste just for the appearance of some progress, but four months like the tories seem to imagine it would simply appear insultingly lazy.

I've been listening a lot to BBC radio and reading other british news sources, and the delusional loss of reality in most of the public statements from Britain today is truly staggering.

RobK wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

RobK wrote:

As predicted, the pound has largely recovered already

Not exactly free fall, but "largely recovered" looks different.....

The EURO on the other hand is pretty stable, and not at a 50 years low. Not even at a 12 month low. ...

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

First off all, not everyone that lives abroad has done so for years or decades.

On top of that: The outcome has very real consequences for those UK passport holders outside the UK. Not letting the people have a vote, that are probably among the most effected citizens you have, is about as undemocratic as you can get. It is after all about people deciding the faith of their own lives, and some 1.8 Million people have been excluded.

By their own choices. I still hold British citizenship but having made a conscious choice not to live in the UK, I really don't see why I should expect to have a vote in the governance.

But at least as I understand it, certain ex-pats were eligible to vote.

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/upcoming-e ... referendum

"You can vote in this referendum if you are registered to vote in the UK, are 18 or over on 23 June 2016 and are:

A British or Irish citizen living in the UK, or
A Commonwealth citizen living in the UK who has leave to remain in the UK or who does not require leave to remain in the UK
A British citizen living overseas who has been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years"

Which seems fair and suggests - to me - that only long term ex-pats (such as me) were excluded. And if others can't manage their electoral affairs., I shrug.

tommy1808 wrote:

In the end there will be a 2nd referendum, either because the government sees that they don´t have a clear mandate due to the above and make a new referendum with more options, or they put the negotiated treaty with the EU up for referendum, with the alternative being to apply to EU goodwill to take them back as a full member (no rebate, no special rules). Or something like that.

Well, maybe. Unlike many here, I can't predict the future.

mariner

tommy1808 wrote:

RobK wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Not exactly free fall, but "largely recovered" looks different.....

The EURO on the other hand is pretty stable, and not at a 50 years low. Not even at a 12 month low. ...

best regards
Thomas

Good for you Germans, not so good for us Finns. Euro is too expensive for our export businesses and tourism industry. I wish something big happened and caused euro's value to fall dramatically.

I think to settle the markets DC needs to invoke Article 50 this week. Negotiations can still commence in October after the new PM takes over, but the guessing and speculation of whether they will or will not will be gone and the financial traders will have one less item to use for rampant speculation. A lot of items have to be discussed and the number of folks involved will be huge, October is more important for how the UK see's themselves involved with the EU after the separation. Some articles I have read seem to have folks saying new trade deals can only be negotiated after the separation, if taken literally it would mean a period of no trade, suspect more fear mongering which the invocation will kill.

pvjin wrote:

Good for you Germans, not so good for us Finns. Euro is too expensive for our export businesses and tourism industry. I wish something big happened and caused euro's value to fall dramatically.

Well, if you think losing a good chunk of your money (PPP) or property (Value) is good for you, why don´t you just donate your money to charity.
I rather don´t get robbed by devaluating my money.

The only thing that gets cheaper, making your country more competitive of the export market, is domestic labor and therefore domestic products.

You would achieve exactly the same by just lowering your wages. That is what devaluating a currency effectively is. That btw. is exactly what Germany did, "Lohnzurückhaltung" (wage restraint) was the Keyword for.. oh, maybe 10 years. But it is very unpopular for a politician to say something along the lines of "Uh, i am afraid we have to undermine free collective bargaining and lower all wages by 10% in order to be competitive on the world market", which is effectively committing political suicide, but something along the lines of "Our slightly weakened currency, just about 10%, makes us more competitive in the global market" is something you can sell as good news. Because many, and by your statement i am thinking you are one of them, don´t "get" that both are pretty much the same thing.

best regards
Thomas

par13del wrote:

Some articles I have read seem to have folks saying new trade deals can only be negotiated after the separation, if taken literally it would mean a period of no trade, suspect more fear mongering which the invocation will kill.

The 2 years period is exactly meant to allow for smooth transition from membership to after membership. You can negotiate right away, but the deal can of course only become effective after the membership ended.

best regards
Thomas