Mixing remain/leave into the mixture, messes things up.
E.g. If Conservatives go for Leave, and Labour go for remain, ignoring other parties for now.
If the EU and/or other EU countries decides to try and put its case forward, to try and swing the 52%:48%, the other way. It could mean we get pressed into choosing a party and hence new prime minister, more based on remain/leave rather than choosing the best one for leading us and running the country for the next 5 years.
E.g. Say UKip are the only ones who go for leave, the others go for remain and/or a second referendum. We could end up getting a new prime minister who may not be the primary choice, if given a "normal" election (free of any Brexit stuff).
This Brexit sort of messes things up (muddies the waters), so maybe is NOT the best "cloud" under which to have a general election.
While I understand your point, I have to ask: How is this any different to the normal election campaign dilemma faced by voters? Standing in the ballot booth asking yourself: I like A and B of party "X" and C and D of party "Y". Now, who to choose?
Check the video, it reinstated passport control on the border with Germany.No, not passport control. Random ID checks. Citizens from Schengen have free access.
... because of some people being concerned about immigration...
This violates the Schengen agreement.
This violates the Schengen agreement.The temporary controls have been approved by the Commission
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control/index_en.htm
... because of some people being concerned about immigration...
They are concerned about uncontrolled immigration, where a country cannot select the immigrants that have merit, as most countries do.
Part of the overall issue (brexit) is that the EU tends to be politically neutral or leftish, depending on your interpretation/opinion. But the growing (voting) trend is tending to be rightish, because of some people being concerned about immigration, and also lack of voting rights/control (as regards the EU).
Check the video, it reinstated passport control on the border with Germany.No, not passport control. Random ID checks. Citizens from Schengen have free access.
This violates the Schengen agreement.
As for 'random', do you really believe it? They profiled two young men in a non Denish car.
Honesty is a key requirement for a productive discussion.
Part of the overall issue (brexit) is that the EU tends to be politically neutral or leftish, depending on your interpretation/opinion. But the growing (voting) trend is tending to be rightish, because of some people being concerned about immigration, and also lack of voting rights/control (as regards the EU).I'm sorry but that is complete BS unless you have a very unique interpretation of what is to be considered "leftish", as can be seen here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/hemicycle.html
Part of the overall issue (brexit) is that the EU tends to be politically neutral or leftish, depending on your interpretation/opinion. But the growing (voting) trend is tending to be rightish, because of some people being concerned about immigration, and also lack of voting rights/control (as regards the EU).I'm sorry but that is complete BS unless you have a very unique interpretation of what is to be considered "leftish", as can be seen here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/hemicycle.html
You seem to be talking about the political parties that make up the various political members of the EU.
What I meant, was the EU as an overall organization in its own right. Which mostly/fully does NOT allow voting of the general public (directly), as far as I am aware.
Above I have more explained problems with lack of voting of the general public (by the EU), rather than explaining why a leftish political slant was applied. The leftish political line, is because of things like rich countries have to pay for poor countries. That is a leftish concept. There are other leftish (socialist) things about the overall EU organization.
Part of the overall issue (brexit) is that the EU tends to be politically neutral or leftish, depending on your interpretation/opinion. But the growing (voting) trend is tending to be rightish, because of some people being concerned about immigration, and also lack of voting rights/control (as regards the EU).I'm sorry but that is complete BS unless you have a very unique interpretation of what is to be considered "leftish", as can be seen here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/hemicycle.html
You seem to be talking about the political parties that make up the various political members of the EU.
What I meant, was the EU as an overall organization in its own right. Which mostly/fully does NOT allow voting of the general public (directly), as far as I am aware.
Above I have more explained problems with lack of voting of the general public (by the EU), rather than explaining why a leftish political slant was applied. The leftish political line, is because of things like rich countries have to pay for poor countries. That is a leftish concept. There are other leftish (socialist) things about the overall EU organization.
You seem to be talking about the political parties that make up the various political members of the EU.
What I meant, was the EU as an overall organization in its own right. Which mostly/fully does NOT allow voting of the general public (directly), as far as I am aware.
Above I have more explained problems with lack of voting of the general public (by the EU), rather than explaining why a leftist political slant was applied. The leftish political line, is because of things like rich countries have to pay for poor countries. That is a leftish concept. There are other leftish (socialist) things about the overall EU organization.
The picture shows the composition of the European parliament. The other part of the EU with power is the council of ministers which consists of representatives from each member state's government (people elect their governments who then send representatives to the council). You will find the council is not dominated by the left but rather reflect how the populations in all European member states are voting in their national parliaments. Currently members aligned with ALDE/EPP make up the majority in the council as well (unsurprisingly the same as in the European parliament).
Two points; firstly, he is not asking the UK to leave straight away, he is asking them to start the two year process straight away. And secondly it is not *his* baby, it is the project of the founders of the EU, and one the UK has always resisted. I am not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions, just correcting the details.
The UK has a tendency to be partly European and partly American (e.g. Capitalism), in its overall makeup. Which is part of the reason, why (historically), the UK often does well with America, such as fighting battles together (World war 2, and other conflicts, before and after world war 2).
So maybe there are differences, between being "purely" European, and being partly European and partly American/Capitalistic.
A decade or so ago, the liberal democrats (and similar parties) in the UK, had a tiny following, of maybe 1 or 2% of the population. They were a minority political party.
So maybe there are fundamental political differences between the UK, and the EU (Parliament).
The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.
We aren't into the time period prescribed by the treaty yet because we have not invoked Article 50 (yet)
I'm not sure whether Europe is just behaving like a jilted lover or trying to take advantage of the fact that the UK political system is in turmoil at the moment but they do need to back off and let us sort out our end. No-one expected this result and it has rocked the boat rather a lot.
My main worry is that there will be a General Election - not unreasonable as there is the potential for new leaders of both Labour and the Tories and the view of Parliament - where most MPs favour Remain - is at odds with the views of the people.
The problem is that Labour are unelectable, certainly with Corbyn as leader and probably with anyone who might replace him and I am a little worried that UKIP could step into that void. BoJo as PM is one thing but Farage is quite another. FWIW I don't think it would come to that but the prospect is alarming.
The other problem is that they appear to be unmoveable on the free movement thing which might make negotiations difficult. Whatever you feel about the outpouring of sentiment over the issue it is clear that unless those that voted Leave can see a clear policy in place that will reduce the attractiveness of the UK to economic migrants from the poorer parts of Europe the electorate will get even more angry. Perhaps we could allow free movement of labour without free movement of people - i.e can come if you have already fixed up a job, perhaps if we allow free movement of people but no benefits, I don't know.
1. The referendum result is not legally binding, the UK parliament makes the final decision.
2. EU can't begin planing an exit before the UK activates article 50, after that there will be a minimum of 2 years to plan all the logistical and legal issues (and more) before formally leaving.
The UK government is currently stalling, holding the rest of Europe hostage. They should make their intentions clear to dispel as much uncertainty as possible and let people begin planing for the future. The UK government deciding to ignore the referendum would not be very democratic. Everyone in EU, except nationalists, are unhappy to see the UK leave, but if the people of Britain voted for a Brexit that should be respected and the UK government should therefore activate article 50.
This is Johnson's and Cameron's fault, they keep blaming their own failings on the EU. Cameron wanted the referendum to save his own party from splitting, gambling that the British would be smart enough not to shoot themselves in the foot. Unfortunately the people decided this was a good time to give the establishment the finger and everyone lost. Well, at least the UK, it might not be so bad for the rest of EU after all. Some are afraid of a domino effect but I suspect the Brexit might actually make it less likely for other member states to leave now that they see what is happening in the UK. No other EU government is going to try exit referendums any time soon, that's for sure.
Geographically and logistically, they are the gateway to Europe.
1) Yes, the referendum is not legally binding, but everyone knows it is going to happen. To say that we don't know what will happen until it's official is just false. It's really just a paperwork issue.
2) Sure they can plan. They already are planning. The claims that they are deadlocked until it's official are false.
The UK isn't holding anyone hostage. The EU is free to do whatever it likes. I think the UK will be just fine, as will the EU. For the EU to blame the UK for any economic ills is unwarranted. They are just creating a scapegoat.
1) The US president isn't certain either:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jun/30/obama-talks-brexit-video
The longer the UK government postpone activating article 50 the more likely they never will. There is no reason to wait, just activate it and begin negotiations, they have 2 years minimum to negotiate and the period can be extended. Looks more and more likely they are going to try to weasel out of it imo.
Two points; firstly, he is not asking the UK to leave straight away, he is asking them to start the two year process straight away. And secondly it is not *his* baby, it is the project of the founders of the EU, and one the UK has always resisted. I am not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions, just correcting the details.
Well, he wants the "divorce" (as he calls it) to happen as soon as possible. It isn't necessarily two years - it's up to two years from when article 50 is initiated, and he is calling for the process to happen ASAP. He's shown that he takes the vote personally and he's insulted and feels jilted (IMO from his comments). I say the EU is his baby because he is the current President of the commission, not that I'm under the illusion that he founded the EU. Brexit happened under his watch, and considering he was the one (ultimately) that refused to give the concessions Cameron wanted, and refused to reach out to UK voters and/or address the concerns they had, and his heavy-handed rhetoric towards Brexit voters, he's one of the most responsible parties for the eventual outcome. He presided over the second largest economy of the EU leaving in a repudiation of his policies and his tactics, and he's spiteful and angry about it.
Why is the EU so anxious to get us to invoke article 50? Personally I agree - the sooner the better. But it seems odd to me that the EU don't want to string this one out for as long as possible though. It's a lot of lucre to be giving up.