It would be more reasonable, in my world view, seeing that the UK cannot participate in these meetings, that it be not treated as a full member. Which would entail the EU not accepting all or part of the UK contribution. Mrs May has been accused of wanting her cake and eating it. Seems that applies to the EU 27 as well.
No. The exiting country has made firm commitments before which remain on the books and remain to be paid off in due course. It's not the EU27's fault that Britain had unilaterally decided to jump ship all of a sudden with no prior warning, so they cannot be liable to have their entire budget shot to hell on a whim of the deliberate defector.
Also it is not just prescribed in the rules that the exiting country is excluded from EU deliberations concerning that exit, it is also the only possible option in the first place.
Other meetings about matters which still affect the exiting country in other ways will have that country still on board, but it is also expected to recuse itself from matters which concern the future of the Union beyond its departure.
And that is also the only sensible way to do this when you really think it through.
To see the bickering here is sad and unsettling. I am stuck with what I have going on in my country so I won't and don't point any fingers, but isn't the EU supposed a tiny bit more enlightened than the USA in its politics etc?
It is, but Article 50 is pretty severe in its consequences for good reason.
Article 50 was designed to basically be a "nuclear option", but specifically to shelter the EU as an ongoing organisation from most of the fallout of the deliberately exiting member state in order to deter external sabotage and exploitation.
Its consequences were designed to be so harsh as to deter any frivolous toying with the idea of an exit. Ironically it was british negotiators who did much to build it into the Lisbon Treaty this way.
Nobody seriously expected any member country to stumble out of the Union blindly without actually understanding what they were doing as apparently is the case with Britain now, where none of the UK government representatives or of the Brexit campaigners actually seem to grasp what it really is they are doing here. They are still trying to wing it, to make it up as they go along without any serious prior research or planning.
The almost certainly resulting hardships have nothing to do with malice on the part of the EU27 but are simply just consequences
– and perfectly foreseeable ones at that, if anyone had actually cared to look ahead in earnest.
The two-year schedule for the exit negotiations is quick and brutal, but should be very barely feasible
if everybody actually worked extremely hard to pull it off – instead of dragging their heels and throwing in additional delays and roadblocks wasting precious time (such as pulling an out-of-schedule election!).
And to make this perfectly clear: The Lisbon Treaty and its Article 50 are specifically designed to preserve and protect the European Union
– and with the declaration of Article 50 the exiting country automatically and instantly switches from being a fully protected member country to becoming a potentially hostile and soon-to-be unprotected third country
with only that short grace period of 24 months.
The Lisbon Treaty does not offer any protections to a third country
– and if you're declaring Article 50 you damn well better have all your ducks in a row and all your hatches tied down for severe weather since wherever in doubt, it is the European Union
which will be protected and preserved and the exiting country will get the short straw whenever there's a conflict of interests.
The whole process is designed that way for good reason, and you should not undertake it without being really, really
certain that you're able to come out intact on the other end of it.
There is a clear and present lack of seriousness and preparation on the UK side which may well turn out to be disastrous for the UK, but the EU27 will be busy enough protecting their own interests first and foremost from the consequences of an error of judgment that was made by another and soon-to-be external party.
It sure is tragic, but by far most of the wounds Britain is likely to receive are in fact self-inflicted
The initial EU position stated that any member could veto, I thought the EU was a democratic organization where some decisions could be implemented by a majority vote.
Majority decisions are limited to non-essential ones which don't materially affect the individual member countries.
The exit negotiations might
qualify for that, but more likely they won't, so it will probably come to a unanimous decision (meaning every country would have a veto).
A new trade deal would definitely require unanimity, as does accession of any new member (which by the way made BoJo's propaganda claim of Turkey being foisted on the UK as a new member utterly mendacious, further exacerbated by his own turnaround after the referendum offering to lend Turkey a helping hand for accession).
How exactly is the UK going to get any kind of deal unless it specifically caters to the demands of each member?
The agreement that was just made is (among other things) designed to mostly isolate the EU27 negotiators from any spurious demands by member countries.
Yes the Article 50 process is specified with a required two year frame, but all the parties involved should really have everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, in place and strategies formulated prior to that time.
The UK could have done it and make the EU look stupid and unprepared.
They could have tried, but it would have been difficult to pull off since the EU was effectively ready to talk a few days after the referendum.