EU leaders push Britain to leave amid post-vote turmoil

[ilostmypassword]

The ones to blame are not the Germans. The Euro had a rather generous standard of running up to a 3% deficit. Every country will have good times and bad types - such is the cycle of any economy. Those that ran rather hug deficits leaving nothing left for emergencies are to blame for their own situation. The PIGS of Europe were the PIGS of Europe long before the crisis -- they had that reputation because they were utterly running their economies into the ground. Unfortunately now most of the entire western world has decided to do the same thing....

The only blame that Germans as well as others have with regards to these countries -- is they should have never allowed them to join the Euro and they should not have turned a blind eye when they cooked the books to make it seem like they were ready.... but in the end it was these countries that actually cooked the books.

This mismanagement will have to be flushed through the system, and countries that were fraudulently added to the Euro may still have to exit.

This is simply and flatly untrue about most of the nations involved. The governments of Greece and Portugal were profligate. 2 small nations. Ireland, Spain, and Italy actually had very manageable GDP to debt ratios. Spain's had actually gone down from about 57% to I think 37%. The total indebtedness of all of them had been on the decline., Spain and Ireland had been repeatedly praised for being fiscally responsible. When the bubble burst, it was a private investment bubble. Banks had lent way too much to builders. Germany, France, and the UK did their best to socialize that debt. In other words, they made the citizens of those nations responsible for the problem of private debt. Private citizens were forced to bail out the big banks.

Saying that 3% deficit max is reasonable in the face of a depression is nonsense. When you slash spending in a depression, you actually make things worse. Debt actually increases because of something called the multiplier effect. And we've seen how that nonsense has played out. The depression/recession in the afflicted portions of the Eurozone has laster longer than the depression of the 30s. To make it worse, the geniuses at the EU actually raised interest rates in 2011. That just made things worse. When a country loses control of its currency, it loses control of its destiny. The UK was very wise to reject the Euro.

[tonbridgebrit]

Americans are actually, mainly a bunch of Brits living in America.

The population of the USA is at most, 25 percent British extraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#Analysis_by_2000_Federal_Population_Census .

An appeal on the grounds of ancestry to an immigrant nation like the USA is ludicrous. You think the USA should base its trade policy on the basis of Auld Lang Syne? And very Auld Lang Syne at that.

Britain is not there to stop France and Germany showing their non-friendly attitude towards America.

As for France or Germany allegedly not liking the USA. Who cares? Right now the EU enjoys a huge trade surplus with the USA. You think they want to risk damaging that out of pique? Maybe if those nations were composed of 7 year olds you might have a point.

You seem confused to. On the one hand you write Remember, the EU is talking tough with Britain, but it's only talk but on the other Washington, give favourable trade terms to Britain. you want the USA to give the UK special favors? Why, if there's really no problem?

And if you're right, that the UK's withdrawal from the EU is helping Putin, then the USA should reward the UK by giving it special favors?

Hello there.

Thanks for the wikipedia link, about how lots of Americans are British-Americans.

Okay, in World War One, America entered into the fighting, on the side of Britain and France, AGAINST Germany. Why ? Well, surely, this was because the Americans who were British, they wanted this, Brits in America certainly did NOT want the USA fighting alongside Germany.

By the way, some Germans in America protested against fighting a war against Germany.

Now, in times of war and peace, the USA nearly always backs Britain. USA won't back those who are AGAINST Britain. This is because, the Brits in America make up the largest single group. Afro-Americans, Hispanics, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, etc, these groups are smaller and have far LESS influence than the Americans who are British. That's what I'm trying to say.

So, support Britain in two World Wars, and now, support Britain by reducing/removing taxes on British goods entering America. Surely, today, the trade bit, that's not asking a lot ? Do bear in mind that the EU (through Germany and France) might put taxes onto British goods entering into the EU. So, America doing this trade bit will help Britain.

"As for France or Germany allegedly not liking the USA. Who cares? Right now the EU enjoys a huge trade surplus with the USA. You think they want to risk damaging that out of pique? Maybe if those nations were composed of 7 year olds you might have a point."

Okay, I'm trying to say this. Yes, the EU has a big trade surplus with the USA. There certainly has been many trade disputes between Washington and Brussels during the last few decades. Things like steel and grain have been involved, as in Europe doing a partial blockage of American grain. Now, during these disputes, I think it was France and Germany who were being more anti-American than Britain. Britain's not in the EU now. The chances of the EU reducing it's barriers against American goods has now dimished. This is not good for the USA.

"You seem confused to. On the one hand you write Remember, the EU is talking tough with Britain, but it's only talk but on the other Washington, give favourable trade terms to Britain. you want the USA to give the UK special favors? Why, if there's really no problem?"

Okay, Britain still has considerable influence in Europe, even after this EXIT. The chances of the EU doing a small trade war with America has increased slightly. Britain can still play a role in stopping France and Germany carrying out a trade war against America. Britain imports a lot of goods from Germany and France, hence, has influence over Germany and France. And if Britain does help reduce a trade war between the EU and America, well, America can then give a benefit to Britain. The benefit is: Britain can export to the USA with reduced taxes and quotas.

(In simple terms, Britain says to the EU "look, don't do a trade war with America, if you do, we (Britain) will join in with America, we will do a partial blockage of German and French goods entering Britain, so, don't tax those American goods going into your EU).

"And if you're right, that the UK's withdrawal from the EU is helping Putin, then the USA should reward the UK by giving it special favors?"

Okay, the EU is now weaker because of Brexit. Britain is also weaker, looking at uncertainty. Putin is smirking. Washington should do something. Washington does NOT want a weaker Europe and weaker Britain, with Russia smirking. So, Washington should try and help Britain and the EU. Washington can do this by, reducing taxes on British and EU goods entering America. And Washington should say nothing when or if Britain and the EU impose taxes on the American goods coming in.

[MJP]

Just invoke Article 50 and go straight to WTO rules and sort it out from there. All this hanging on is what's really going to cause the damage.

[phrodan]

One thing that is gobsmacking about this referendum is that we now see how many Englishmen are genuinely clueless about their history, clueless about the country they live in, and worst of all, xenophobic scum.

How anyone married to a Thai, with Thai kids, or mixed race kids, could vote for Brexit on the basis of preventing immigration to the UK beggars belief.

How people that live in Thailand, and benefit from the free movement of people, could vote against the free movement of people, beggars belief.

It can only be because somewhere in their diseased, deluded minds, they think that the new rules won't affect them. Which is truly moronic as you have now reduced the value of holding a UK passport. You have whipped the automatic right for UK citizens to access the health services, employment, and right to live in twenty-seven EU countries out from under them.

And the thing is, there are millions of Brits affected by that - millions. And one thing that people forget is, even though there teds to be a steady expat community of 1.5 million in the EU at any given time, the expat community is in a constant state of flux. People like me that lived in Germany for five years then returned to the UK with a few quid.

And I couldn't hazard a guess as to the amount of first and second generation Brits living in countries throughout the world, including Thailand. And you voted against immigration?

Forkin' morons.

[bkkcanuck8]

Just invoke Article 50 and go straight to WTO rules and sort it out from there. All this hanging on is what's really going to cause the damage.

Finally, someone gets it. We have all these "leave" supporters on here that voted leave but then when push came to shove they were going.... not so hasty, wait, lets negotiate to stay in and pretend we are leaving.... The question was very simple and the voters chose leave.... I was just laughing myself silly that people and the leave campaign don't seem to understand a simple english sentence or a simple english word. I can understand someone who voted remain to try to hang on for dear life until they can get something to hold up as a newer mandate of stay.

The EU is being extremely consistent -- and telling both Scotland and the UK as a whole exactly the same story. Scotland is not currently independent of the UK, so it is inappropriate to discuss trade relations with a region in another state. It is also telling the UK that they also have no standing to negotiate trade deals independent of the EU while they are a member of the EU. The 2 year negotiation period is a negotiation of an amicable transition from being in the EU to be independent of the EU. At that point you are independent (which is what I have been told it is all about) and may negotiate their own trade deals with whoever they decide to (including the EU if they wish).

Yes, it likely will be a painful period of transition and restructuring as you lose the special status of being an EU member and London will likely pay the brunt of it -- even though they voted to remain.

[bkkcanuck8]

Basically, you would require unanimous agreement among the 28 states to to grant the UK the right to negotiate an agreement with the EU during the transition to being out.

Similarly, Scotland would presumably have to come to an agreement with the UK the right to negotiate an agreement with the EU while the status of Scotland was in transition.

Karma is not forgiving.... Treat others as you wish others to treat you and maybe Karma won't be a bitch.

[MissAndry]

One thing that is gobsmacking about this referendum is that we now see how many Englishmen are genuinely clueless about their history, clueless about the country they live in, and worst of all, xenophobic scum.

How anyone married to a Thai, with Thai kids, or mixed race kids, could vote for Brexit on the basis of preventing immigration to the UK beggars belief.

How people that live in Thailand, and benefit from the free movement of people, could vote against the free movement of people, beggars belief.

And I couldn't hazard a guess as to the amount of first and second generation Brits living in countries throughout the world, including Thailand. And you voted against immigration?

Forkin' morons.

Nice rant, but based on ignorance.

Point 1

If your wife is Thai, the UK doesn't want her, she isn't from the EU, being your wife makes no difference, they'd rather have Syrian refugees or Polish families.

(If it were up to me, I'd welcome the wives of British citizens, and tell the refugees and EU foreigners to do one)

Point 2

If they are your children, they are already British, immigration laws make no difference to them.

Point 3

There are no second generation British children, if they are born outside the UK, they can't pass their British nationality on, Britain doesn't want them, they'd rather have Syrian refugees or Polish families.

Edited June 30, 2016 by MissAndry

[MissAndry]

Finally, someone gets it. We have all these "leave" supporters on here that voted leave but then when push came to shove they were going.... not so hasty, wait, lets negotiate to stay in and pretend we are leaving....

A link to one of these people please?

All the people who want to hang around are the bitter remainers who can't accept the results of a fair vote.

All the Brexit voters I know want out yesterday with no negotiations.

In fact, I'd be more than happy to start a war with Europe, let us go or eat these bombs.

Edited June 30, 2016 by MissAndry

[bkkcanuck8]

Finally, someone gets it. We have all these "leave" supporters on here that voted leave but then when push came to shove they were going.... not so hasty, wait, lets negotiate to stay in and pretend we are leaving....

A link to one of these people please?

All the people who want to hang around are the bitter remainers who can't accept the results of a fair vote.

All the Brexit voters I know want out yesterday with no negotiations.

In fact, I'd be more than happy to start a war with Europe, let us go or eat these bombs.

Since Boris came out and said not so hasty in regards to executing article 50 there are only 2 posters (you and MJP) on here that have not pushed back in line with Boris that no - the UK should not be pushed into executing article 50 and they should have informal negotiations before negotiations to have a new relationship with the UK. I must have posted 20 or 30 responses where I was saying the referendum the vote was to "Leave" the UK (not to renegotiate) and there was no reason for the UK to dawdle around causing confusion in the markets and causing more economic damage by creating a situation where business could not plan for the future ... and thus until things are settled.... the economy would suffer more than necessary.

There are more than 2 people on this board that are leave supporters -- lots more. Boris is obviously not one of those... he is just an opportunist that is fine screwing around with everyone's future for his own personal gain and glory. He is the absolute worst example of a politician. Now when he realizes his political career is in shambles -- he runs for the hills like the coward he is. He spent a week hiding out, and now he is bugging out.

MJP had waffled a little bit after the total mismanagement by the leave campaign after the vote was in, but for the most part fairly consistent about the best future is out and article 50 should be executed. I think you are more of a MAD (mutually assured destruction) version of that where you don't really care - you want foreigners out and if you have to destroy all sides in the process... so be it. You are consistent though.

There is no reason to dawdle on executing article 50 if you really voted to leave, it starts a process in motion that leads to exiting and being a normal trading partner... and that is what people voted for ... well if they actually read what they were voting for.

[dick dasterdly]

Finally, someone gets it. We have all these "leave" supporters on here that voted leave but then when push came to shove they were going.... not so hasty, wait, lets negotiate to stay in and pretend we are leaving....

A link to one of these people please?

All the people who want to hang around are the bitter remainers who can't accept the results of a fair vote.

All the Brexit voters I know want out yesterday with no negotiations.

In fact, I'd be more than happy to start a war with Europe, let us go or eat these bombs.

Since Boris came out and said not so hasty in regards to executing article 50 there are only 2 posters (you and MJP) on here that have not pushed back in line with Boris that no - the UK should not be pushed into executing article 50 and they should have informal negotiations before negotiations to have a new relationship with the UK. I must have posted 20 or 30 responses where I was saying the referendum the vote was to "Leave" the UK (not to renegotiate) and there was no reason for the UK to dawdle around causing confusion in the markets and causing more economic damage by creating a situation where business could not plan for the future ... and thus until things are settled.... the economy would suffer more than necessary.

There are more than 2 people on this board that are leave supporters -- lots more. Boris is obviously not one of those... he is just an opportunist that is fine screwing around with everyone's future for his own personal gain and glory. He is the absolute worst example of a politician. Now when he realizes his political career is in shambles -- he runs for the hills like the coward he is. He spent a week hiding out, and now he is bugging out.

MJP had waffled a little bit after the total mismanagement by the leave campaign after the vote was in, but for the most part fairly consistent about the best future is out and article 50 should be executed. I think you are more of a MAD (mutually assured destruction) version of that where you don't really care - you want foreigners out and if you have to destroy all sides in the process... so be it. You are consistent though.

There is no reason to dawdle on executing article 50 if you really voted to leave, it starts a process in motion that leads to exiting and being a normal trading partner... and that is what people voted for ... well if they actually read what they were voting for.

IMO it makes more sense to wait until a new PM is installed before invoking article 50 for the following reasons:-

1) Best to wait until the EU and markets have recovered from the shock, calmed down and are thinking more clearly - which has already started happening

2) Cameron is firmly a 'remainer' - so most certainly not the best person to lead negotiations, especially in view of the last 'deal' he negotiated.....

I didn't vote, so am not one of "all these "leave" supporters on here that voted leave but then when push came to shove" etc. to whom you are referring - but can see few advantages to invoking article 50 immediately.

[SgtRock]

Finally, someone gets it. We have all these "leave" supporters on here that voted leave but then when push came to shove they were going.... not so hasty, wait, lets negotiate to stay in and pretend we are leaving....

Since Boris came out and said not so hasty in regards to executing article 50 there are only 2 posters (you and MJP) on here that have not pushed back in line with Boris that no - the UK should not be pushed into executing article 50 and they should have informal negotiations before negotiations to have a new relationship with the UK. I must have posted 20 or 30 responses where I was saying the referendum the vote was to "Leave" the UK (not to renegotiate) and there was no reason for the UK to dawdle around causing confusion in the markets and causing more economic damage by creating a situation where business could not plan for the future ... and thus until things are settled.... the economy would suffer more than necessary.

There are more than 2 people on this board that are leave supporters -- lots more. Boris is obviously not one of those... he is just an opportunist that is fine screwing around with everyone's future for his own personal gain and glory. He is the absolute worst example of a politician. Now when he realizes his political career is in shambles -- he runs for the hills like the coward he is. He spent a week hiding out, and now he is bugging out.

MJP had waffled a little bit after the total mismanagement by the leave campaign after the vote was in, but for the most part fairly consistent about the best future is out and article 50 should be executed. I think you are more of a MAD (mutually assured destruction) version of that where you don't really care - you want foreigners out and if you have to destroy all sides in the process... so be it. You are consistent though.

There is no reason to dawdle on executing article 50 if you really voted to leave, it starts a process in motion that leads to exiting and being a normal trading partner... and that is what people voted for ... well if they actually read what they were voting for.

Actually, no we did not have leavers on here going '' Let's not be hasty.

You had leavers that:

1. Were explaining to others, who clearly did not understand, that there is a Parliamentary process to go through before invoking Article 50.

2. Pointing out that the EU should close its fat gob as it is nothing to do with them when the UK invokes Article 50. Which was perceived to be yet more interference from an Organisation that has just been flipped the bird.......... for its perceived interference.

If you want a conclusion, here is mine.

I have watched the UK going downhill over the last 35 years at least. Politicians have been the cause of that decline. Add on the current mess due to the leave vote and that only compounds my absolute disdain for UK Politicians.

The 3 key words that have been that have been bandied about this week in politics have been '' Leader '' '' Honesty '' and '' Integrity ''

3 words that have no place in anyone's vocabulary when discussing the vast majority of UK Politicians.

Politicians got the UK into the mess it is in. Yet we expect Politicians to get us out of that mess.

Don't make me < Self Deleted > laugh.

[tonbridgebrit]

YOU are living proof that foreigners don't understand Britain.

And also, why are YOU smirking over Britain's exit from the EU ?

YOU are living proof that foreigners don't understand Britain.

Get a grip plse thx.

Look, Britain's exit from the EU is not actually good, but speculation about a catastrophe is exaggerated.

CCP in Beijing rather have the accurate and frank assessment that UK returning to being Britain again would reduce it to a minor country. (People's Republic of China have their own reasons from recent history to be blunt and open about it.) New old Britain would remain in the G-7 (for a while anyway) but it would lose a lot. CCP and the People's Republic are already buying up the place so you'd have to choose China or USA like it or not. (It's the old big fish, small fish syndrome of history.) Britain has a lot to want and not much to protect or preserve it so heavy is the head and all of that.

Obama turning up in Britain, and opening his mouth

The world knows the Leave voters are pissing up a rope regardless of whether they actually knew what they voted for. Nor did President Obama simply "turn up" in Britain -- no one can reasonably blame President Obama for the UK's present circumstance, either entirely or in part. The President's brief comments in respect of the (still unresolved) question are peripheral at best. When people outside USA state their preferences in US politics and elections 90 percent of us receive that as the normal and acceptable routine, given the impact to the world of voters' decisions in the US. The UK vote has continental and global implications well beyond UK as we have already and readily seen and felt. I wanted to know what my President thought of Brexit before the vote thank you and he spoke to me from the UK which had its own particular impact you're welcome. He's right.

Obama is trying to create that TPP thing

The post concerning this is nonsense and drivel.

Stop talking as if you have no links with Britain

More nonsense. Thanks to George III and his predecessors we're independent and sovereign. Thanks to Magna Carta we're a constitutional Republic with democracy. The pond has always been smaller than the channel. As England accelerates its understandable movement away from the continent the time is becoming ripe for a greater union of the two peoples who for centuries now have been united by a common history and separated by a common language.

So do get a grip here in all of this.

Obama was in Britain, and made his comments. Notice how once the Brexit result came out, Washington back-tracked, and tried to say that things are the same.

"As England accelerates its understandable movement away from the continent the time is becoming ripe for a greater union of the two peoples who for centuries now have been united by a common history and separated by a common language".

You're again, showing your ignorance and lack of understanding of British people. Them people who voted for Brexit, they're just as likely (or more likely) to NOT want a much closer link with the USA. And those who voted to stay in the EU, they're just as likely (or less likely) to want much closer links with the USA.

Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, these people know that they went from Britain to America. But British people in Britain simply do NOT reckon that they have close links with the USA. More people in Britain feel a closer connection with Europe than with America, and that's bearing in mind that Brexit won the vote.

Regarding a greater union between America and Britain, I'm tempted to say "thanks, but no thanks". I won't say it. Instead, I might stick my middle finger at that suggestion.

Just allow the EU and Britain to export goods to the US with minimal taxes, that will do. Washington will do it, because Washington hates Moscow, Washington doesn't want Moscow to develope closer ties with Europe.

[mommysboy]

It really does not make any sense to invoke Article 50 quickly, if at all. No trade talks are possible until after Brexit according to EU Trade Commissioner Cecelia Malmsstrom. So that is a certainty for WTO trade rules. Trading with EU will certainly be impacted, and vice versa. So you have to figure that both parties will need a long time to adjust.

[bkkcanuck8]

It really does not make any sense to invoke Article 50 quickly, if at all. No trade talks are possible until after Brexit according to EU Trade Commissioner Cecelia Malmsstrom. So that is a certainty for WTO trade rules. Trading with EU will certainly be impacted, and vice versa. So you have to figure that both parties will need a long time to adjust.

So what? The referendum act states what the question is, what the possible selections were.... and nothing in it has anything about special trade relations after it.... just effectively leave or stay with no intent on anything inbetween.

If you are not going to thwart the will of the people as they have spoken, then invoking and leaving are the only thing that matters.

After that you can negotiate a free-trade agreement if you want - and you might also take that to a referendum.... but the wording and the answers of the referendum were pretty clear....

The Conservative party passed the referendum legislation on whether to leave or remain. They have a majority in parliament. The people have spoken and said leave. It is now up to the Conservative Party to follow through with it's promise and to table the legislation for notification - if that is the process they want to follow. The parliament is a fixed term. Who the leader of the Conservative Party should have little bearing on leaving. There really is not much to negotiate in regards to leaving with the EU. The only thing reason for extensive negotiations is if they are negotiating to stay in the EU. There might be lots of legislation in the UK to amend, but not much in regards to the EU. All that is needed is a date and how to pay or refund prorated membership dues that were to occur after termination date. All this humming and hawing about how difficult it is is utter BS. If for some reason you have a parliamentary revolt that blocks the legislation for reasons that they don't really believe in democracy - the legislation then can be retabled after the revolt is put down and a new PM is in place. Negotiations are for staying, not leaving. Until the UK actually terminates their membership in the EU they have NO legal power to negotiate any other trading agreement -- either with other countries or the EU itself.

[mommysboy]

It really does not make any sense to invoke Article 50 quickly, if at all. No trade talks are possible until after Brexit according to EU Trade Commissioner Cecelia Malmsstrom. So that is a certainty for WTO trade rules. Trading with EU will certainly be impacted, and vice versa. So you have to figure that both parties will need a long time to adjust.

So what? The referendum act states what the question is, what the possible selections were.... and nothing in it has anything about special trade relations after it.... just effectively leave or stay with no intent on anything inbetween.

If you are not going to thwart the will of the people as they have spoken, then invoking and leaving are the only thing that matters.

After that you can negotiate a free-trade agreement if you want - and you might also take that to a referendum.... but the wording and the answers of the referendum were pretty clear....

The Conservative party passed the referendum legislation on whether to leave or remain. They have a majority in parliament. The people have spoken and said leave. It is now up to the Conservative Party to follow through with it's promise and to table the legislation for notification - if that is the process they want to follow. The parliament is a fixed term. Who the leader of the Conservative Party should have little bearing on leaving. There really is not much to negotiate in regards to leaving with the EU. The only thing reason for extensive negotiations is if they are negotiating to stay in the EU. There might be lots of legislation in the UK to amend, but not much in regards to the EU. All that is needed is a date and how to pay or refund prorated membership dues that were to occur after termination date. All this humming and hawing about how difficult it is is utter BS. If for some reason you have a parliamentary revolt that blocks the legislation for reasons that they don't really believe in democracy - the legislation then can be retabled after the revolt is put down and a new PM is in place. Negotiations are for staying, not leaving. Until the UK actually terminates their membership in the EU they have NO legal power to negotiate any other trading agreement -- either with other countries or the EU itself.

You appear not to get the point. Not the first time.

Yes there has been a referendum and it was won by leave.

In order to initiate exit Article 50 has to be enacted. It is obvious the timing of this is discretionary. Some people are saying do it now. Others are saying it is best to do later.

Timing is crucial because both EU and UK may be impacted severely. Thus it makes no sense to rush in to something that does not need to be done immediately. Indeed this seems to be the view of the UK government and of Germany.

Edited July 1, 2016 by mommysboy

[dick dasterdly]

It really does not make any sense to invoke Article 50 quickly, if at all. No trade talks are possible until after Brexit according to EU Trade Commissioner Cecelia Malmsstrom. So that is a certainty for WTO trade rules. Trading with EU will certainly be impacted, and vice versa. So you have to figure that both parties will need a long time to adjust.

So what? The referendum act states what the question is, what the possible selections were.... and nothing in it has anything about special trade relations after it.... just effectively leave or stay with no intent on anything inbetween.

If you are not going to thwart the will of the people as they have spoken, then invoking and leaving are the only thing that matters.

After that you can negotiate a free-trade agreement if you want - and you might also take that to a referendum.... but the wording and the answers of the referendum were pretty clear....

The Conservative party passed the referendum legislation on whether to leave or remain. They have a majority in parliament. The people have spoken and said leave. It is now up to the Conservative Party to follow through with it's promise and to table the legislation for notification - if that is the process they want to follow. The parliament is a fixed term. Who the leader of the Conservative Party should have little bearing on leaving. There really is not much to negotiate in regards to leaving with the EU. The only thing reason for extensive negotiations is if they are negotiating to stay in the EU. There might be lots of legislation in the UK to amend, but not much in regards to the EU. All that is needed is a date and how to pay or refund prorated membership dues that were to occur after termination date. All this humming and hawing about how difficult it is is utter BS. If for some reason you have a parliamentary revolt that blocks the legislation for reasons that they don't really believe in democracy - the legislation then can be retabled after the revolt is put down and a new PM is in place. Negotiations are for staying, not leaving. Until the UK actually terminates their membership in the EU they have NO legal power to negotiate any other trading agreement -- either with other countries or the EU itself.

For the reasons outlined in post 40, IMO it makes more sense for the UK to wait until a new PM is installed - before invoking article 50.

[ilostmypassword]

YOU are living proof that foreigners don't understand Britain.

And also, why are YOU smirking over Britain's exit from the EU ?

YOU are living proof that foreigners don't understand Britain.

Get a grip plse thx.

Look, Britain's exit from the EU is not actually good, but speculation about a catastrophe is exaggerated.

CCP in Beijing rather have the accurate and frank assessment that UK returning to being Britain again would reduce it to a minor country. (People's Republic of China have their own reasons from recent history to be blunt and open about it.) New old Britain would remain in the G-7 (for a while anyway) but it would lose a lot. CCP and the People's Republic are already buying up the place so you'd have to choose China or USA like it or not. (It's the old big fish, small fish syndrome of history.) Britain has a lot to want and not much to protect or preserve it so heavy is the head and all of that.

Obama turning up in Britain, and opening his mouth

The world knows the Leave voters are pissing up a rope regardless of whether they actually knew what they voted for. Nor did President Obama simply "turn up" in Britain -- no one can reasonably blame President Obama for the UK's present circumstance, either entirely or in part. The President's brief comments in respect of the (still unresolved) question are peripheral at best. When people outside USA state their preferences in US politics and elections 90 percent of us receive that as the normal and acceptable routine, given the impact to the world of voters' decisions in the US. The UK vote has continental and global implications well beyond UK as we have already and readily seen and felt. I wanted to know what my President thought of Brexit before the vote thank you and he spoke to me from the UK which had its own particular impact you're welcome. He's right.

Obama is trying to create that TPP thing

The post concerning this is nonsense and drivel.

Stop talking as if you have no links with Britain

More nonsense. Thanks to George III and his predecessors we're independent and sovereign. Thanks to Magna Carta we're a constitutional Republic with democracy. The pond has always been smaller than the channel. As England accelerates its understandable movement away from the continent the time is becoming ripe for a greater union of the two peoples who for centuries now have been united by a common history and separated by a common language.

So do get a grip here in all of this.

Obama was in Britain, and made his comments. Notice how once the Brexit result came out, Washington back-tracked, and tried to say that things are the same.

"As England accelerates its understandable movement away from the continent the time is becoming ripe for a greater union of the two peoples who for centuries now have been united by a common history and separated by a common language".

You're again, showing your ignorance and lack of understanding of British people. Them people who voted for Brexit, they're just as likely (or more likely) to NOT want a much closer link with the USA. And those who voted to stay in the EU, they're just as likely (or less likely) to want much closer links with the USA.

Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, these people know that they went from Britain to America. But British people in Britain simply do NOT reckon that they have close links with the USA. More people in Britain feel a closer connection with Europe than with America, and that's bearing in mind that Brexit won the vote.

Regarding a greater union between America and Britain, I'm tempted to say "thanks, but no thanks". I won't say it. Instead, I might stick my middle finger at that suggestion.

Just allow the EU and Britain to export goods to the US with minimal taxes, that will do. Washington will do it, because Washington hates Moscow, Washington doesn't want Moscow to develope closer ties with Europe.

Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, these people know that they went from Britain to America

Are you on with this nonsense again? It's flat out false. False. Didn't I send you a link that showed that at most - at most - 25% of Americans are of British extraction. In addition to which, those Americans of British extraction are mostly from families who have been in the USA for centuries. Like any ethnic group, the more generations you are removed from the home country, the less attachment there is. It's not like they have grandparents who can tell them about the old country.

Just allow the EU and Britain to export goods to the US with minimal taxes

As for that suggestion to lower tariffs. Tariffs are already very low. And if you think in these times that the American populace is going to want to give European exports a leg up then you haven't a clue at all about America. Especially given that the EU already runs a large surplus with the USA.

[bkkcanuck8]

For the reasons outlined in post 40, IMO it makes more sense for the UK to wait until a new PM is installed - before invoking article 50.

I'm sorry, but whoever is elected Party Leader - will still have no mandate to change the result of the referendum. Only another referendum or a full election where all citizens are eligible to vote can do that.

The mandate is simply to LEAVE the EU.

Question:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Options:

1. Remain a member of the European Union

2. Leave the European Union.

No specification on how to notify, no specification that it is advisory, the intent of those that passed the referendum are very clear.... '

And the result was "The UK should leave the European Union".

If the UK enters another type of trading arrangement - that is up to the people to decide in the future.

Really, what is there to negotiate as part of leaving???

[dick dasterdly]

For the reasons outlined in post 40, IMO it makes more sense for the UK to wait until a new PM is installed - before invoking article 50.

I'm sorry, but whoever is elected Party Leader - will still have no mandate to change the result of the referendum. Only another referendum or a full election where all citizens are eligible to vote can do that.

The mandate is simply to LEAVE the EU.

Question:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Options:

1. Remain a member of the European Union

2. Leave the European Union.

No specification on how to notify, no specification that it is advisory, the intent of those that passed the referendum are very clear.... '

And the result was "The UK should leave the European Union".

If the UK enters another type of trading arrangement - that is up to the people to decide in the future.

Really, what is there to negotiate as part of leaving???

You're changing your point!

I argued why its in the UK's best interests to wait until a new PM is elected (bearing in mind the EU cannot force the UK to invoke article 50 until its ready to do so) - and you're NOW talking about something else....

[bkkcanuck8]

No the EU cannot force article 50, but I find it hilarious that it is now in the position of actually begging the UK to listen to it's people....

The UK has a responsibility to it's people to do as they promise. They even campaigned that it would be immediate. Now they are saying... ooo, very difficult, not easy, and dragging their feet....

It is not representing it's people - it is trying to block the will of it's people... that is the only reason to delay.

[tonbridgebrit]

Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, these people know that they went from Britain to America. But British people in Britain simply do NOT reckon that they have close links with the USA. More people in Britain feel a closer connection with Europe than with America, and that's bearing in mind that Brexit won the vote.

Just allow the EU and Britain to export goods to the US with minimal taxes, that will do. Washington will do it, because Washington hates Moscow, Washington doesn't want Moscow to develope closer ties with Europe.

Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, these people know that they went from Britain to America

Are you on with this nonsense again? It's flat out false. False. Didn't I send you a link that showed that at most - at most - 25% of Americans are of British extraction. In addition to which, those Americans of British extraction are mostly from families who have been in the USA for centuries. Like any ethnic group, the more generations you are removed from the home country, the less attachment there is. It's not like they have grandparents who can tell them about the old country.

Just allow the EU and Britain to export goods to the US with minimal taxes

As for that suggestion to lower tariffs. Tariffs are already very low. And if you think in these times that the American populace is going to want to give European exports a leg up then you haven't a clue at all about America. Especially given that the EU already runs a large surplus with the USA.

Can you please read my above post at #32, it was a direct reply to you. Okay, Americans are not mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, but the British (people with British ancestry) make up the largest single group in America.

[ilostmypassword]

Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, these people know that they went from Britain to America. But British people in Britain simply do NOT reckon that they have close links with the USA. More people in Britain feel a closer connection with Europe than with America, and that's bearing in mind that Brexit won the vote.

Just allow the EU and Britain to export goods to the US with minimal taxes, that will do. Washington will do it, because Washington hates Moscow, Washington doesn't want Moscow to develope closer ties with Europe.

Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, these people know that they went from Britain to America

Are you on with this nonsense again? It's flat out false. False. Didn't I send you a link that showed that at most - at most - 25% of Americans are of British extraction. In addition to which, those Americans of British extraction are mostly from families who have been in the USA for centuries. Like any ethnic group, the more generations you are removed from the home country, the less attachment there is. It's not like they have grandparents who can tell them about the old country.

Just allow the EU and Britain to export goods to the US with minimal taxes

As for that suggestion to lower tariffs. Tariffs are already very low. And if you think in these times that the American populace is going to want to give European exports a leg up then you haven't a clue at all about America. Especially given that the EU already runs a large surplus with the USA.

Can you please read my above post at #32, it was a direct reply to you. Okay, Americans are not mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, but the British (people with British ancestry) make up the largest single group in America.

I did read that post. Did you? And then I read this one which said: Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America How do you reconcile that with a maximum 25% share of the population? How do you reconcile that with a maximum 25% share of the population?

And again, most people of British extraction have no living connection to the EU. It isn't like first or second generation Americans who still have parents or grandparents from the old country.

[dick dasterdly]

No the EU cannot force article 50, but I find it hilarious that it is now in the position of actually begging the UK to listen to it's people....

The UK has a responsibility to it's people to do as they promise. They even campaigned that it would be immediate. Now they are saying... ooo, very difficult, not easy, and dragging their feet....

It is not representing it's people - it is trying to block the will of it's people... that is the only reason to delay.

Quite possibly, but for the reasons I pointed out its also in the UK's best interests to wait until a new PM has been installed.

Edited July 1, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[tonbridgebrit]

Can you please read my above post at #32, it was a direct reply to you. Okay, Americans are not mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, but the British (people with British ancestry) make up the largest single group in America.

I did read that post. Did you? And then I read this one which said: Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America How do you reconcile that with a maximum 25% share of the population? How do you reconcile that with a maximum 25% share of the population?

And again, most people of British extraction have no living connection to the EU. It isn't like first or second generation Americans who still have parents or grandparents from the old country.

Correct, 25% share does not mean that Americans are mainly British people who live in America. It means they are the biggest and most influential group. The influence and clout from black Afro-Americans, Jews, Hispanics, Italian-Americans, etc., is not as great.

USA backed Britain in two World Wars, USA is far 'closer' to Britain than it is to France and Germany. Why ? They fought alongside Britain in World War One, not because they reckoned that Britain were the good guys, and Germany were the bad guys.

They did it, because they're more British than they are German. Although Germans in America did protest about it.

[dick dasterdly]

Can you please read my above post at #32, it was a direct reply to you. Okay, Americans are not mainly a bunch of Brits living in America, but the British (people with British ancestry) make up the largest single group in America.

I did read that post. Did you? And then I read this one which said: Americans are mainly a bunch of Brits living in America How do you reconcile that with a maximum 25% share of the population? How do you reconcile that with a maximum 25% share of the population?

And again, most people of British extraction have no living connection to the EU. It isn't like first or second generation Americans who still have parents or grandparents from the old country.

Correct, 25% share does not mean that Americans are mainly British people who live in America. It means they are the biggest and most influential group. The influence and clout from black Afro-Americans, Jews, Hispanics, Italian-Americans, etc., is not as great.

USA backed Britain in two World Wars, USA is far 'closer' to Britain than it is to France and Germany. Why ? They fought alongside Britain in World War One, not because they reckoned that Britain were the good guys, and Germany were the bad guys.

They did it, because they're more British than they are German. Although Germans in America did protest about it.

Would you mind moving this argument (that has disintegrated to being well and truly off-topic) to personal messages?

[bkkcanuck8]

2) Cameron is firmly a 'remainer' - so most certainly not the best person to lead negotiations, especially in view of the last 'deal' he negotiated.....

I didn't vote, so am not one of "all these "leave" supporters on here that voted leave but then when push came to shove" etc.

to whom you are referring - but can see few advantages to invoking article 50 immediately.

And what if the next leader is a "remainer" do we then wait til the cows come home and ignore the referendum?

[dick dasterdly]

2) Cameron is firmly a 'remainer' - so most certainly not the best person to lead negotiations, especially in view of the last 'deal' he negotiated.....

I didn't vote, so am not one of "all these "leave" supporters on here that voted leave but then when push came to shove" etc.

to whom you are referring - but can see few advantages to invoking article 50 immediately.

And what if the next leader is a "remainer" do we then wait til the cows come home and ignore the referendum?

Please answer the points I've raised as to why (IMO) its better for the UK to wait until a new PM is installed - rather than answering questions you would prefer to be raised.

Edited July 1, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[mommysboy]

For the reasons outlined in post 40, IMO it makes more sense for the UK to wait until a new PM is installed - before invoking article 50.

I'm sorry, but whoever is elected Party Leader - will still have no mandate to change the result of the referendum. Only another referendum or a full election where all citizens are eligible to vote can do that.

The mandate is simply to LEAVE the EU.

Question:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Options:

1. Remain a member of the European Union

2. Leave the European Union.

No specification on how to notify, no specification that it is advisory, the intent of those that passed the referendum are very clear.... '

And the result was "The UK should leave the European Union".

If the UK enters another type of trading arrangement - that is up to the people to decide in the future.

Really, what is there to negotiate as part of leaving???

Yes there is no disputing that it has to be mandated at some point, or annulled which is also possible.

There is nothing to be negotiated it seems to me as far as the EU is concerned.. But there are other factors that influence the timing of the enactment.

But it could be tomorrow, or next year. There is no fixed time table for enactment. If there are good reasons to go slow then it is entirely reasonble to delay. You as a Canadian who does not like the UK may not like that, the EU may not like that, but quite honestly it's Britain';s decision. There are various reasons why enactment might be slow relating to national interest.

Edited July 1, 2016 by mommysboy

[ilostmypassword]

For the reasons outlined in post 40, IMO it makes more sense for the UK to wait until a new PM is installed - before invoking article 50.

I'm sorry, but whoever is elected Party Leader - will still have no mandate to change the result of the referendum. Only another referendum or a full election where all citizens are eligible to vote can do that.

The mandate is simply to LEAVE the EU.

Question:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Options:

1. Remain a member of the European Union

2. Leave the European Union.

No specification on how to notify, no specification that it is advisory, the intent of those that passed the referendum are very clear.... '

And the result was "The UK should leave the European Union".

If the UK enters another type of trading arrangement - that is up to the people to decide in the future.

Really, what is there to negotiate as part of leaving???

Yes there is no disputing that it has to be mandated at some point, or annulled which is also possible.

There is nothing to be negotiated it seems to me as far as the EU is concerned.. But there are other factors that influence the timing of the enactment.

But it could be tomorrow, or next year. There is no fixed time table for enactment. If there are good reasons to go slow then it is entirely reasonble to delay. You as a Canadian who does not like the UK may not like that, the EU may not like that, but quite honestly it's Britain';s decision. There are various reasons why enactment might be slow relating to national interest.

The chief one being that there's nothing investors like quite so much as uncertainty.

[dick dasterdly]

And yet the markets are stabilising!

Why on earth is everybody determined to ignore the good reasons (IMO) for the UK to delay invoking article 50????

Edit - as nobody is touching those reasons with a barge pole, I think its safe to assume they are good reasons from the UK's POV.

Edited July 1, 2016 by dick dasterdly