EU leaders push Britain to leave amid post-vote turmoil

[ilostmypassword]

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.

If, at this short date, you are going to claim the markets are stabilizing then you are bound to say the same for the pound. That it's stabilizing, too. It's down about 9%. You can't have it both ways.

[bkkcanuck8]

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.

1. So best to wait until the markets have recovered from the shock? What so you can shock it again? Markets will adjust -- all they are doing is adjusting the market values of equities on the market based on the best forecasts available. A business can adjust my plans to either reality - UK as independent, or UK as part of the EU.... I can adjust my target customers based on current best available data. A business has a very hard time planning when they don't know what to plan for. The longer this state continues, the more projects / business that is put on hold (potentially indefinitely). Current projects may continue and not be cancelled, but projects eventually finish. The longer the less economic activity happens. When Canada signed NAFTA it had to adjust from pre-NAFTA -- resources reallocated, business plans changed.... Canada did perfectly fine before, and after... but not everything was the same. As a business owner knowing things will change, but not knowing what - I would be very hesitant to invest any new capital until I have an idea of where it would be best invested - and that becomes increasingly difficult the longer things are in limbo.

2. The question remains, what if Cameron is gone and another remainer comes in? Same situation. There is not much to be negotiated to leave the EU... In fact the people leading negotiations are typically never politicians - they are professional trade negotiators. Only when it comes down to a few questions that need political will and deciding which horse to trade do the politicians get involved. Politicians set policy, civil servants actually do the grunt work. But then when you are talking about negotiations you are talking about negotiations to enter into a relationship ... and that was not the referendum.... it was to end one. If the UK wants to enter trade negotiations with the EU after they actually have the power to negotiate trade (after they are not in the EU) then it takes time.... and it should really be put to the people at that point since that was not the referendum and it is sort of against the grain of the referendum. It can be put to the people in a general election where you ask for a mandate, or another referendum.

[mommysboy]

The various reasons for delayed enactment:

1. National Interest. Quite simply the UK may feel that the economic impact needs to be cushioned. Buying more time allows other markets to be developed. This would not be necessary if EU had agreed to negotiate trade terms but it hasn't. That is it's right, but there are consequences.

2. Constitutional Matters. Scotland objects to exit. That could throw up a constitutional crisis.

3. Legal Challenge. A court might decide that the electorate were misled for a number of reasons.

4. Another constitutional crisis. UK has no acting senior figure able to issue enactment. Therefore, delay might be thought necessary until stable government resume and a new PM elected.

One point that seems to be overlooked is that the referendum is not legally binding. Some are, some aren't . This one isn't. Though it would be rare to overlook the will of the people.

[mommysboy]

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.

1. So best to wait until the markets have recovered from the shock? What so you can shock it again? Markets will adjust -- all they are doing is adjusting the market values of equities on the market based on the best forecasts available. A business can adjust my plans to either reality - UK as independent, or UK as part of the EU.... I can adjust my target customers based on current best available data. A business has a very hard time planning when they don't know what to plan for. The longer this state continues, the more projects / business that is put on hold (potentially indefinitely). Current projects may continue and not be cancelled, but projects eventually finish. The longer the less economic activity happens. When Canada signed NAFTA it had to adjust from pre-NAFTA -- resources reallocated, business plans changed.... Canada did perfectly fine before, and after... but not everything was the same. As a business owner knowing things will change, but not knowing what - I would be very hesitant to invest any new capital until I have an idea of where it would be best invested - and that becomes increasingly difficult the longer things are in limbo.

2. The question remains, what if Cameron is gone and another remainer comes in? Same situation. There is not much to be negotiated to leave the EU... In fact the people leading negotiations are typically never politicians - they are professional trade negotiators. Only when it comes down to a few questions that need political will and deciding which horse to trade do the politicians get involved. Politicians set policy, civil servants actually do the grunt work. But then when you are talking about negotiations you are talking about negotiations to enter into a relationship ... and that was not the referendum.... it was to end one. If the UK wants to enter trade negotiations with the EU after they actually have the power to negotiate trade (after they are not in the EU) then it takes time.... and it should really be put to the people at that point since that was not the referendum and it is sort of against the grain of the referendum. It can be put to the people in a general election where you ask for a mandate, or another referendum.

You, or I, may not agree with it but the point is that is the way it is. You think the strategy is poor. Some will agree, others not.

If you want my opinion, UK is building in a contigency plan because a free trade deal is unlikely. So it is on a 'trade war' footing. And it is simply exploiting every footing it has. One of those is the timing of the enactment of Article 50.

It is difficult to know who is calling who's bluff. But I suppose you could say- we don't get a trade deal quick, you don't get Article 50 quick. We are in dangerous waters now on both sides.

Obviously you want UK to fail. That is clear to all.

[bkkcanuck8]

The various reasons for delayed enactment:

1. National Interest. Quite simply the UK may feel that the economic impact needs to be cushioned. Buying more time allows other markets to be developed. This would not be necessary if EU had agreed to negotiate trade terms but it hasn't. That is it's right, but there are consequences.

2. Constitutional Matters. Scotland objects to exit. That could throw up a constitutional crisis.

3. Legal Challenge. A court might decide that the electorate were misled for a number of reasons.

4. Another constitutional crisis. UK has no acting senior figure able to issue enactment. Therefore, delay might be thought necessary until stable government resume and a new PM elected.

One point that seems to be overlooked is that the referendum is not legally binding. Some are, some aren't . This one isn't. Though it would be rare to overlook the will of the people.

1. I thought in this case the national interest was to be decided by the people.... If the people say one thing, and the "elite" decide to ignore it because it is not in the national interest -- isn't that basically having no representation and having those that are decide be totally unaccountable? Isn't that one of the big beefs of the people.

2. Scotland decided to stay in the UK, it decided to stay in the EU. Now it has to decide which one since it cannot have both. Trade and treaties are the domain of the federal government.

3. When has that ever happened in any UK election? When it comes down to it.... there was a very simple question and a choice. The ballot asked that very simple question. If the people answered a different question, they have to take responsibility for their stupidity. The rest of the arguments were fleeting. Any government of the day decides what to spend money on - and it changes from budget to budget.

4. The UK is not a feudal state that is run by a lord or king... The acting body is the legislature. A legislature that created the referendum act of 2016. The legislation was pretty clear and the intent of those that passed it were to take the decision to the people. I actually read the act, at no point does it indicate anything about being advisory, it is about asking the people to decide. Yes, the legislature has the power to ignore the people -- but that really would cause a crisis.

[bkkcanuck8]

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.

1. So best to wait until the markets have recovered from the shock? What so you can shock it again? Markets will adjust -- all they are doing is adjusting the market values of equities on the market based on the best forecasts available. A business can adjust my plans to either reality - UK as independent, or UK as part of the EU.... I can adjust my target customers based on current best available data. A business has a very hard time planning when they don't know what to plan for. The longer this state continues, the more projects / business that is put on hold (potentially indefinitely). Current projects may continue and not be cancelled, but projects eventually finish. The longer the less economic activity happens. When Canada signed NAFTA it had to adjust from pre-NAFTA -- resources reallocated, business plans changed.... Canada did perfectly fine before, and after... but not everything was the same. As a business owner knowing things will change, but not knowing what - I would be very hesitant to invest any new capital until I have an idea of where it would be best invested - and that becomes increasingly difficult the longer things are in limbo.

2. The question remains, what if Cameron is gone and another remainer comes in? Same situation. There is not much to be negotiated to leave the EU... In fact the people leading negotiations are typically never politicians - they are professional trade negotiators. Only when it comes down to a few questions that need political will and deciding which horse to trade do the politicians get involved. Politicians set policy, civil servants actually do the grunt work. But then when you are talking about negotiations you are talking about negotiations to enter into a relationship ... and that was not the referendum.... it was to end one. If the UK wants to enter trade negotiations with the EU after they actually have the power to negotiate trade (after they are not in the EU) then it takes time.... and it should really be put to the people at that point since that was not the referendum and it is sort of against the grain of the referendum. It can be put to the people in a general election where you ask for a mandate, or another referendum.

You, or I, may not agree with it but the point is that is the way it is. You think the strategy is poor. Some will agree, others not.

If you want my opinion, UK is building in a contigency plan because a free trade deal is unlikely. So it is on a 'trade war' footing. And it is simply exploiting every footing it has. One of those is the timing of the enactment of Article 50.

It is difficult to know who is calling who's bluff. But I suppose you could say- we don't get a trade deal quick, you don't get Article 50 quick. We are in dangerous waters now on both sides.

Obviously you want UK to fail. That is clear to all.

No, the UK politicians are not building a contingency plan for a trade war with the EU. They trying to figure out how to weasel out of their commitment to the people. A commitment of the people deciding that the UK should leave. While the politicians are trying to figure out how to stay. All this discussion of the Norway option is basically status-quo with now but without a voice in decision making. That does not sound like leaving. The UK can trade with Europe quite fine under the WTO - that is the normal trading relationship between countries. At no point has Europe indicated that they would not trade as such. It just means there has to be restructuring to the new reality.

[dick dasterdly]

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.

1. So best to wait until the markets have recovered from the shock? What so you can shock it again? Markets will adjust -- all they are doing is adjusting the market values of equities on the market based on the best forecasts available. A business can adjust my plans to either reality - UK as independent, or UK as part of the EU.... I can adjust my target customers based on current best available data. A business has a very hard time planning when they don't know what to plan for. The longer this state continues, the more projects / business that is put on hold (potentially indefinitely). Current projects may continue and not be cancelled, but projects eventually finish. The longer the less economic activity happens. When Canada signed NAFTA it had to adjust from pre-NAFTA -- resources reallocated, business plans changed.... Canada did perfectly fine before, and after... but not everything was the same. As a business owner knowing things will change, but not knowing what - I would be very hesitant to invest any new capital until I have an idea of where it would be best invested - and that becomes increasingly difficult the longer things are in limbo.

2. The question remains, what if Cameron is gone and another remainer comes in? Same situation. There is not much to be negotiated to leave the EU... In fact the people leading negotiations are typically never politicians - they are professional trade negotiators. Only when it comes down to a few questions that need political will and deciding which horse to trade do the politicians get involved. Politicians set policy, civil servants actually do the grunt work. But then when you are talking about negotiations you are talking about negotiations to enter into a relationship ... and that was not the referendum.... it was to end one. If the UK wants to enter trade negotiations with the EU after they actually have the power to negotiate trade (after they are not in the EU) then it takes time.... and it should really be put to the people at that point since that was not the referendum and it is sort of against the grain of the referendum. It can be put to the people in a general election where you ask for a mandate, or another referendum.

1. The markets are already stabilising, but its still in the UK's interest to wait until the EU and markets are used to the idea of a 'brexit' - and so the EU is doing its best to retain the UK rather than pursuing a 'no negotiations' tactic. Alternatively, other countries may demand their own referendum - weakening the EU even further. Another negotiating tactic for the UK.

Another possibility is that the EU realises that it is in trouble without the UK's funding (one of the few that actually pay into the EU), and so continues 'softening' its stance.

2. Unless the UK govt. (and a new PM) is prepared to risk the wrath of the electorate, they'll not ignore the vote.

Which is why I think its likely that the new PM and EU will be negotiating behind the scenes (despite the EU stating that it wouldn't do this), and eventually a new deal will be put to the electorate.

[bkkcanuck8]

Obviously you want UK to fail. That is clear to all.

No, I was quite clear early on. I think it extremely stupid that the UK leave the EU. If I had a vote I would have voted to stay. I would have personally liked to have a UK passport, but it would have taken another 4 years of living in the UK -- and I just decided that the potential of using a UK passport was not worth having to live in the UK for another 4 years.

Basically I had the right of abode in the UK, but to get to the point of being able to become a citizen I required another 4 years of residence. My personal vested interest was in.

Just because I have some sympathies with Quebecois that are independence minded, does not mean I want Canada to fail.

You're just being annoyingly silly.

I mean if not having a special trading relationship with Europe or the United States would have caused Canada to fail - it would have failed 100 years ago. What causes countries to fail is being financially irresponsible and running up the debt.

I very much do believe in democracy though.... even when people make stupid decisions (IMHO)

[ilostmypassword]

Obviously you want UK to fail. That is clear to all.

No, I was quite clear early on. I think it extremely stupid that the UK leave the EU. If I had a vote I would have voted to stay. I would have personally liked to have a UK passport, but it would have taken another 4 years of living in the UK -- and I just decided that the potential of using a UK passport was not worth having to live in the UK for another 4 years.

Basically I had the right of abode in the UK, but to get to the point of being able to become a citizen I required another 4 years of residence. My personal vested interest was in.

Just because I have some sympathies with Quebecois that are independence minded, does not mean I want Canada to fail.

You're just being annoyingly silly.

I mean if not having a special trading relationship with Europe or the United States would have caused Canada to fail - it would have failed 100 years ago. What causes countries to fail is being financially irresponsible and running up the debt.

I very much do believe in democracy though.... even when people make stupid decisions (IMHO)

But, as a Canadian, you are still eligible to be Prime Minister of the UK.

[bkkcanuck8]

2. Unless the UK govt. (and a new PM) is prepared to risk the wrath of the electorate, they'll not ignore the vote.

Which is why I think its likely that the new PM and EU will be negotiating behind the scenes (despite the EU stating that it wouldn't do this), and eventually a new deal will be put to the electorate.

You have a conflict in there.... They will ignore the vote....

They are trying to figure out how to give you the same question in another manner to get you to vote the right way. And they will keep doing so until you vote the right way. That is the reason why they are saying it is so difficult and delaying....

[dick dasterdly]

2. Unless the UK govt. (and a new PM) is prepared to risk the wrath of the electorate, they'll not ignore the vote.

Which is why I think its likely that the new PM and EU will be negotiating behind the scenes (despite the EU stating that it wouldn't do this), and eventually a new deal will be put to the electorate.

You have a conflict in there.... They will ignore the vote....

They are trying to figure out how to give you the same question in another manner to get you to vote the right way. And they will keep doing so until you vote the right way. That is the reason why they are saying it is so difficult and delaying....

You may be right, but I think its unlikely.

Far more likely that negotiations will start behind the scenes, that will result in a plausible reason to call another referendum or general election - with new EU terms.

Ignoring the vote would be political suicide for those MPs in constituencies that overwhelmingly voted for 'leave'.

[mommysboy]

Obviously you want UK to fail. That is clear to all.

No, I was quite clear early on. I think it extremely stupid that the UK leave the EU. If I had a vote I would have voted to stay. I would have personally liked to have a UK passport, but it would have taken another 4 years of living in the UK -- and I just decided that the potential of using a UK passport was not worth having to live in the UK for another 4 years.

Basically I had the right of abode in the UK, but to get to the point of being able to become a citizen I required another 4 years of residence. My personal vested interest was in.

Just because I have some sympathies with Quebecois that are independence minded, does not mean I want Canada to fail.

You're just being annoyingly silly.

I mean if not having a special trading relationship with Europe or the United States would have caused Canada to fail - it would have failed 100 years ago. What causes countries to fail is being financially irresponsible and running up the debt.

I very much do believe in democracy though.... even when people make stupid decisions (IMHO)

Ok sorry to say that.

Well, you are very much locked in a single perspective then.

There are a number of competing interests that may delay matters: the chief one being financial interest.

[Thaiwine]

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.

Cameron said something like, if leave win I will serve article 50 the following day, which is what he should have done, and then put the leave team in charge of doing the negotiations, but no he threw his toys out the pram, he is and was no leader of any worth, trouble is I don't see another in the crowd.

[bkkcanuck8]

Cameron said something like, if leave win I will serve article 50 the following day, which is what he should have done, and then put the leave team in charge of doing the negotiations, but no he threw his toys out the pram, he is and was no leader of any worth, trouble is I don't see another in the crowd.

That is how it should have happened, but then both Cameron did not want to and you could tell from Boris' expression - he did not want to win and had no plans in place. If the Quebecois won, they would have had all that and probably also a document outlining the goals in the order of 40+ pages. They would have taken the narrative to the government and made it very uncomfortable for the PM to delay. When Cameron delayed - crickets were heard and the Leave campaign went into hiding.

[Thaiwine]

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.

Trade talks happen after exit so that means alot of the talking happens after so no need to delay, we can talk about what happens to citizens rights etc in the two years, I see no reason to delay implimenting article 50.

[bkkcanuck8]

^ If I were the EU I would not take the UK seriously until after article 50. If both sides are stalemated, there is a reason.... the party leaving does not want to leave...

And after if they are actually negotiating a trade agreement, you could always grandfather the status-quo in until the negotiations have completed -- one way or another. Why would all parties agree to status-quo? Because they don't want to have to restructure twice.

Edited July 1, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[dick dasterdly]

Cameron said something like, if leave win I will serve article 50 the following day, which is what he should have done, and then put the leave team in charge of doing the negotiations, but no he threw his toys out the pram, he is and was no leader of any worth, trouble is I don't see another in the crowd.

That is how it should have happened, but then both Cameron did not want to and you could tell from Boris' expression - he did not want to win and had no plans in place. If the Quebecois won, they would have had all that and probably also a document outlining the goals in the order of 40+ pages. They would have taken the narrative to the government and made it very uncomfortable for the PM to delay. When Cameron delayed - crickets were heard and the Leave campaign went into hiding.

Alternatively, its common sense to wait until a new PM is in place (bearing in mind Cameron has no interest in leaving the EU).

Time can only help UK negotiations - as the EU also falls into disarray.

Edited July 1, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[mommysboy]

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.

Cameron said something like, if leave win I will serve article 50 the following day, which is what he should have done, and then put the leave team in charge of doing the negotiations, but no he threw his toys out the pram, he is and was no leader of any worth, trouble is I don't see another in the crowd.

I'll take your word on that.

You are absolutely right. He didn't and this is what we are left with. I suppose you just can't make people do something they don't agree with.

[bkkcanuck8]

Cameron said something like, if leave win I will serve article 50 the following day, which is what he should have done, and then put the leave team in charge of doing the negotiations, but no he threw his toys out the pram, he is and was no leader of any worth, trouble is I don't see another in the crowd.

That is how it should have happened, but then both Cameron did not want to and you could tell from Boris' expression - he did not want to win and had no plans in place. If the Quebecois won, they would have had all that and probably also a document outlining the goals in the order of 40+ pages. They would have taken the narrative to the government and made it very uncomfortable for the PM to delay. When Cameron delayed - crickets were heard and the Leave campaign went into hiding.

Alternatively, its common sense to wait until a new PM is in place (bearing in mind Cameron has no interest in leaving the EU).

Time can only help UK negotiations - as the EU also falls into disarray.

Isn't Theresa May the front runner according to the media? Isn't she also remain?

The thing is that I firmly believe that the future for most of Europe is to become a United States of Europe and that means closer integration, full labour mobility, central bank - and of course democratic reforms once it no longer is linked to the state governments. England does not want that -- hence the Norway option to keep status quo.

[MJP]

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.

The MJP does waffle and the MJP does apologise for this.

[dick dasterdly]

Cameron said something like, if leave win I will serve article 50 the following day, which is what he should have done, and then put the leave team in charge of doing the negotiations, but no he threw his toys out the pram, he is and was no leader of any worth, trouble is I don't see another in the crowd.

That is how it should have happened, but then both Cameron did not want to and you could tell from Boris' expression - he did not want to win and had no plans in place. If the Quebecois won, they would have had all that and probably also a document outlining the goals in the order of 40+ pages. They would have taken the narrative to the government and made it very uncomfortable for the PM to delay. When Cameron delayed - crickets were heard and the Leave campaign went into hiding.

Alternatively, its common sense to wait until a new PM is in place (bearing in mind Cameron has no interest in leaving the EU).

Time can only help UK negotiations - as the EU also falls into disarray.

Isn't Theresa May the front runner according to the media? Isn't she also remain?

The thing is that I firmly believe that the future for most of Europe is to become a United States of Europe and that means closer integration, full labour mobility, central bank - and of course democratic reforms once it no longer is linked to the state governments. England does not want that -- hence the Norway option to keep status quo.

Quite, which is why I believe the govt. and MPs only have a couple of options if they are determined to stay in the EU.

Relying on lawyers is not one of them.

[mommysboy]

^ If I were the EU I would not take the UK seriously until after article 50. If both sides are stalemated, there is a reason.... the party leaving does not want to leave...

And after if they are actually negotiating a trade agreement, you could always grandfather the status-quo in until the negotiations have completed -- one way or another. Why would all parties agree to status-quo? Because they don't want to have to restructure twice.

The flippant answer would be the EU has never taken the UK seriously anyway- it truly hasn't.

All I can say: this is about money imo. And where money is concerned, rules tend to be cast aside when survival is threatened. And yes delay is a dirty tactic I guess. UK knows full well a debt crisis is brewing in EU, and a political one too.

Democracy does not keep people in jobs. Everything has its place.

You don't seem to realise the trouble the EU and UK are in if a mutually agreeable deal is not struck. You might think differently, Brussels technocrats might agree. Businessmen certainly won't.

From the point of view of commerce, they want a deal struck, not just UK, Germans too, and just about every country. Then the technocrats can go away and play with paper any way they want.

All this may be nonsense I don't know, just trying to think about things I would have preferred not to know about. As with most traders all I'm interested in is a smooth arena in which to conduct business. Same goes for the bloke in Hamburg I would guess.

But.... Whilst UK is beating its chest saying it wants to go.....and Brussels is insisting UK must go..... the truth is UK doesn't want to go, and EU doesn't want it to go either. IMO.

Edited July 1, 2016 by mommysboy

[nontabury]

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.

Trade talks happen after exit so that means alot of the talking happens after so no need to delay, we can talk about what happens to citizens rights etc in the two years, I see no reason to delay implimenting article 50.

The unelected Bureacrats in Brussells want to start the separation negotiations immediately,yet the UK does not. Could the reason for this be,that the UK knows Brussels will play hard ball. Therefore the UK could possibly be using this extra time to make Contingency agreements with other countries.

Another possible reason is the forthcoming elections in France,Holland and Germany.

[dick dasterdly]

^ If I were the EU I would not take the UK seriously until after article 50. If both sides are stalemated, there is a reason.... the party leaving does not want to leave...

And after if they are actually negotiating a trade agreement, you could always grandfather the status-quo in until the negotiations have completed -- one way or another. Why would all parties agree to status-quo? Because they don't want to have to restructure twice.

Somehow I'm sure that the EU is taking the brexit vote v seriously indeed, even though article 50 has not been invoked yet.

[Gweiloman]

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.

What on earth are you talking about?

Brexit is not about preventing immigration, it's about controlling immigration, inter alia.

Movement of people will continue - as long as these people meet the criteria of the country that they would like to move to. You talk about Thailand - there is definitely not free movement to Thailand. There are huge hurdles to surmount in order to live in Thailand and even after conquering those, other hurdles have to overcome on an annual basis to continue living here. If you want to know about xenophobia, just look at Thailand.

Another thing that people have not thought about is the political landscape of the UK in years to come if there is complete free movement within the EU. First step, get into the country. Second step, get naturalised (citizenship). Third step, start your own political party. Fourth step, take control of the government / country. Paranoia?

[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.

Trade talks happen after exit so that means alot of the talking happens after so no need to delay, we can talk about what happens to citizens rights etc in the two years, I see no reason to delay implimenting article 50.

The unelected Bureacrats in Brussells want to start the separation negotiations immediately,yet the UK does not. Could the reason for this be,that the UK knows Brussels will play hard ball. Therefore the UK could possibly be using this extra time to make Contingency agreements with other countries.

Another possible reason is the forthcoming elections in France,Holland and Germany.

Precisely.

[dick dasterdly]

^ If I were the EU I would not take the UK seriously until after article 50. If both sides are stalemated, there is a reason.... the party leaving does not want to leave...

And after if they are actually negotiating a trade agreement, you could always grandfather the status-quo in until the negotiations have completed -- one way or another. Why would all parties agree to status-quo? Because they don't want to have to restructure twice.

The flippant answer would be the EU has never taken the UK seriously anyway- it truly hasn't.

All I can say: this is about money imo. And where money is concerned, rules tend to be cast aside when survival is threatened. And yes delay is a dirty tactic I guess. UK knows full well a debt crisis is brewing in EU, and a political one too.

Democracy does not keep people in jobs. Everything has its place.

You don't seem to realise the trouble the EU and UK are in if a mutually agreeable deal is not struck. You might think differently, Brussels technocrats might agree. Businessmen certainly won't.

From the point of view of commerce, they want a deal struck, not just UK, Germans too, and just about every country. Then the technocrats can go away and play with paper any way they want.

All this may be nonsense I don't know, just trying to think about things I would have preferred not to know about. As with most traders all I'm interested in is a smooth arena in which to conduct business. Same goes for the bloke in Hamburg I would guess.

But.... Whilst UK is beating its chest saying it wants to go.....and Brussels is insisting UK must go..... the truth is UK doesn't want to go, and EU doesn't want it to go either. IMO.

Hang on (re. the emboldened part ), delay is common sense from the UK POV - not a "dirty tactic".

I agree with most of the rest.

[bkkcanuck8]

The unelected Bureacrats in Brussells want to start the separation negotiations immediately,yet the UK does not. Could the reason for this be,that the UK knows Brussels will play hard ball. Therefore the UK could possibly be using this extra time to make Contingency agreements with other countries.

Another possible reason is the forthcoming elections in France,Holland and Germany.

Precisely.

I am afraid you are dreaming in technicolour now. If you are familiar with trade negotiations at all you will know that those unelected technocrats are the ones that do 95% of the work when drawing up an agreement. That means that at most they will have passing discussions on trade, if at all. The UK has transferred the power to negotiate trade to EU and will only get that back when they have actually exited. Until that point no country is going to be so obvious as to have meetings between trade negotiating teams -- because that is not protocol. EU will continue to dwarf an independent UK, and EU trade is much more important than UK trade. All that together means that almost nothing can be worked out until after official exit from the EU.

[dick dasterdly]

The unelected Bureacrats in Brussells want to start the separation negotiations immediately,yet the UK does not. Could the reason for this be,that the UK knows Brussels will play hard ball. Therefore the UK could possibly be using this extra time to make Contingency agreements with other countries.

Another possible reason is the forthcoming elections in France,Holland and Germany.

Precisely.

I am afraid you are dreaming in technicolour now. If you are familiar with trade negotiations at all you will know that those unelected technocrats are the ones that do 95% of the work when drawing up an agreement. That means that at most they will have passing discussions on trade, if at all. The UK has transferred the power to negotiate trade to EU and will only get that back when they have actually exited. Until that point no country is going to be so obvious as to have meetings between trade negotiating teams -- because that is not protocol. EU will continue to dwarf an independent UK, and EU trade is much more important than UK trade. All that together means that almost nothing can be worked out until after official exit from the EU.

Can you HONESTLY still not see the good reasons for the brit. govt. to delay invoking article 50 until a new PM is in place?

[Gweiloman]

I asked this question on another thread but maybe I should have asked it here instead.

"Are individual countries within the EU allowed to make trade agreements (for themselves only) with countries outside the EU?"