So what did the Brexit supporters gain?

[Ricardo]

May is clearly waiting for the impacts to bite.

If house prices fall (as is expected) it will be game over for Brexit.

But unfortunately they rose, this month so another myth gone to the wall

This was the latest on the BBC-website, dated 19th July ...

"The price of an average house or flat in the UK rose by £16,000 in the year to May, according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

The house price inflation rate remained at 8.1%, the same as in April. It brings the average price to £211,000."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/932853-where-was-the-sign-cries-angry-motorist-after-vios-takes-a-dip-in-a-ditch/

On the other hand, that's a year-on-year increase, to the end of May & therefore does not reflect any post-Brexit effect, I would suggest ?

So too early to break open the champagne just yet !

[Jip99]

High Court to hear legal challenge to Brexit

Senior judges Sir Brian Leveson, president of the Queens bench division, and Mr Justice Cranston will hear that a judicial review application has been lodged over whether Theresa May, the prime minister, has the power to serve notice of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 or whether she will need a vote in parliament approving withdrawal.

https://next.ft.com/content/52e562fe-4cff-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

I wonder whether either of the main parties dare risk an 'open vote' on this one ?

May is clearly waiting for the impacts to bite.

If house prices fall (as is expected) it will be game over for Brexit.

Absolute rubbish!

I hope prices do stall. The market has been so hot that ongoing rises could not be maintained.

Demand remains high,and will continue to do so, and London will correct itself because it spiraling prices had gone out of control.

[sandyf]

The UK is already an EEA member, as are all other EU members.

All EEA members are bound by the freedom of movement regulations, which arise from EEA treaties not EU ones.

So to remove ourselves from the freedom of movement treaties and regulations we will have to leave the EEA as well as the EU.

It is not up to the Brexit team to decide; it is for them to negotiate the best agreement they can get.

Anyone who thinks we can remain in the single market for goods without the free movement of people as well is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

The UK is a member of the EEA by default.

It will be up to the Brexit team to decide if they feel it is in the national interest to negotiate to remain a member which would probably be subject to approval by the other 27 members.

Current rhetoric would indicate that the plan is to remain in the single market. This would give the PM a 'get out of jail card' on the immigration figures under a 'best deal' arrangement. It would also take the pressure off the NHS, about a third of UK born nurses are due to retire in next couple of years.

Not really by default, as when the EEA was formed, in 1994, the agreement was that membership was open to EU members and EFTA members. All EU members agreed to join, as did three of the four EFTA members; the one not joining being Switzerland.

So there are currently 31 EEA member states; including the UK.

Narrow minded comment. Default is a common term referencing a preset condition, all EU members are required to be members of the EEA, the technicalities of how that requirement came about are of little consequence.

When the UK leaves the EU it will also leave the EEA. If the Brexit team have decided the UK should be a member of the EEA then arrangements would need to be made to rejoin the EEA.

Membership of the EEA is controlled by the European Commission so any arrangement would be subject to the approval of the 27 commission members, assuming that by that time the UK no longer has a voice on the commission.

[billd766]

High Court to hear legal challenge to Brexit

Senior judges Sir Brian Leveson, president of the Queens bench division, and Mr Justice Cranston will hear that a judicial review application has been lodged over whether Theresa May, the prime minister, has the power to serve notice of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 or whether she will need a vote in parliament approving withdrawal.

https://next.ft.com/content/52e562fe-4cff-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

I wonder whether either of the main parties dare risk an 'open vote' on this one ?

May is clearly waiting for the impacts to bite.

If house prices fall (as is expected) it will be game over for Brexit.

No it won't and why should it?

[billd766]

The UK is already an EEA member, as are all other EU members.

All EEA members are bound by the freedom of movement regulations, which arise from EEA treaties not EU ones.

So to remove ourselves from the freedom of movement treaties and regulations we will have to leave the EEA as well as the EU.

It is not up to the Brexit team to decide; it is for them to negotiate the best agreement they can get.

Anyone who thinks we can remain in the single market for goods without the free movement of people as well is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

The UK is a member of the EEA by default.

It will be up to the Brexit team to decide if they feel it is in the national interest to negotiate to remain a member which would probably be subject to approval by the other 27 members.

Current rhetoric would indicate that the plan is to remain in the single market. This would give the PM a 'get out of jail card' on the immigration figures under a 'best deal' arrangement. It would also take the pressure off the NHS, about a third of UK born nurses are due to retire in next couple of years.

Not really by default, as when the EEA was formed, in 1994, the agreement was that membership was open to EU members and EFTA members. All EU members agreed to join, as did three of the four EFTA members; the one not joining being Switzerland.

So there are currently 31 EEA member states; including the UK.

However, Switzerland did sign a bilateral agreement on the free movement of goods and people.

So the freedom of movement regulations apply to Switzerland as well as the 31 EEA members.

If the UK wants to remain a member of the EEA, or like Switzerland sign a bilateral agreement without being a member, I can see no way that the other 30 states would agree to such an agreement unless the UK also agreed to the free movement of people.

Interesting point about the state of nursing in the NHS; mainly due to the British government not providing enough student nurse places. According to the Royal College of Nurses in 2015/16 there were 30 applicants on some courses for every place available; and that's just in one region! The number qualifying each year does not even make up for natural wastage, let alone increasing demand from an ageing population.

But, apart from showing that the UK needs workers from other EEA states, and elsewhere, not really anything to do with Brexit.

One further point, though, which has been ignored by many; on both sides.

The Brexit campaign made much of the net migration figure.

This figure, of course, includes British citizens leaving the UK; many of them to live in other EEA countries.

Obviously, if the UK does leave the freedom of movement agreements, these British citizens will no longer be able to do so as easily; they will require the appropriate visa; just as EEA nationals will in order to live in the UK.

So how much will Brexit effect the net migration figure, even if the UK does succeed in withdrawing from the freedom of movement agreements?

Vey little, if at all, I would suggest.

If the Brits who wish to become expats wish to do so then what is stopping them? A visa. If they want to become an expat then they will follow the rules and get a visa. After all isn't that what most UK expats do world wide. They certainly do here in Thailand.

If they don't want to get the visa then they will stay in the UK and expats from the EU will simply have to get a visa. Now as to what those qualifications might be, at this point nobody has a clue. So until they do whatever you or I or anyone else may say or think doesn't matter.

IMHO that will not be discussed by any side for at least a year from now.

[sandyf]

So what did the Brexit supporters gain? - Mrs Thatcher Mk2?

Theresa May goes ‘full Thatcher’ in debut at Question Time

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/theresa-may-goes-full-thatcher-in-debut-at-question-time/news-story/b1237b0d58a0ce0dc1324d9fa1903c74

[7by7]

(Some nested quotes removed/edited for clarity)

The Brexit campaign made much of the net migration figure.

This figure, of course, includes British citizens leaving the UK; many of them to live in other EEA countries.

Obviously, if the UK does leave the freedom of movement agreements, these British citizens will no longer be able to do so as easily; they will require the appropriate visa; just as EEA nationals will in order to live in the UK.

So how much will Brexit effect the net migration figure, even if the UK does succeed in withdrawing from the freedom of movement agreements?

Vey little, if at all, I would suggest.

If the Brits who wish to become expats wish to do so then what is stopping them? A visa. If they want to become an expat then they will follow the rules and get a visa. After all isn't that what most UK expats do world wide. They certainly do here in Thailand.

If they don't want to get the visa then they will stay in the UK and expats from the EU will simply have to get a visa. Now as to what those qualifications might be, at this point nobody has a clue. So until they do whatever you or I or anyone else may say or think doesn't matter.

IMHO that will not be discussed by any side for at least a year from now.

You seemed to have missed my point.

That point being that if or when the UK withdraws from the freedom of movement agreements then although there will be a reduction in the number of EEA nationals coming to the UK to live, there will also be a reduction in the number of British nationals leaving the UK to live in the remaining EEA states.

Therefore the overall effect in the net migration figures will be minimal at best.

Got it, now?

As to what requirements an EEA national would have to meet in order to live, study or work in the UK if the UK leaves the freedom of movement agreements; it's obvious. The same as non EEA nationals have to meet now.

Ditto for British nationals wishing to live, work or study in any of the remaining EEA states.

[elliss]

So what did the Brexit supporters gain? - Mrs Thatcher Mk2?

Theresa May goes ‘full Thatcher’ in debut at Question Time

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/theresa-may-goes-full-thatcher-in-debut-at-question-time/news-story/b1237b0d58a0ce0dc1324d9fa1903c74

Slaughter of the Lamb , comes to mind .

[Jip99]

(Some nested quotes removed/edited for clarity)

The Brexit campaign made much of the net migration figure.

This figure, of course, includes British citizens leaving the UK; many of them to live in other EEA countries.

Obviously, if the UK does leave the freedom of movement agreements, these British citizens will no longer be able to do so as easily; they will require the appropriate visa; just as EEA nationals will in order to live in the UK.

So how much will Brexit effect the net migration figure, even if the UK does succeed in withdrawing from the freedom of movement agreements?

Vey little, if at all, I would suggest.

If the Brits who wish to become expats wish to do so then what is stopping them? A visa. If they want to become an expat then they will follow the rules and get a visa. After all isn't that what most UK expats do world wide. They certainly do here in Thailand.

If they don't want to get the visa then they will stay in the UK and expats from the EU will simply have to get a visa. Now as to what those qualifications might be, at this point nobody has a clue. So until they do whatever you or I or anyone else may say or think doesn't matter.

IMHO that will not be discussed by any side for at least a year from now.

You seemed to have missed my point.

That point being that if or when the UK withdraws from the freedom of movement agreements then although there will be a reduction in the number of EEA nationals coming to the UK to live, there will also be a reduction in the number of British nationals leaving the UK to live in the remaining EEA states.

Therefore the overall effect in the net migration figures will be minimal at best.

Got it, now?

As to what requirements an EEA national would have to meet in order to live, study or work in the UK if the UK leaves the freedom of movement agreements; it's obvious. The same as non EEA nationals have to meet now.

Ditto for British nationals wishing to live, work or study in any of the remaining EEA states.

I think what your point covers is that your neutral assumption is more likely to be incorrect than correct.

It is quite probable that whatever new mutual visa rules are put in place they will disadvantage the poorer citizens in the EU and the UK i.e. there are likely to be financial criteria stipulated within those new rules. I would take a small wager that would put freedom of movement out of the window for many of those at the ar5e end of the financial spectrum e.g. not unlike Thailand's approach to immigration.

I know that you will understand this point because of comments you have made about UK settlement visas - it WILL be a barrier to citizens from poorer member states. As indeed it should be.

I have repeatedly stated that I think Thailand's immigration rules are a good place for the UK (and the rest of Europe) to start. If you have income, capital, a recognised study place or a suitable job offer then that should buy a ticket for freedom of movement.

[The manic]

As a 27 year old Brit, the future of Britain is mine.

Except a load of poorly educated, middle aged racists have made the future oh so more sketchy.

Well done.

As one of the few young Brits on this forum, I feel for you. All the news reports that I have seen indicate that young Brits like yourself voted overwhelmingly to remain. It's the older folks who voted in the other direction. The thing is, it's the young who's going to have to deal with the fallout for much longer. It just doesn't seem fair.

Doesn't seem fair - thus speaks generation panty waist. Imbued with the ability to read the future and all ready defeated by it. Pathetic.

[chiang mai]

An interesting article on the subject of leaving (or perhaps not):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/why-its-time-to-accept-the-fact-that-brexit-may-never-actually-happen-a7148816.html

The article argues that it's almost impossible that we will leave and lists valid 10 reasons why, underlying them are the following:

• The EU will not give the UK a deal in which Britain gets access to the single market but opts out of the "freedom of movement" requirement that lets EU migrants into the country. In fact, the EU cannot give this deal to the UK because it would represent an existential threat to the EU itself: If one country gets access to the single market while controlling its own immigration borders, then every country in the EU will want to do the same.
• Leaving the EU will cause such massive damage to the UK economy that it might be political suicide for any government to actually leave despite the fact that a majority of people voted Leave in the EU Referendum.

Edited July 22, 2016 by chiang mai

[Naam]

As a 27 year old Brit, the future of Britain is mine.

Except a load of poorly educated, middle aged racists have made the future oh so more sketchy.

Well done.

As one of the few young Brits on this forum, I feel for you. All the news reports that I have seen indicate that young Brits like yourself voted overwhelmingly to remain. It's the older folks who voted in the other direction. The thing is, it's the young who's going to have to deal with the fallout for much longer. It just doesn't seem fair.

Doesn't seem fair - thus speaks generation panty waist. Imbued with the ability to read the future and all ready defeated by it. Pathetic.

the young chaps should look at the bright side. after all they will be the Sahibs, Bwanas and N'kosis in the soon to be resurrected British Empire.

[sandyf]

An interesting article on the subject of leaving (or perhaps not):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/why-its-time-to-accept-the-fact-that-brexit-may-never-actually-happen-a7148816.html

The article argues that it's almost impossible that we will leave and lists valid 10 reasons why, underlying them are the following:

• The EU will not give the UK a deal in which Britain gets access to the single market but opts out of the "freedom of movement" requirement that lets EU migrants into the country. In fact, the EU cannot give this deal to the UK because it would represent an existential threat to the EU itself: If one country gets access to the single market while controlling its own immigration borders, then every country in the EU will want to do the same.
• Leaving the EU will cause such massive damage to the UK economy that it might be political suicide for any government to actually leave despite the fact that a majority of people voted Leave in the EU Referendum.

This quote from the same article is not quite true.

"On those assumptions, May's government is heavily incentivised to drag its feet over the Leave negotiations. It would be much easier for the Tories to be seen to be negotiating an exit, while not actually exiting, than actually leaving Europe. Especially when 2020 comes around."

Extending the negotiating period over 2 years would require an agreement from the EU, that is highly unlikely so all credibility will hinge on Article 50.

"The form of any withdrawal agreement would depend on the negotiations and there is therefore no guarantee the UK would find the terms acceptable. The EU Treaties would cease to apply to the UK on the entry into force of a withdrawal agreement or, if no new agreement is concluded, after two years, unless there is unanimous agreement to extend the negotiating period.

During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or decisions on its own withdrawal. On the EU side, the agreement would be negotiated by the European Commission following a mandate from EU ministers and concluded by EU governments “acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.” This means that the European Parliament would be an additional unpredictable factor in striking a deal."

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/

[Orac]

Though rather long, I found the attached article by John Lanchester rather insightful as to what led to brexit and the underlying problems the UK now faces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

[mfd101]

Though rather long, I found the attached article by John Lanchester rather insightful as to what led to brexit and the underlying problems the UK now faces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

The only intelligent & well-informed article I've read on the subject so far!

[Khun Han]

Though rather long, I found the attached article by John Lanchester rather insightful as to what led to brexit and the underlying problems the UK now faces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

I read it ysterday, and found it utterly slanted and largely bereft of supporting evidence for it's myriad of contentious suppositions and assumptions. But it plays quite wittily to the Remainer crowd.

[GuestHouse]

Though rather long, I found the attached article by John Lanchester rather insightful as to what led to brexit and the underlying problems the UK now faces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

I read it ysterday, and found it utterly slanted and largely bereft of supporting evidence for it's myriad of contentious suppositions and assumptions. But it plays quite wittily to the Remainer crowd.

That's quite amusing coming from a Brexit supporter.

[chiang mai]

Though rather long, I found the attached article by John Lanchester rather insightful as to what led to brexit and the underlying problems the UK now faces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

I read it ysterday, and found it utterly slanted and largely bereft of supporting evidence for it's myriad of contentious suppositions and assumptions. But it plays quite wittily to the Remainer crowd.

Supporting evidence and Brexit(eer) don't go well together,

To Add:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-22/brexit-vote-wreaks-havoc-on-u-k-economy-flash-estimates-show

Edited July 22, 2016 by chiang mai

[happy Joe]

Though rather long, I found the attached article by John Lanchester rather insightful as to what led to brexit and the underlying problems the UK now faces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

Nice article a bit long indeed.

The welcome May by Merkel and Hollande confirms the predictions of John Lanchester. While it was expected the beginnings of an arm wrestling we witness a kind of complicity to be given time.

Why this time?

To allow Brexiters accepting the same status as Norway and in reality betray their vote.

This line will enable the UK to retain its gains. In time, everyone will agree that this way was the least bad.

[Khun Han]

Though rather long, I found the attached article by John Lanchester rather insightful as to what led to brexit and the underlying problems the UK now faces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

I read it ysterday, and found it utterly slanted and largely bereft of supporting evidence for it's myriad of contentious suppositions and assumptions. But it plays quite wittily to the Remainer crowd.

Supporting evidence and Brexit(eer) don't go well together,

To Add:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-22/brexit-vote-wreaks-havoc-on-u-k-economy-flash-estimates-show

As opposed, I suppose, to the apocalyptic scaremongering predictions that didn't happen and are not going to happen any time soon. Sterling was quickly going to go below parity with the Euro, then the US Dollar, the banks were going to pull out of London, the economy was going to tank, France was going to send all it's refugees to Dover, and,and,and.....none of it happening.

[Naam]

As opposed, I suppose, to the apocalyptic scaremongering predictions that didn't happen and are not going to happen any time soon. Sterling was quickly going to go below parity with the Euro, then the US Dollar, the banks were going to pull out of London, the economy was going to tank, France was going to send all it's refugees to Dover, and,and,and.....none of it happening.

please tell us what promised positive things happened since the BRexit vote

[Khun Han]

^ Are you being facetious? We haven't even invoked Article 50 yet!

[chiang mai]

Though rather long, I found the attached article by John Lanchester rather insightful as to what led to brexit and the underlying problems the UK now faces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

I read it ysterday, and found it utterly slanted and largely bereft of supporting evidence for it's myriad of contentious suppositions and assumptions. But it plays quite wittily to the Remainer crowd.

Supporting evidence and Brexit(eer) don't go well together,

To Add:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-22/brexit-vote-wreaks-havoc-on-u-k-economy-flash-estimates-show

As opposed, I suppose, to the apocalyptic scaremongering predictions that didn't happen and are not going to happen any time soon. Sterling was quickly going to go below parity with the Euro, then the US Dollar, the banks were going to pull out of London, the economy was going to tank, France was going to send all it's refugees to Dover, and,and,and.....none of it happening.

The day is young and this whole business is only just now getting started, keep your eye on Sterling, the banks and the economy over the next six months.

[cumgranosalum]

So far though this is what they have achieved.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36864273?post_id=901754926558568_1142184719182253#_=_

invoking aticle 50 will trigger another dive as the "negotiator realisation" kicks in

[Mark123456]

What the Brexit supporters have gained is a promise from me that I will never live in the UK again. Having read about the surge in racially motivated hate crimes since the referendum, there's no way I would take my daughter to live in a country full of nasty, bigotted, ignorant louts like the UK (England in particular, excluding London perhaps).

On these forums, we often see complaints of how we are treated by Thai people - double pricing, being ignored in shops, and the tortous immigration procedures have all been commented on recently. I dont like double pricing or immigration's seemingly unsatiable appetite for paperwork but until Thai people start verbally abusing me in the street, burning my property, and sending me death threats, I'll consider them (as a whole) more enlightened than my countrymen back home.

Farang?

Pattaya balcony?

I have lived in central London most of my life and never seen any racial hatred, it would be impossible as there is so many races living there. But after 1 month in Thailand I've seen plenty of racism, usually the casual insult to whites by the 'farang' name, but also in double pricing from many. Strange really as advertising propaganda would have us believe English people are the devil and Thai people are angels.

I specifically excluded London from my mini-rant - did you not see that? l literally have no idea what you are talking about with regards to 'farang' and 'Pattaya balcony', unless you are suggesting that old men falling off balconies in Pattaya are really the victims of racial hate crimes? I have no difficulty in imagining that their falls are being assisted but I am 100% sure it has nothing to do with race.

If double pricing is the best you can come up with, you've proven my point really. I'll take double pricing over being beaten and verbally abused any day of the week.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Mark123456

[cumgranosalum]

I’ve noticed 2 clichés in particular seem to have emerged from the Brexit campaign. On before the referendum and one after........

I wonder how many times the expression “scaremongering” has come up over the past couple of months - it seems to be regarded by Brexiteers as some kind of panacea response for any reasoned argument they can’t think of a reply to.

At least they admit that leaving the EU is “scary”

The second is “get over it” - an equally facile argument.

See this......

http://newsthump.com/2016/07/22/brexiter-annoyed-by-people-pointing-out-that-thing-they-were-told-would-happen-is-happening/

The overall impression a got, and still get, is that a large number of Brexiteers are from the “kick-it-and-it-will-work” school of thought.

Rather than look at a problem and see how it can be fixed, they believe that smashing it without any plan of replacement is a better idea.

Edited July 22, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[Mark123456]

Yes, 'get over it' or 'stop whining' seem to be the most common responses, both of which aptly illustrate the level of intelligence of those who voted to leave.

[cumgranosalum]

Though rather long, I found the attached article by John Lanchester rather insightful as to what led to brexit and the underlying problems the UK now faces.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues

I read it ysterday, and found it utterly slanted and largely bereft of supporting evidence for it's myriad of contentious suppositions and assumptions. But it plays quite wittily to the Remainer crowd.

Supporting evidence and Brexit(eer) don't go well together,

To Add:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-22/brexit-vote-wreaks-havoc-on-u-k-economy-flash-estimates-show

As opposed, I suppose, to the apocalyptic scaremongering predictions that didn't happen and are not going to happen any time soon. Sterling was quickly going to go below parity with the Euro, then the US Dollar, the banks were going to pull out of London, the economy was going to tank, France was going to send all it's refugees to Dover, and,and,and.....none of it happening.

It is a hallmark of so many Brexiteers' stupidity that they failed to actually listen to any of the arguments put forward just as we see the deliberate misinterpretation by the above post. I suppose they also believed their own rhetoric and are now expecting 350 million per week boost to the NHS?

[wooloomooloo]

Can you imagine walking down the street in Thailand and having Thai people shout "go home foreigner!" at you? How about if they daubed the expats clubs with anti farang slogans?

Never happened to me and never expect to.

[cumgranosalum]

An interesting article on the subject of leaving (or perhaps not):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/why-its-time-to-accept-the-fact-that-brexit-may-never-actually-happen-a7148816.html

The article argues that it's almost impossible that we will leave and lists valid 10 reasons why, underlying them are the following:

• The EU will not give the UK a deal in which Britain gets access to the single market but opts out of the "freedom of movement" requirement that lets EU migrants into the country. In fact, the EU cannot give this deal to the UK because it would represent an existential threat to the EU itself: If one country gets access to the single market while controlling its own immigration borders, then every country in the EU will want to do the same.
• Leaving the EU will cause such massive damage to the UK economy that it might be political suicide for any government to actually leave despite the fact that a majority of people voted Leave in the EU Referendum.

This quote from the same article is not quite true.

"On those assumptions, May's government is heavily incentivised to drag its feet over the Leave negotiations. It would be much easier for the Tories to be seen to be negotiating an exit, while not actually exiting, than actually leaving Europe. Especially when 2020 comes around."

Extending the negotiating period over 2 years would require an agreement from the EU, that is highly unlikely so all credibility will hinge on Article 50.

"The form of any withdrawal agreement would depend on the negotiations and there is therefore no guarantee the UK would find the terms acceptable. The EU Treaties would cease to apply to the UK on the entry into force of a withdrawal agreement or, if no new agreement is concluded, after two years, unless there is unanimous agreement to extend the negotiating period.

During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or decisions on its own withdrawal. On the EU side, the agreement would be negotiated by the European Commission following a mandate from EU ministers and concluded by EU governments “acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.” This means that the European Parliament would be an additional unpredictable factor in striking a deal."

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/

there is of course one major problem here whatever the scenario - the UK doesn't actually have any negotiators.

There is also the perverse logic of our negotiating situation. Cameron went to EU and basically said if they didn't give UK certain things, they'd leave. He didn't get and they've left.........

Now they've got to turn round and say..Ok, so how about those things again?

Excuse me, what has the UK got to negotiate with? They've already done that....