Even though we voted for it, a Brexit won't happen in the end. Here's why

[jope]

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

The default is WTO rules.

The customs to be paid are just a minor part of the access to the markets. The bigger issue is all kind of separate restrictions which the countries require. This starts from the safety of the products and goes forward to what need to be printed to the packages on which the products are sold.

Even with the WTO rules enabled, it's just a first step to get products in to the markets.

In practice manufacturers might need to have separate product lines for products in different markets. The EU's idea of single market is to fight against these separate requirements. It's to give access to products to the whole EU market.

This would also mean that for example USA and China will have to make different products for EU market and UK market if their rules are different. EU being larger market, the unit price per unit is likely be less than for the smaller UK markets.

When UK company creates an product, it will have to pass the rules of the UK legislation as well as EU rules, in case the product is sold to the EU single market. This adds production costs, thus adds the price of the product, thus it's more difficult for the product to compete in price with other similar products from EU. Not to forget that there is customs fees etc to import the products to EU market.

Please watch the video, which was posted to here earlier. I personally didn't know these things before. The talk is about what the market really presents is somewhere in the middle of the video.

A company can identify it's market, ie USA and make the product to US spec rather than having to make the product to meet US and EU spec's so reducing production costs.

By making products to EU spec only you restrict your product to the EU market, it would seem impractical to take all the worlds markets and make a product that fitted all regulations, bespoke deals are much simpler and makes the product cheaper to produce.

Best advice ever. Eff the EU, go to the US instead, all problems solved.

What the UK will probably do ist trying to make trade deals with other economic communities in the world, eg. ASEAN, ECOWAS, Mercosur, CARICOM to name just a few. Particularly developing or smaller countries have realized (often with some help from the EU) that they carry to little weight to be successful on their own. So they join forces and build bigger markets that are attractive for traders and investors. Treaties with individual states may not make up for the losses the UK will probably face. So, I would say this is the way forward for the UK and lets hope that respective treaties will materialize for the UK in the future and that the City of London will not be decimated.

A bit strange, though: while many countries try to create larger trading zones and communities, the UK prefers to be on its own. Well, as has been mentioned here before, it is not all about social safety and jobs.

[mommysboy]

Public opinion is key. The only reliable measure of that is the referendum. Nevertheless key in forming public opinion was the assertion that there would be a free trade deal. If that is not available, and it seems it isn't, then a leagal challenge could be mounted, or Parliament could make a stand.

Where was that written on the ballot paper?

Besides, do you really think the Germans are going to claim the UK's contract to buy all their cars is no longer valid.

"No you naughty English people, we won't sell you our cars, and all our factories can close, so there"

I'm still waiting for a link to that claim. I suspect it was just an opinion rather than a claim.

It was in the Guardian a couple of days ago, but is no longer there. I supplied a link on another thread, but there are so many threads I can't find it now.

Edited July 1, 2016 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

An inconvenient truth is that many Brexiteers saw this as a once only chance to preserve the "English way of life". It was so important to them, that any adverse affect from Brexit was worth paying.

Whatever the case and whatever you think of them, the Brexiters won the vote, and so, if you believe in the basic principles of democracy, you have to accept that a decision has been made by the country and government must act on that.

Is staying in the EU so important to the remainers that somehow finding a way to subvert or ignore a fair and democratic process is a price worth paying so as to have their way, because that is certainly how it appears.

For me, I can't easily decide on that one- I guess democracy is not so sacrosanct for me, not where a rerendum is concerned that throws up a potential constitutional crisis. I mean every now and then you do get a bit of a lemon that is best torn up. And this refendum is trouble. But I do agree when push comes to shove it has to be enacted.

Generally, anything that is absolute, unbreakable, also runs the risk of being fundamentalist- sometimes you have to be a bit of an iconoclast.

[mommysboy]

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

The default is WTO rules.

The customs to be paid are just a minor part of the access to the markets. The bigger issue is all kind of separate restrictions which the countries require. This starts from the safety of the products and goes forward to what need to be printed to the packages on which the products are sold.

Even with the WTO rules enabled, it's just a first step to get products in to the markets.

In practice manufacturers might need to have separate product lines for products in different markets. The EU's idea of single market is to fight against these separate requirements. It's to give access to products to the whole EU market.

This would also mean that for example USA and China will have to make different products for EU market and UK market if their rules are different. EU being larger market, the unit price per unit is likely be less than for the smaller UK markets.

When UK company creates an product, it will have to pass the rules of the UK legislation as well as EU rules, in case the product is sold to the EU single market. This adds production costs, thus adds the price of the product, thus it's more difficult for the product to compete in price with other similar products from EU. Not to forget that there is customs fees etc to import the products to EU market.

Please watch the video, which was posted to here earlier. I personally didn't know these things before. The talk is about what the market really presents is somewhere in the middle of the video.

Yes access is a big issue. As is 'financial passporting'. Probably more important than tariffs which tend to be small anyway. But am I right in saying existing products already being supplied in UK have a licence?

It's funny how this is settling in to a trade deal, or a trade war! And it really looks that way to me with nothing in between. I just can't see the UK accepting any impediments to trade. And of course it would likely reciprocate.

[mommysboy]

Yes, if there are no other, more specific regulations.

Everybody can trade with everybody. But respective rules and regulations apply. In future the UK can sell Germany whatever Germany is ready to buy (with the probable exception of services). But goods from the UK must meet respective European specifications. In future Germany can sell cars to the UK but must meet British rules, regulations and specifications. The whole trade will become more cumbersome and more expensive.

So, not only the UK but also the EU member states will be in a worse position than before. But I fail to see how that supports the Brexit argument that it was good idea to leave.

BTW, I am not an expert. That is just general knowledge about the EU. Experts' corrections and comments are always welcome.

Yes I believe you are absolutely correct. At this moment I would assume all UK goods being exported to EU meet these requirements. But quite right in the future any product would have to be submitted and regulations can be held back years if so desired. But this is an issue that has been going on for years.

[Thaiwine]

A company can identify it's market, ie USA and make the product to US spec rather than having to make the product to meet US and EU spec's so reducing production costs.

By making products to EU spec only you restrict your product to the EU market, it would seem impractical to take all the worlds markets and make a product that fitted all regulations, bespoke deals are much simpler and makes the product cheaper to produce.

Please watch the video first. It not all that complicated and speaks in simple terms.

So you make me suffer 30 min of remain propaganda to tell me what I already knew, common sense tells me both sides were not being 100% honest.

Legal system will take years to unravel,

There is no need to unravel we have it already, what we are unhappy with can be repealed as and when we want to.

Two years to divorce will cover citizens rights.

I have already said the same, maybe other thread.

New framework will take ten years to work out.

I don't see a problem here.

Trade relations with regards to regulation, we have regulation in force to trade with EU

See my previous post, why restrict yourself to only EU

Norway model is bad for the UK

I agree

Back to square one on world trade deals

I appreciated that already

So why did I need to watch this remain propaganda?

[mommysboy]

Public opinion is key. The only reliable measure of that is the referendum. Nevertheless key in forming public opinion was the assertion that there would be a free trade deal. If that is not available, and it seems it isn't, then a leagal challenge could be mounted, or Parliament could make a stand.

Where was that written on the ballot paper?

Besides, do you really think the Germans are going to claim the UK's contract to buy all their cars is no longer valid.

"No you naughty English people, we won't sell you our cars, and all our factories can close, so there"

I'm still waiting for a link to that claim. I suspect it was just an opinion rather than a claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

[djayz]

Personally I found it a shame that they opted to leave the EU.

It might, however, send a clear message to the powers that be that there are problems, mainly immigration, which need to be dealt with swiftly.

[mommysboy]

A company can identify it's market, ie USA and make the product to US spec rather than having to make the product to meet US and EU spec's so reducing production costs.

By making products to EU spec only you restrict your product to the EU market, it would seem impractical to take all the worlds markets and make a product that fitted all regulations, bespoke deals are much simpler and makes the product cheaper to produce.

Please watch the video first. It not all that complicated and speaks in simple terms.

So you make me suffer 30 min of remain propaganda to tell me what I already knew, common sense tells me both sides were not being 100% honest.

Legal system will take years to unravel,

There is no need to unravel we have it already, what we are unhappy with can be repealed as and when we want to.

Two years to divorce will cover citizens rights.

I have already said the same, maybe other thread.

New framework will take ten years to work out.

I don't see a problem here.

Trade relations with regards to regulation, we have regulation in force to trade with EU

See my previous post, why restrict yourself to only EU

Norway model is bad for the UK

I agree

Back to square one on world trade deals

I appreciated that already

So why did I need to watch this remain propaganda?

Yes. It does seem to me we either get a good trade deal or walk. If we don't then it's only reasonable to reciprocate. If they are crazy enough to spite their biggest trade partner, and at one and the same time create a very competitive rival on their own doorstep, then so be it. .

[Thaiwine]

Public opinion is key. The only reliable measure of that is the referendum. Nevertheless key in forming public opinion was the assertion that there would be a free trade deal. If that is not available, and it seems it isn't, then a leagal challenge could be mounted, or Parliament could make a stand.

Where was that written on the ballot paper?

Besides, do you really think the Germans are going to claim the UK's contract to buy all their cars is no longer valid.

"No you naughty English people, we won't sell you our cars, and all our factories can close, so there"

I'm still waiting for a link to that claim. I suspect it was just an opinion rather than a claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

[mommysboy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

I don't think it's about the legality of the referendum itself, more how it was conducted and how it can be enacted. But I really am out of my depth completely and was hoping a legal eagle could shed some light.

Edited July 1, 2016 by mommysboy

[bkkcanuck8]

I'm still waiting for a link to that claim. I suspect it was just an opinion rather than a claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

[Thaiwine]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

I don't think it's about the legality of the referendum itself, more how it was conducted and how it can be enacted. But I really am out of my depth completely and was hoping a legal eagle could shed some light.

Do you mean that both parties were not 100% honest

[mommysboy]

I'm still waiting for a link to that claim. I suspect it was just an opinion rather than a claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

I understand most of that.

If there is a legal challenge, it will likely centre on whether Parliament must legislate for enactment.

Here's the BBC article. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629 It seems to suggest enactment of Article 50 can only be done by legislation.

Again, I haven't got a clue but the big wigs are referenced.

[mommysboy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

I don't think it's about the legality of the referendum itself, more how it was conducted and how it can be enacted. But I really am out of my depth completely and was hoping a legal eagle could shed some light.

Do you mean that both parties were not 100% honest

It's not my opinion you understand just bringing it to attention.

Politicians are people who lie.

They have to do that or nobody will vote for them.

[Thaiwine]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

I understand most of that.

If there is a legal challenge, it will likely centre on whether Parliament must legislate for enactment.

Here's the BBC article. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629 It seems to suggest enactment of Article 50 can only be done by legislation.

Again, I haven't got a clue but the big wigs are referenced.

This seems to boil down to does the PM need to ask permission to push the article 50 button.

it would be good to find out who would refuse to vote yes, so we could sack them at the next election.

I posted on another thread, that failer to endorse this referndum may well lead to Ukip geting possibily 40% (my guess as they got 10% last time) of the votes next time around that would give them more than what the current government got in the last election.

[bkkcanuck8]

It's not my opinion you understand just bringing it to attention.

Politicians are people who lie.

They have to do that or nobody will vote for them.

I am afraid, I don't agree.... the majority of voters are quite willing to deceive themselves because they will vote for that party regardless so they have to justify it to themselves....

[Guest]

Please watch the video first. It not all that complicated and speaks in simple terms.

So you make me suffer 30 min of remain propaganda to tell me what I already knew, common sense tells me both sides were not being 100% honest.

I wound't listen to 30 minutes of propaganda. I would listen the first 15 minutes of it simply to understand what they are talking about and why they are supporting these ideas.

We exchange our ideas. We do that in both ways.

I wouldn't want to be the person who thought I was so right that I didn't need to listen to what anyone else's ideas.

[ilostmypassword]

I'm still waiting for a link to that claim. I suspect it was just an opinion rather than a claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk

Here's that link I was talking about. I wasn't being mischievous. It has also appeared in different forms on the BBC website and in the Independent. There are other credible sources too.

I take this argument as another attempt by the bad losers to muddy the waters,

I would have expected DC's legal team to already have advised him if there was likely to be a legal problem with holding a referendum,

It seems a bit far fetched to think a govenment would not examine a election promise for legality.

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK

That assertion is patently untrue. The UK is still a member of the EU. It hasn't even invoked article 50 yet.

[bkkcanuck8]

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK

That assertion is patently untrue. The UK is still a member of the EU. It hasn't even invoked article 50 yet.

I was pretty sure when they talked about the courts issues they were talking about the UK courts. Execution of article 50 does not affect the status of any person in the UK, it alters their status in the EU. In the EU the excution of article 50 is part of the constitution hence it can not therefore be unconstitutional with respect to the EU constitution.

[mommysboy]

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK

That assertion is patently untrue. The UK is still a member of the EU. It hasn't even invoked article 50 yet.

I was pretty sure when they talked about the courts issues they were talking about the UK courts. Execution of article 50 does not affect the status of any person in the UK, it alters their status in the EU. In the EU the excution of article 50 is part of the constitution hence it can not therefore be unconstitutional with respect to the EU constitution.

Here's what 3 legal eagles assert:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

[ilostmypassword]

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK

That assertion is patently untrue. The UK is still a member of the EU. It hasn't even invoked article 50 yet.

I was pretty sure when they talked about the courts issues they were talking about the UK courts. Execution of article 50 does not affect the status of any person in the UK, it alters their status in the EU. In the EU the excution of article 50 is part of the constitution hence it can not therefore be unconstitutional with respect to the EU constitution.

That's a different and much better argument.

[Thaiwine]

I think very far fetched. Even if you accept that the action affects everyone or many people negatively with respect to rights and freedoms, the UK constitution ends at the border of the UK and the change does not affect UK citizens right and freedoms within these borders. The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK (the UK following laid out constitutional procedure). And that is with accepting the twisted logic.

The EU constitution protects EU citizens within EU borders which no longer include the UK

That assertion is patently untrue. The UK is still a member of the EU. It hasn't even invoked article 50 yet.

I was pretty sure when they talked about the courts issues they were talking about the UK courts. Execution of article 50 does not affect the status of any person in the UK, it alters their status in the EU. In the EU the excution of article 50 is part of the constitution hence it can not therefore be unconstitutional with respect to the EU constitution.

Here's what 3 legal eagles assert:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

I read the article you prob.... understand it better than me

It says our constitution is unwritten, so I take it that would mean all the legal argument about needing parlimentary permission is hypothetical, and all that could happen is for a decision to be challenged through the courts, which the govenment could prob... string out longer than two years. something else I didn't get was a mention of another path other than article 50 for exit.

[FinChin67]

Personally I found it a shame that they opted to leave the EU.

It might, however, send a clear message to the powers that be that there are problems, mainly immigration, which need to be dealt with swiftly.

Brexit Due to Failure of Elites, Not Bigotry of Masses

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/brexit_due_to_failure_of_elites_not_bigotry_of_masses

[MJP]

A company can identify it's market, ie USA and make the product to US spec rather than having to make the product to meet US and EU spec's so reducing production costs.

By making products to EU spec only you restrict your product to the EU market, it would seem impractical to take all the worlds markets and make a product that fitted all regulations, bespoke deals are much simpler and makes the product cheaper to produce.

Please watch the video first. It not all that complicated and speaks in simple terms.

So you make me suffer 30 min of remain propaganda to tell me what I already knew, common sense tells me both sides were not being 100% honest.

Legal system will take years to unravel,

There is no need to unravel we have it already, what we are unhappy with can be repealed as and when we want to.

Two years to divorce will cover citizens rights.

I have already said the same, maybe other thread.

New framework will take ten years to work out.

I don't see a problem here.

Trade relations with regards to regulation, we have regulation in force to trade with EU

See my previous post, why restrict yourself to only EU

Norway model is bad for the UK

I agree

Back to square one on world trade deals

I appreciated that already

So why did I need to watch this remain propaganda?

Yes. It does seem to me we either get a good trade deal or walk. If we don't then it's only reasonable to reciprocate. If they are crazy enough to spite their biggest trade partner, and at one and the same time create a very competitive rival on their own doorstep, then so be it. .

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

Then let the EU come to us. See what they want to do.

I've pondered the bank thing. I think banking is 10% of UK GDP, something like that. But considering the taxpayer bailouts. Considering the situation heavy reliance on a dodgy banking sector left Iceland in. Are they really worth the risk?

[MissAndry]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

I would prefer to give notice to all foreign nationals without a valid VISA to leave while they can.

Any that stay would have to wear one of those yellow stars you see on the EU flag.

That seems fair.

Edited July 2, 2016 by MissAndry

[MJP]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

I would prefer to give notice to all foreign nationals without a valid VISA to leave while they can.

Any that stay would have to wear one of those yellow stars you see on the EU flag.

That seems fair.

That's a recipe for ostracism and isolation from the rest of the World. North Korea or the Islamic State spring to mind.

[mommysboy]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

I would prefer to give notice to all foreign nationals without a valid VISA to leave while they can.

Any that stay would have to wear one of those yellow stars you see on the EU flag.

That seems fair.

That's a recipe for ostracism and isolation from the rest of the World. North Korea or the Islamic State spring to mind.

I think it was a joke.....I hope

[SheungWan]

An inconvenient truth is that many Brexiteers saw this as a once only chance to preserve the "English way of life". It was so important to them, that any adverse affect from Brexit was worth paying.

......as long as it is others paying that price. The rest of it is just a drunken weep over a mythical way of life based on a bogus Hovis advert. Actually it is not even that, its just racism. The real subtext? No black faces.

[SheungWan]

Just invoke Article 50 stating the UK is reverting to WTO rules as of the 1st of October (as a possible date). All those EU nationals living and working in the UK are free to remain if they so wish. Explain the new UK visa system allowing free movement of workers (not benefit tourists or criminals/gangs).

I would prefer to give notice to all foreign nationals without a valid VISA to leave while they can.

Any that stay would have to wear one of those yellow stars you see on the EU flag.

That seems fair.

Somewhat lame efforts to be funny.