It makes sense for the EU to wait until the British have a new PM. Then the PM will be asked to clarify his position. Brexit - yes or no.

scbriml wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Allowing a free vote of the people is something that I am OK. I think it was a bit foolish but there have been many elections and votes that were foolish.

The Government certainly missed a couple of tricks. The simplest would have been to declare that in order for the UK to leave the EU, a leave majority was required for each 'component' of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland).

Yes that would have been the smart thing to do. It would have taken it where it is currently: A VERY vigorous internal debate and battle of "OK, now what?".

scbriml wrote:

As much as I wanted us to stay in the EU, I'd be very uncomfortable if the Government simply ignored the referendum result.

Yes, that is understandable and I agree. To me the UK is now very much engaging in where they must go now and what is the best path for them. They are at a precipice and try to figure the best way down and across what lies ahead.

I am confident that whatever happens, the people will have a say. Whether via Parliamentary elections or a direct vote, they will have their say.

scbriml wrote:

Klaus wrote:

The UK dragging their heels for months and months would actually violate the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, while at least on paper still being within the letter of the treaty.

You know, "the spirit" of legislation is something that's entirely subjective. To you it means one thing, to someone else it means something entirely different. If legislation requires the interpretation of "its spirit", then it's badly written.

"Spirit" is what courts and lawsuits are there to help define and determine.....

Pihero wrote:

Well?

So you are just not going to answer the question? OK.

Then you are just doing what you claim the UK is doing.

Tugg

pihero wrote:

Otherwise, keep on being the party-crasher who is stuffing himself up with the buffet and haven't realised that he is no longer welcome...

Except we haven't crashed the party, we have an invite. We also contribute more to the buffet than we consume.

Tugger wrote:

Why would you not wait until you actually had everything in order inside your nation and had clear direction from and understanding with your citizens? Why would you not do that?

That would seem reasonable.

scbriml wrote:

Except we haven't crashed the party, we have an invite. We also contribute more to the buffet than we consume.

Not only that: You are one of the hosts!!

Tugg

I did actually wonder yesterday if the vote had been after the anniversary whether a number of Brexiteers might have had pause for thought.

I thought that after the murder of Jo Cox MP more people would maybe think about the bile coming from Farage, not that it's anything new.
He actually visits the WW1 sites '4 times a year', but seems not to get the broader lessons of the two conflicts, then again if he had been around in the 1930's he'd have been with Oswald Moseley's crowd, who remember in a time of economic crisis found scapegoats of their own.

I don't usually quote from tabloids but i think today's Daily Mirror summed up Johnson perfectly, with that pic of him hiding behind a police officer, he was the one who really betrayed, on a vast scale for his petty ambition, for something that he never really even believed in, his post Brexit column in the Telegraph calling for a situation that pretty describes our place in Europe now, even to the point of still somehow having the same influence.

It's Gove being PM I worry about, he's a bit of a fanatic, even Cameron thought so, in addition to being as dishonest as Boris but actually going along with it for what he would see as the greater good.
This from someone who still thought the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a good idea 5 years later.

scbriml wrote:

pihero wrote:

You wanted to leave the EU : you have the oportunity to do so NO0WWW, so like your outgoing pom PM said :" For Heaven's sake, leave , man !

Seeing how much it clearly annoys you, we'll drag it out for years.
.

Curiouser and curiouser : and you'd think that you could do that without hurting your economy further ?
Remember no market enjoys uncertainty.
So ; you have to make a choice, and I believe a lot quicker than they all imagine : out with the 50 / back in looking ridiculous / neither in or out or neither up or down as some military leader was in a song.
(that one looks quite foolish )

Tugger wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Except we haven't crashed the party, we have an invite. We also contribute more to the buffet than we consume.

Not only that: You are one of the hosts!!

Tugg

True, very true !
So why don't you ask Mr PM how he felt leaving the party, being talked about, especially when he paid for the strawberries ?
I bet he felt great.

.. and talking about parties, when the only people approving - no, wildly cheering - t-he results of the referendum are called Poutine, Trump, ISIL, and Le Pen, I 'd very probably start worrying about the logic of the thing.

Pihero wrote:

True, very true !
So why don't you ask Mr PM how he felt leaving the party, being talked about, especially when he paid for the strawberries ?
I bet he felt great.

So being petty is encouraged.... OK. Not quite a great organization then.

I continue to be just flabbergasted at the "hurt" I see from the continental EU members. But we are all human so I guess it should be expected.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

So being petty is encouraged.... OK. Not quite a great organization then.
Tugg

That's why they should leave it ! not worth it ! It's full of Europeansand some of them could even be muslims ! Britain First, Death to the traitors !

Since Thatcher every EU summit had UK asking for special treatment or they blackmailed to leave.

That blackmail is off for ever. If they don't activate article 50, the next negotiations will see an unsustainable UK position. You seems to think that Europeans have no memory and will suddenly forget the pain in the ass that negotiating with UK is.

GDB wrote:

It's Gove being PM I worry about

It's my view that Gove's hatchet job will have done himself as much harm as it did BoJo. I'm of the view (hope) that Theresa May will win the contest.

Tugger wrote:

I continue to be just flabbergasted at the "hurt" I see from the continental EU members. But we are all human so I guess it should be expected. Tugg

Not all. While I would have preferred to see the UK remain in the EU, the referendum was probably necessary, and it lanced a boil that has been festering for years. As with all referendums (and we in Ireland know, we've had enough of them over the years) both sides engaged in scaremongering, which both confused and frightened the electorate. I have no doubt that, had there been no migration/refugee crisis the Remain side would probably have scraped through to victory. So there's a lot of blame to be shared here.

Having said all that, while I regret the outcome of the referendum, the people of the UK have made their decision, and it should be respected. And I would like to wish our friends and neighbours well in their new venture, and I believe the rest of the EU should do so too, and be as helpful as they can to them during what is going to be undoubtedly a difficult time for the country. I don't believe it's going to be as bad as the doomsayers are predicting, nor as good as the Leave side hoped. Like everything else in the EU, we will eventually muddle through all this and some sort of normality will return.

It's completely pointless making any predictions one week out from the vote. Anything can happen now, and it will be years before they know if they've made the right decision.

Braybuddy wrote:

I have no doubt that, had there been no migration/refugee crisis the Remain side would probably have scraped through to victory. So there's a lot of blame to be shared here.

You very probably resumed the whole fiasco in that sentence.
Voters have in fact never been asked by their leaders whether they wanted to remain in the EU ; the whole thing was about Polish masons / plumbers and *eastern europeans* stealing the jobs of honest britons.... lack of democracy ( if one lookied closer, the EU is very probably more democratic than most European countries) and *regaining control*, a control that they'd never lost, having a parliament and a government.

All the so-called referenda I'd seen these past thirty years have been like that : people just take them as an opportunity to censor their government, never ever really sticking to the question... ( and before someone asked, we had the Polish plumber excuse when we had to vote for the Maastricht Treaty - repelled... that's why the Lisbon version was left to a parliament vote. You won't see a referendum in France for a good while... ). People I knew voted against because they couldn't understand it ( the government had procured every voter with the booklet of the Treaty !).

Refugee and migration crisis ? Certainly not as Johnson, Gove and Farage had said : the UK has the lowest unemployment in the whole of the EU and one of the worst health care of the Zone... not counting the fact that it is France which is taking the brunt of the hopefuls for Britain through Le Touquet agreement.
So in fact, the UK couldn't be bothered by the Schengen accord but sends its police, border police and customs officers to have a say in the French entries ?
And that's just one of the examples of the UK's perks in the EU.

In February, there was a movement by some citizens who petitioned their MP for an opposition to the PM latest bag of opt-outs.
Glad it is no longer required.
You want to leave ?
Good riddance and the quicker the better... for you too.

Pihero wrote:

Remember no market enjoys uncertainty.

Uncertainty? The UK Government has made it clear that they will deliver on the referendum result. There should be no doubt on that score, the UK will leave the EU.

Just to reiterate, in case it's been lost in the noise here, I voted to remain. I'm firmly of the belief that the UK is stronger in the EU and that the EU is stronger with the UK as a member.

Tugger wrote:

Pihero wrote:

True, very true !
So why don't you ask Mr PM how he felt leaving the party, being talked about, especially when he paid for the strawberries ?
I bet he felt great.

So being petty is encouraged.... OK. Not quite a great organization then.

You're missing a few things.

What is happening now is not about being "petty". A slight majority of UK voters were manipulated into voting the UK out of the EU based on sheer propaganda lies, in the process ditching all the special rebates and special privileges the UK had amassed over the years, usually by blackmailing the other EU members with the threat of a Brexit (which is now used up).

All those special bonuses and privileges will simply go up in smoke if the referendum vote is indeed executed. No way back on that. There will be negotiations about how to disentangle the UK from the EU, but at the end the UK will have none of the regular advantages all EU members do, and none of the extra special UK privileges on top.

And then there is the negotiation about the future relationship of the UK to the EU.

First, no third country outside the EU (which the UK will be at this point) has any rights to demand anything from the EU beyond the general commitments the EU has made to the WTO and to other global organisations. The EU could theoretically tell the UK to go and pound sand if they didn't feel like negotiating, and the UK could do absolutely nothing about it.

This is extremely unlikely, of course, since that would be highly destructive to the UK and would also cause damage to several countries among the EU27, neither of which anyone is likely to want.

The thing is just that what the EU can actually offer to the UK is:
a) very substantially below the fattened-up full membership the UK had enjoyed thus far,
b) almost certainly consistent with what the EU had always stated, which means it is diametrally opposed to what the Brexiteers delusionally promised to their supporters
c) practically only the choice between an economically unattractive option without freedom of movement but with very limited access to the common market and an economically feasible option with freedom of movement, the xeonophobes be damned, but still very substantially below the perks of an actual membership (pretty much having most obligations but no say about anything – ask Norway); And that latter option is already the best the UK can even hope for!

There isn't even any room for being "petty", even if anybody wanted that. This is simply the mechanics of what the referendum voters set in motion – and the entire set of almost forced moves was clearly visible all along; The brexiteers just did their worst to distract their supporters from what would actually happen, and the remainers led a feeble and also basically europhobic campaign which chose to never really challenge the lies of the brexiteers.

In the end the vote was the almost inevitable outcome of decades of almost unopposed anti-EU propaganda in Britain. And as they say: You reap what you sow, sooner or later.

I continue to be just flabbergasted at the "hurt" I see from the continental EU members. But we are all human so I guess it should be expected.

You're misinterpreting this. I personally am actually more relieved after living through decades of depressing obstruction and propaganda lies coming from Britain while (most of) the rest of Europe was working hard to make the European Union actually work in practice (which it actually does) and to make it more democratic (which has been progressing substantially, even though the directly elected Parliament still needs to gain actual control of the Commission in the next step).

If I'm really angry about anything it is the deliberately conducted campaign that had been started decades ago to a substantial degree by Rupert Murdoch's media empire which has now indeed driven it to its fruition in the referendum.

Also about the british politicians who have been complicit by cowering in fear of the propaganda media ever since, so exploiting prejudices and abusing the EU as their go-to scapegoat for practically everything they had screwed up themselves became the british standard, at least in England and Wales.

I hate propaganda lies with a passion (homework: try to figure out why I do!), so people manipulating others with lies and falsehoods to their own nefarious purposes do indeed deserve scorn, ridicule and outright glee when their vultures come home to roost eventually.

The trouble is that very many Brexit voters are victims much more than villains, but they still don't know it yet.

Rupert Murdoch has actually been very successful in poisoning british politics right to the breaking point, just as much as the USA (there with Fox News et al); The ironical thing is that for all the battles he has won (such as the George W. Bush presidency, the start of the Iraq war, the totally toxic Republican politics, many obedient british governments and now Brexit), when you take a larger view he has by now caused so much damage to the countries he as substantially influenced that his tactical wins are increasingly pointing towards a completely devastating failure in terms of an actually functioning result of all his troubles. His latest Frankenstein monster is on its way rampaging the US conservative party into oblivion and if Brexit should just end in tears and regret while the EU continues to thrive and survive (which doesn't look very unlikely even now), what will Rupert Murdoch actually have in hand as a result of all his grand designs?

Strategic incompetence comes in all shapes and sizes, and especially on that extra-large scale it is proportionally extra-embarrassing.

Actually solving problems for one country is daunting enough; Working together among many countries to solve problems which all or most of them have in common is an absolutely massive challenge. It is easy to ridicule people who even attempt that kind of thing. But the EU has in fact shown that it can be done, as complicated, tedious and frustrating it still can be.

It's similar to another saying: The EU may well be the worst way of dealing with Europe's problems – except for all the other ones which had been tried before.
And the Somme centenary today couldn't be a more poignant background for this.

I watched the vote returns as long as I could (surgery was scheduled the next morning with a 5:45 AM arrival time). The most concerning about the vote was the speed that currencies (the Pound and Euro) started falling. I couldn't help but think that the panic level was too high - there was a need to let things settle.

Right now I'm still believing that the panic level is too high - both in the UK and in the EU. From bits I have read on the BBC.co.uk there might be a legal requirement for Parliament to approve the filing of Article 50. That could bring everything to a stop.

A second referendum might also be possible if there are sufficient changes to justify it.

Sadly there are a lot of politicians on both side of the Channel that are having a good time staring the pot.

My preference is for the leaders of EU countries with a trade surplus with the UK to sit down together to work out how to keep that surplus going, Problems for all companies are something to avoid. Look at just issues for Airbus on the manufacturing side as well as marketing and maintenance. It is Germany and France's interest to avoid any confusion there.

The same holds for most issues with the largest problem being freedom of movement of individuals. My bet is that a long term agreement would allow for non-UK citizens to move to the UK if they move there for a job, but not having tot he UK in hopes of finding a job without a work visa. Free travel for business and/or pleasure doesn't need to be impacted, nor does current industry relationships - like commercial aviation or medicine.

seahawk wrote:

The Uk will come out of it stronger than ever. Free from the chains of the EU and still the most exciting and interesting place for business in Europe. There is a reason why all successful airlines in the EU have their roots in the British market. And London as a global financial hub will just laugh at anybody suggesting backwaters like Paris or Frankfurt could be a threat. With no immigrants to pay for and no money wasted to the EU, the Uk will be the boom country in Europe.

Can't tell if serious....or trolling.

Waiting for the Sun and the Mail to promise that everyone will get a unicorn that farts rainbows in two years...

scbriml wrote:

GDB wrote:

It's Gove being PM I worry about

It's my view that Gove's hatchet job will have done himself as much harm as it did BoJo. I'm of the view (hope) that Theresa May will win the contest.

Honest question: how do you picture her leadership would shape up. She's scary to me.

I'm slightly encouraged by her retreat from a push to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, but I am wary of a lot of what she has done and said in the past, including that push.

All this talk of the UK being punished is just that, talk. No one is actually punishing the UK or has any desire to do so because it would simply make matters worse for all sides. EU leaders have said that there can be no negotiation before activating Art. 50. This is not punishment but a clear indication that leaders of the EU feel that there are some areas that are non--negotiable if Britain wishes to retain access to the EU market. The level of access can be negotiated once the UK makes up its mind, not before hand. Until then things remain as they are.

If Cameron is no longer attending meetings of the EC that is by his own choice. He has not been forced out. Similarly the resignation of the UK Commissioner. That was by his own choice, believing that he no longer had a role to play. He was not forced out.

The UK is totally in control here. But it would be naive to expect that the European Commission and other Councillors sit on their hands. Just as the British will want to make contingency plans, so will the remaining members of the EU. There is no bullying or punishment but simply a normal response to the situation the UK has created of its own volition.

Regarding a general election and/ or a second referendum. There is no constitutional requirement for either and in early statements Theresa May has said that there will be neither. Of course, I don't know if May will become PM and as we often see, what politicians say today can mean the opposite tomorrow.

Constitutionally there is not even a requirement for Parliament to vote on leaving the EU. Treaties are within the Royal Prerogative and the Government may enter into one without a vote. Treaties are typically Tabled and even debated upon, but unless specified within a treaty that it requires approval of Parliament it can enter into force without a vote. It is however convention that Parliament will have a binding vote if a treaty has the effect of changing UK domestic law. Leaving the EU will not necessarily result in automatic change to domestic laws but the UK Parliament might subsequently enact changes it deems to be desirable.

I am not shocked that the Brits want to leave, but I am very much shocked how this vote changed British society. Something I saw as a open and welcoming country with London as a global city, suddenly sounds a lot like the darkest and most remote areas of Eastern Germany. I never expected to see so much hostility towards other European nations, in fact I think this is something that is even hard to find in the most extreme right wing or left wing movements in Europe.

n229nw wrote:

Honest question: how do you picture her leadership would shape up. She's scary to me.

I think she's highly respected in Parliament and I expect her to win the support of the majority of Conservative MPs. Unless there is a huge backlash against Gove, I expect the two of them to be the ones that go forward to the final party vote.

If it was just down to MPs, I'm convinced May would win easily, but I'm less sure once the vote is opened up to the wider party membership.

Obviously I can't predict how she'd be as PM, but IMHO, she's the best candidate. I suspect Gove's treachery will ultimately count against him (if I had a vote, it would!)

n229nw wrote:

I'm slightly encouraged by her retreat from a push to leave the European Convention on Human Rights

It could be that this is the price to be paid for the support of one or more senior MPs. All sorts of horse-trading goes on in these leadership elections. Her dislike of the ECHR was, of course, driven by long, drawn-out cases of trying to extradite terrorists.

HGL wrote:

Constitutionally there is not even a requirement for Parliament to vote on leaving the EU.

A number of political commentators have claimed that the invocation of Article 50 is so significant that it would require a vote in Parliament at the very least.

HGL wrote:

Leaving the EU will not necessarily result in automatic change to domestic laws but the UK Parliament might subsequently enact changes it deems to be desirable.

I've read that hundreds of new laws will need to be enacted as EU-specific laws are removed from the statute.

As is often the case in situations like this, there's confusion and differences of opinion as to what does and doesn't need to happen.

It could be that this is the price to be paid for the support of one or more senior MPs. All sorts of horse-trading goes on in these leadership elections. Her dislike of the ECHR was, of course, driven by long, drawn-out cases of trying to extradite terrorists.

Here's the odd thing about these sorts of cases, her French counterpart extraditing out of France the same sort of character as May eventually did from the UK, took weeks, in the UK it took 10 years under three Prime Ministers, yet both nations are subject to the ECHR. France also has it's share of immigration lawyers too.
Why?
You tell pro Brexit people this and they find it hard to believe, it's true though.

May strikes me as more pragmatic than Gove generally.
She did take on one body in the UK that for years many Home Secretaries of both main parties feared, The Police Federation.
The British Police do not have a Union as such but this organisation is close to being one with a specialisation of being very hostile to ministers, look how they did the Chief Government Whip Andrew Mitchell's legs, with the 'Pleb' incident at the Downing Street gates, It was not aimed at him personally but the government generally.

May was not cowed, she went to their conference and told them what they did not want to hear in no uncertain terms.
An echo of her address to the Tories in opposition in 2002 at conference when she warned her party that for many in the UK, they are seen as the 'nasty party', after two heavy election defeats some were listening, after a third a youngish MP called David Cameron made that a major pitch for his leadership of the party.

We have started on a course of leaving the EU almost by accident, had Gordon Brown not hyped up, than fatally backed away from calling an election in Autumn 2007, which he would probably if narrowly would have won, this whole referendum issue fuelled as it was by Cameron attempting to keep his party together/see off a potential UKIP threat, would not have happened.

Had Labour chose David, not Ed, Milliband as leader in 2010 I think they could have narrowly won in 2015, or either formed their own coalition, or caused the Tories to extend their one with the Lib Dems, who as such had an effective veto on a referendum, we'd not be where we are today.

Tugger wrote:

This to me is silly. No one has "lost" anything. The EU is designed for this, it is a free union of member states that participate willingly. If membership is desired, it is considered and requirements must be met. And if a member state wishes to leave they are free to do so. The "punitive" elements I am hearing should not be encouraged or even desired, there are consequences of course but why should anyone be punished for leaving somewhere freely?
Tugg

I think reasonable people would agree but it's not how life works. I said it earlier on, any lasting pain inflicted on the UK (or self-inflicted to be honest) will come down to London. It's what gives the UK its status, power and prosperity. It drives 10% of tax revenue and it's all down to financial services. So the question now is whether the next PM can convince the remaining major powers of the EU that the UK deserves a very special and unique position by retaining all of the benefits that London's role as the financial nerve center of Europe confers after leaving. That is going to be a very tough bargain in my opinion and you can almost hear Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, even second tier cities like Dublin and Madrid circling the wagons to entice big companies to leave. To me this is what the next two years will be all about and if the city loses even 25% of its major companies there will be deep suffering to go all around.

GDB wrote:

Here's the odd thing about these sorts of cases, her French counterpart extraditing out of France the same sort of character as May eventually did from the UK, took weeks, in the UK it took 10 years under three Prime Ministers, yet both nations are subject to the ECHR. France also has it's share of immigration lawyers too.
Why?

A lot could depend on whom and to where they're being extradited.

wingman wrote:

I said it earlier on, any lasting pain inflicted on the UK (or self-inflicted to be honest) will come down to London. It's what gives the UK its status, power and prosperity. It drives 10% of tax revenue and it's all down to financial services. So the question now is whether the next PM can convince the remaining major powers of the EU that the UK deserves a very special and unique position by retaining all of the benefits that London's role as the financial nerve center of Europe confers after leaving. That is going to be a very tough bargain in my opinion and you can almost hear Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, even second tier cities like Dublin and Madrid circling the wagons to entice big companies to leave. To me this is what the next two years will be all about and if the city loses even 25% of its major companies there will be deep suffering to go all around.

I see no path to such an exceptional deal.

And that has nothing to do with punishment as such. It is first and foremost an automatic consequence of the referendum decision conflicting with standing EU regulations (particularly regarding financial services needing to be located within the EU if they want to conduct certain types of business).

It also would be like a punch in the face to Norway and Switzerland at the very least.

And it would immediately pour gasoline on all the anti-european movements across the Union, which have been operating with similar propaganda as in the UK, just without mainstream media and political support.

So even with the nicest and most forthcoming of intentions on the part of the EU27 that is simply factually not possible.

A deal will likely have some accomodations tailored to the british situation, but those will be comparatively minor and nowhere near to a full continuation of the former british position as the financial center of Europe.

Many banks and other financial firms will have to move at least part of their organisations to the EU if Brexit goes through or lose access to the common market, and that move has already begun as far as I'm aware.

You can not have all the benefits but none of the burdens. And every single EU member state would need to agree to any compromise and I can not see Poland agreeing to anything favourable to the British if their countrymen are banned from working in the UK. And I am quite certain the the "vermin" will remember the things the Brexit supporters said.

Klaus wrote:

A slight majority of UK voters were manipulated into voting the UK out of the EU

Repeat after me: 51.9% of the 71.8% turnout does NOT make it the majority (slight or otherwise) wanting out of the EU. If there was 1 thing I wished for in this referendum was that it was 50% +1 vote of the TOTAL number of voters that would have been the "winning" total for the Leave campaign to win as there would have been a clear mandate from the British public. Yes, it appears to be arbitrary rule I am using but if people were that indifferent to the referendum that they didn't vote then I would presume them to be not against leaving. As it stands, we have got 37% of the population dictating to the other 63% that we must leave the EU.
____________

As for our EU friends wanting rid of us, just consider this. We have had a referendum so we know exactly the lay of the land, even if untruths may have been spoken by the Leave side. Wouldn't it be interesting to see exactly what the population of YOUR country would do with a similarly worded question "Do you wish (your country) to remain a member of the European Union". I'm pretty sure that each country would vote to stay in but I would say that if any country came up with over 33% of the total number of eligible voters wanting out then this should be seen as a signal to the EU politicians that all is not well with the EU in it's current format and constitution.

David_itl wrote:

Repeat after me: 51.9% of the 71.8% turnout does NOT make it the majority (slight or otherwise) wanting out of the EU. If there was 1 thing I wished for in this referendum was that it was 50% +1 vote of the TOTAL number of voters that would have been the "winning" total for the Leave campaign to win as there would have been a clear mandate from the British public. Yes, it appears to be arbitrary rule I am using but if people were that indifferent to the referendum that they didn't vote then I would presume them to be not against leaving. As it stands, we have got 37% of the population dictating to the other 63% that we must leave the EU.

Democracy belongs, ultimately, to those who partake of it. London Mayor Sadiq Khan was elected this year after winning 44% of the votes, with only 45% turnout. If people cannot be bothered to go out and vote, then they simultaneously give up the right to complain about the result because they could have influenced it, but chose not to.

As it happens, turnout for the EU Referendum was 72%. That's higher than the 66% turnout at last year's General Election. Turnout in General Elections has followed an upward trajectory since 2005, usually increasing by a percentage or two each cycle. The Referendum turnout doesn't fit that pattern; it represents a much greater increase in voter participation.

Now, one could argue that voting should be mandatory, but then that begs the question of "if you force people to vote, are they truly free in their exercise of democracy?" - That's not necessarily a question we need to consider here though.

The fact is that a majority of voters chose to leave the EU. It is now imperative that the democratic process is upheld by exiting the EU. Any attempt to orchestrate a second referendum, or to otherwise wriggle out of the result would surely be unacceptable. The people had their chance to vote - if they didn't, that's their tough luck and their personal responsibility. It is not up to the Government to make sure people exercise the rights granted to them, it is a personal choice.

Finally, I'd like to quote Theresa May, who is favourite to take over as PM:
"I want to use this opportunity to make several things clear. First, Brexit means Brexit … the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the backdoor, and no second referendum. Second, there should be no general election until 2020. There should be a normal autumn statement held in the normal way, at the normal time, and no emergency budget."

It is important that the country comes together and moves forward. Instead of bickering about the result and starting petitions to overturn the democratic process, it is time to look forward and work together to ensure that the future of this country of ours is a bright one. Let's accept the situation and deal with it appropriately.

A lot could depend on whom and to where they're being extradited.

When Mrs May got that cleric with Al Queda links finally extradited in 2012, it was compared to that French example, an Al Queda friendly cleric being extradited to the same country - Jordan.

I suspect that the French experience here is based upon greater competence in applying the law within the ECHR, as with so much else too many in the UK equate poor decisions, inequalities and all manner of other national problems to being the fault of the EU, rather than the governments they themselves, on both sides, voted to elect.
Fuelled by elements of the Press, parties like UKIP.

David_itl wrote:

As for our EU friends wanting rid of us....

There was not one single EU27 country which wanted Brexit. Brexit was an absolutely 100% unitary UK decision.

Of course there are Farage-style individuals in all countries (well, few as crazy as him), but no country wanted Brexit.

What they do want, since Brexit became a reality, is that the UK gets its act together and doesn't drag it on for years. The two years limit is an absolute maximum, but EU27 countries want it carried out ASAP so they can get on with other businesses.

What is worrying the most is that the two leading UK parties are both in complete disarray and without working leadership.

Add to that the fact that nobody knows who the UK is going to be. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Or the United Kingdom of England and Southern Wales? Or something in between? First of all the EU27 will need to know with whom to negotiate the aftermath of Brexit.

Therefore, please don't wonder why EU27 now wants Brexit executed ASAP so they can get on solving serious things like PIGS/EURO, immigration etc.

I watched the voting results as long as I could (had to be at he hospital at 5:45 AM the next morning for surgery) and was amazed at the panic that took hold around the world.

The first point is that the UK and EU need to calm down and stop the knee jerk reactions we are seeing on both sides of the Channel.

I would bet the older generations were the ones that put the Leave vote over the side. The problem is that it will be the younger voters who will face the brunt of the split down the road. That, IMO, leaves us in a position where we need to look longer down the road and work out where we want to be.

Another issue to address is how the relationships in NATO will continue - or change. We have an idiot running for President who is capable of getting the US out of NATO and all the battles with BRITEX could well encourage him on. Sanity and informal discussions for continuing relationships with the EU and NATO need to continue.

I believe there are other countries where citizens would love a BRITEX type vote. Might be because the EU "leadership" has reached a point of arrogance that many find unacceptable. If so then BRITEX was a wake up call that the current panic is hiding.

We have an idiot running for President who is capable of getting the US out of NATO and all the battles with BRITEX could well encourage him on. Sanity and informal discussions for continuing relationships with the EU and NATO need to continue.

I agree on the caliber of the candidate running here, and that NATO must be maintained as it has for all theses years to contain not only Russia, but China and anybody else who challenges us all. We must have learned something after all these years. Weakness and dissention loses every time.

A week plus after the vote, it is increasingly clear that a vote to leave the EU should not be met with harsh punishment necessarily. It seems circumstances take care of that part. The UK has been severely damaged on all fronts because of this: financially, diplomatically, internal political situation, racial/ethnic relations, urban/rural, regional differences, even generational tensions. The state of the political parties in the UK plus the financial quakes alone are, when the comparison is restricted among larger European Nations, making Italy look like an oasis of dependable politics and sane economic policy.

At the end of the day, the UK made a huge mistake. The mistake was not to leave the EU (it can be debated whether it is actually good or bad). The mistake was to leave the EU at ANY cost, and the mistake was compounded multiple times by the fact the the vote to leave the EU was not for this goal's sake, but to satisfy some cheap nationalism bordering on jingoism, which in turn is rooted in a burgeoning xenophobic streak. Because the vote was about political knee-jerking and not actual thought out, long-term policy, now everyone in the UK's policy making sphere is clueless how to proceed, because there was no plan to begin with. It was all a show. Most un-British indeed.

The UK to me now has only two options to MAYBE get back their noses to treading water: to either beg for mercy in a most public and unsavory fashion, and say "we didn't mean it", and hope the EU will forgive and let you keep all the concessions through the years. Or to really go it all alone, try to strike deals with as many nations as possible, and hope the next 3-5 years go by quick. There is a chance, if things are done masterfully and with good back wind to boot, that after 5 years the UK situation will be better than the EU.

Any other option will be far worse, all those "Norway style" outside EU ideas, or the idea that you re-apply again to EU membership are nonsense. All those will have far less favorable deals for the UK than it enjoyed pre-vote. Why would you want your country to pull out only to then be saddled with far worse terms? To me the above two are the only alternative now.

But in short, this is a huge lesson to "sane" politicians (the extreme left and right excluded) in Europe. The UK has become the poster child of how not to conduct a divorce. Walking out with no plan on how to get on with it is daft.

Calm down is not easy. I for example see no way how the EU could reach an agreement with Mrs. May, as she is opposed to the common market.

It could be interesting to listen to BBC Radio 4, starting at 11.15 UK time.
The interviewee is the US ambassador to the UK who seems to have quite a few ideas on trade negociations with the US post brexit.
Ideas that could be related to POTUS declarations in April during his visit.

I'm a Dutch citizen but I was and still am in favour of the Brexit.
Sure, it will give some economic turbulence in the first few weeks and months coming after it, but no Great Depression. And I severely believe the long term benefits exceed the short term drawbacks.

The EU has gone completely nuts when it comes to migration. £200,000 fine for every refugee-immigrant you don't want to take in. That is enough reason to abandon the project.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a United Europe, but not like this. Not where they want to replace the original European people and create some sort of melting pot. That won't work. Five years ago Merkel declared that multiculturalism has utterly failed. Now she is letting millions of migrants in Germany. If this continues, it will mean that the generation of white Germans within the age of 18-30 will become a minority in a decade or so. Not to mention the fact that almost every refugee-immigrant is relying on tax-payer money to survive, while at the same time our governments are cutting spending on the elderly and the original Europeans. The welfare states cannot handle this for much longer.

A few days ago, the Czech president said that he wanted a referendum on Czech membership of the EU and NATO. The Austrian elections will be redone and chances are high the EU-sceptic FPO will win this time. Here in the Netherlands, the anti-EU PVV-party is the highest in the polls of all parties, and will most likely win next year. If we step out, it's over.

The EU has brought this upon themselves. The bureaucrats in Brussel are still in denial, but I don't believe this project will last many more years. Without the consent of the majority it is doomed to fail.

seahawk wrote:

Calm down is not easy. I for example see no way how the EU could reach an agreement with Mrs. May, as she is opposed to the common market.

As it happens, Theresa May was a Remainer, not a Leaver. But you seem to be suggesting that the EU will not negotiate in good faith depending on the politics of the PM?

As much as I'm opposed to us leaving the EU, politically, if May is the PM, then the senior position involved in the negotiations must be seen to be a Leaver. Indeed, May has already said she'd appoint a senior Leaver as the minister responsible for managing the exit.

Pihero wrote:

It could be interesting to listen to BBC Radio 4, starting at 11.15 UK time.
The interviewee is the US ambassador to the UK who seems to have quite a few ideas on trade negociations with the US post brexit.
Ideas that could be related to POTUS declarations in April during his visit.

His 'back of the queue' comment? That was, according to Leave, just part of Project Fear. Anyway. he's already backtracked on that post-vote.

scbriml wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Calm down is not easy. I for example see no way how the EU could reach an agreement with Mrs. May, as she is opposed to the common market.

As it happens, Theresa May was a Remainer, not a Leaver. But you seem to be suggesting that the EU will not negotiate in good faith depending on the politics of the PM?

As much as I'm opposed to us leaving the EU, politically, if May is the PM, then the senior position involved in the negotiations must be seen to be a Leaver. Indeed, May has already said she'd appoint a senior Leaver as the minister responsible for managing the exit.

I meant that the EU has limited control over the outcome. If or when the Uk sents somebody opposed to the common market, the EUHRC or whatever the Eu can do nothing about it. And afaik Mrs. May was supporting remain she now has made it clear that leaving must means leaving the single market. The Uk delegation will be doing what they think is necessary to win the next election, which might not mean staying close to the EU. Imho the British position is the big unknown.

The ECHR has no teeth. It's also not linked to EU membership. Turkey and Russia are members, and their human rights records are horrible.

Millions came to Germany (it wasn't voluntary on Germany's part) but the EU has never talked about sharing such millions, it was always a few thousands here and there. If new member countries that have received billions upon billions of aid can't take a few thousand refugees, then I agree, maybe they're not that European after all.

Aesma wrote:

The ECHR has no teeth. It's also not linked to EU membership. Turkey and Russia are members, and their human rights records are horrible.

That does not, has not, ever stopped the likes of Farage, the tabloid press, Tory Brexit 'Ultras' time and again linking it to the EU.
You saw how facts were something to be derided or ignored by them in the whole sorry campaign.

seahawk wrote:

Mrs. May was supporting remain she now has made it clear that leaving must means leaving the single market.

I haven't heard her say that, do you have a link? Gove is certainly of the view that the UK should leave the single market.

seahawk wrote:

Calm down is not easy. I for example see no way how the EU could reach an agreement with Mrs. May, as she is opposed to the common market.

That's news to me. – quite to the contrary, in fact.

In her speech she said that there must not be any wavering or wiggling room about the referendum decision to exit the EU. That is all.

As far as I know, she is very much in favour of Britain having access to the common market, however, and that is the only sane position any non-delusional british PM could even have. And the EU will have no problem offering that, but only in a package deal with freedom of movement for people as well.

That is the difficulty on the british side here, particularly combined with the fact that Britain has pretty much no leverage to impose the xenophobic intentions of the Brexit voters on the EU. The lies which Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and parts of the british media had told to the british public do not bind the EU in the slightest – at most they bind those specific politicians, and by association and factual result possibly the emerging british leadership. That just has no binding effect on the EU.

If Theresa May did in fact just want Britain out of the common market as well as out of the EU, nothing would be simpler than that, and the EU would neither have a say in such a decision nor would the EU be able to prevent it in any way. That would just be severely harmful to the british economy.

Airshipcenter wrote:

I'm a Dutch citizen but I was and still am in favour of the Brexit.
Sure, it will give some economic turbulence in the first few weeks and months coming after it, but no Great Depression. And I severely believe the long term benefits exceed the short term drawbacks.

You have front-row seats for observing the truth or error in that assumption across the channel now.

The EU has gone completely nuts when it comes to migration. £200,000 fine for every refugee-immigrant you don't want to take in. That is enough reason to abandon the project.

That is reason enough to stop listening to the idiots who are telling you that kind of nonsense, since no such policy does in fact exist!

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a United Europe, but not like this. Not where they want to replace the original European people and create some sort of melting pot. That won't work.

And this claim is complete and utter nonsense which nevertheless keeps being peddled by neo-nazis and their associates all across the Union.

Not only would such a thing not work just for factual reasons, but nobody has ever pursued such an idiotic idea in the first place. Again: Stop listening to people telling you that kind of stupid nonsense!

Five years ago Merkel declared that multiculturalism has utterly failed. Now she is letting millions of migrants in Germany. If this continues, it will mean that the generation of white Germans within the age of 18-30 will become a minority in a decade or so.

That is again complete nonsense from standard neo-nazi propaganda and full of lies.

Germany has about 80 million people. We're speaking about 1.5 million refugees in that recent crisis. That is significant, but what you have claimed above is simply mathematically impossible.

Neo-nazi propaganda usually tries to harp on allegedly enormous birth rates of people coming from poorer countries, but that is also based on ignorance. In reality, immigrants who actually stay here (and many refugees will actually return to their homelands when that is feasible again) adapt to the usual birth rates of the host country within one to two generations so immigrants always remain a relatively small minority. Actually, even people staying in their home country will have fewer births as their economical situation improves there. High birth rates correlate strongly with poor living conditions, much more so than with ethnic or imaginary "racial" backgrounds.

Not to mention the fact that almost every refugee-immigrant is relying on tax-payer money to survive, while at the same time our governments are cutting spending on the elderly and the original Europeans. The welfare states cannot handle this for much longer.

The "welfare states" in developed countries have no real trouble handling a single-digit percentage increase of (largely temporary) recipients.

That is almost exclusively a question of political intention on the part of the respective governments and has next to nothing to do with a few immigrants or refugees.

The Cameron government found it politically expedient to let people believe that not the government's own brutal austerity policy, but instead the evil, bloodsucking foreigners were the cause for the creaking social systems in England and Wales. But in actual fact it would not have been a real problem to fund the social services properly with room to spare if the government hadn't been totally committed to spare the upper few percent of just the most reasonable tax increase for purely ideological reasons.

Immigrants had nothing to do with that – they and the brexiteers' bizarre caricature of the EU were just easy to abuse scapegoats for people's grievances to deflect the blame away from Britain's own government in Westminster where the actual problems had been created.

A few days ago, the Czech president said that he wanted a referendum on Czech membership of the EU and NATO.

One can only hope for the sake of the Czech republic that he knows what he's talking about. Recent evidence would raise some doubts about that.

The Austrian elections will be redone and chances are high the EU-sceptic FPO will win this time.

Yeah, who wouldn't love a Britain-style mess in his or her home country as well!

Here in the Netherlands, the anti-EU PVV-party is the highest in the polls of all parties, and will most likely win next year. If we step out, it's over.

Let's see how that goes in light of the british developments.

The EU has brought this upon themselves.

Brexit had practically zero to do with the actual EU. The Brexit campaign was almost exclusively based on lies and falsehoods, with the most egregious ones already retracted or abandoned right after the referendum. The actual EU had practically nothing to do with Brexit, or with your own dubious claims above.

The bureaucrats in Brussel are still in denial, but I don't believe this project will last many more years. Without the consent of the majority it is doomed to fail.

There are many things open for criticism about the EU, but you haven't brought even a single one which isn't either just imaginary or which isn't actually dependent on the respective national governments.

And your post is pretty symptomatic about how the Brexit campaign went.

Manipulating people can be pretty easy when they're gullible enough. But as we've seen it's just much harder to explain what was to happen after the propaganda has in fact reached its long-declared goals.

Ken777 wrote:

Another issue to address is how the relationships in NATO will continue - or change.

Britain will do its utmost to have as little change as possible in their commitment to NATO; I think that can be considered a given. There might be further economic strain to keep up Britain's factual contributions, but that is neither new nor exclusive to Britain either. Being out of the EU would only increase Britain's motivation to preserve and use all its remaining connections.

Derico wrote:

The UK to me now has only two options to MAYBE get back their noses to treading water: to either beg for mercy in a most public and unsavory fashion, and say "we didn't mean it", and hope the EU will forgive and let you keep all the concessions through the years.

The UK government could simply decide not to activate article 50 and that would be all that takes.

The price to pay for that would be almost exclusively within Britain (would there be riots in the streets, or maybe just a sharp intake of breath out of the deepest relief?). Toward the EU nothing would change, at least nominally. Although future blackmailing attempts would probably be moot with the bluff now called out so spectacularly.

Or to really go it all alone, try to strike deals with as many nations as possible, and hope the next 3-5 years go by quick. There is a chance, if things are done masterfully and with good back wind to boot, that after 5 years the UK situation will be better than the EU.

Based on what, exactly?

scbriml wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Mrs. May was supporting remain she now has made it clear that leaving must means leaving the single market.

I haven't heard her say that, do you have a link? Gove is certainly of the view that the UK should leave the single market.

As I understand it from my British friends, she only has a chance if a Brexit supporter leads the negotiations with the EU and the role would fall to Gove. So it is like that his position would be the position of the new government.

Klaus wrote:

The price to pay for that would be almost exclusively within Britain (would there be riots in the streets, or maybe just a sharp intake of breath out of the deepest relief?). Toward the EU nothing would change, at least nominally. Although future blackmailing attempts would probably be moot with the bluff now called out so spectacularly.

I came upon this 2014 video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoLnDabNHI

Which was taken from this, longer video featuring stereotypes from most sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqayC1sR7g

JJJ wrote:

Klaus wrote:

The price to pay for that would be almost exclusively within Britain (would there be riots in the streets, or maybe just a sharp intake of breath out of the deepest relief?). Toward the EU nothing would change, at least nominally. Although future blackmailing attempts would probably be moot with the bluff now called out so spectacularly.

I came upon this 2014 video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoLnDabNHI

Which was taken from this, longer video featuring stereotypes from most sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqayC1sR7g

Excellent!

One of the earliest ones of that kind I know of is this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzQuuoKXVq0
It's actually an old Flash animation from 1999, but despite the crude graphics its sense of humour (from an italian, of course!) is just brilliant.
Not to be taken too seriously, of course.

seahawk wrote:

As I understand it from my British friends, she only has a chance if a Brexit supporter leads the negotiations with the EU and the role would fall to Gove. So it is like that his position would be the position of the new government.

I think she has a very good chance and she's already said she would appoint a senior Leaver to the role. However, I think Gove has all but ruled himself out of that role thanks to his treachery.

Even if Gove did have that role under May as PM, he would have to negotiate what he's told to negotiate, not what he personally believes. If the Cabinet decides to negotiate for access to the single market, then that's what Gove would have to. If that's something he's not willing to do because he thinks we should be out of the single market, then I can't see him getting the job under May.