UK forum members, BREXIT?

[MK14]

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?

That is a very good point. E.g. Unemployment and/or inflation may be way too high, and so the vote is MAINLY about how and which party will be able to best handle it and get it under control. One with excessive new loans, the other in a much more financially realistic way, etc etc.

I suppose "Brexit" is the "current" political problem/ill-wind. So the next general election, whenever it is, will probably be lots to do with "Brexit", with some other issues thrown in. Unless "Brexit" is fully resolved BEFORE the next general election, which is probably unlikely (but NOT impossible).

Another problem is that each of the main parties, has (probably) many of its members (politicians) in either the remain or leave camps. Much like the 48%:52% voting pattern, on referendum day. Which further complicates the issues.

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).

[zapta]

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.

[zapta]

... 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.

[Tepe]

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

[zapta]

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

Good link.

The full list of border control by country is here http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control/docs/ms_notifications_-_reintroduction_of_border_control_en.pdf

Denmark now extends that 'temporary, bare minimum and last resort respond to threat' a few months at a time since Feb 2016. Compare with a single previous invocation in 2009 for 6 days during the UN Climate Change Conference.

[MK14]

... 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.

I agree with your "better", way of presenting the point.

A modest quantity of mainly people filling essential roles, whereby there are NOT enough locals, to do it. E.g. support of a new large engineering electrical plant, whereby highly skilled/rare/very-smart individuals are needed. Such as a new integrated circuit design and manufacturing plant.

Allowing HUGE (too many) numbers of people to flood the UK, will potentially ruin the quality of life, for the original population.

[apis]

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

[rch]

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.

Schengen allows directed ID checks.  All though of course it should be on reasonable grounds, not racial profiling.  The latter is difficult to prove, but Denmark is the sort of country where such an accusation would be taken seriously.

[MK14]

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.

[vodka]

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.

Spanish Historic feats on America

First vignette:
Blas de Lezo: I defended to Cartagenas de Indias with only 3000 spanish
Cortes: Bah ,That's nothing.

Second vignette:

Cortes: I conquested to Mexico with only 500 spanish
Maduro: Bah ,That's nothing.

Last vignette:

Maduro : I bankrupted  to Venezuela only with four spanish advisers of "PODEMOS"

[rch]

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.

Certainly if you regard setting up a community of different countries with the four freedoms as 'leftist' then you are going to regard the EU as leftist.   So, yes, having an EU at all is 'leftist' in that sense.  But then so is allowing Trade Unions and having social security and subsidised health services.   There is probably quite a large majority consensus for most of those things in Europe, leftist as they may be.

[apis]

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).

[MK14]

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).

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 couple of decades 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. (Most of the time, but I vaguely remember (or learnt from history), that at times they have been more successful, including somewhat recently, making a recent coalition government with the conservatives).

So maybe there are fundamental political differences between the UK, and the EU (Parliament).

But even so, I think that there are reports that other current EU countries may also end up having referendums about EU membership. Potentially voting to leave as well.

[Corporate666]

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.

[apis]

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 US fought and declared independence from you guys in 1776 and they have been celebrating the day ever since (next time in three days now). During WW2 France and Britain declared war on Germany 3 sep 1939. The US didn't join until dec 1941 after Pearl Harbour and the germans and Italy declared war on them. The special relation during more recent wars is spelled Nato. Aside from the fact that you speak the same language the US/British relations are no more special than the US/Danish. The largest ethnic demographic in the US are those of german decent! A thought: perhaps all that talk about special relations is something all leaders say to each others when they want to be polite?

The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.

And by your definition of leftist slant, both the US and the UK would also have a leftist slant.

[Corporate666]

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.

I agree with all you wrote.

I think Juncker's demands (suggestions, I suppose these days) are unreasonable... I know Cameron has gotten a lot of criticism for stepping down but I think he did the right thing.  It would be difficult to spearhead an initiative you don't agree with.  A "cooling off period" is a very wise thing - so that people don't react emotionally and instead act in the best interests of the people they represent.

I think it's fair that the EU wants to bundle free access to the market with free movement... I think it's a foolish thing that they be linked, but since they are, to separate them out would undermine the authority and "raison d'etre" of the EU, so I don't blame them for saying their linkage is non-negotiable.  The EU says they won't budge on this, but I don't think much negotiation has taken place yet (other than in the tabloids). 

I am positive that a deal can be worked out - both sides have plenty to lose and plenty to gain from a sweetheart trade deal, but I think the trick will probably be in coming up with something that both sides can sell to their electorate as a "win", while respecting the need to make a deal.  The UK is in a unique position.  Geographically and logistically, they are the gateway to Europe.  They also share a common language with the largest/wealthiest economy in the world.  I am sure there's things they could devise/implement which would be a huge boon to UK trade.  One example off the top of my head would be reducing/eliminating the outrageous aircraft landing fees which would siphon off traffic from Charles De Gaulle, Schiphol and Madrid.  They could also dramatically reduce or eliminate import fees for shipments from the Americas.  They should be able to negotiate a better rate to export stuff from the UK to the EU than the rate that's paid by countries in the Americas to the EU.  Then the UK could eliminate or drastically cut tariffs to import into the UK - and suddenly the UK would be *the* go-to place and conduit for all companies in the Americas who wish to do business in the EU.  They could do the same with red-tape and laws/paperwork regarding manufacturing.  If they can negotiate a better tariff from UK->EU than other countries have, and they can reduce the burden of operating in the UK, then they could see a resurgence of manufacturing - just like how Honda, Toyota and other manufacturers have been opening plants in the USA rather than shipping from Japan.

In short, the UK leadership needs to analyze what the differences are between the UK and EU, then leverage those differences to create a business-friendly environment.  If they can do that, they could experience an economic boom that would be unprecedented.  However, I fear that political infighting and power-mongering will stymie such intiatives.  I'm a British citizen myself and I live there about half the year, and with all due respect to my fellow Brits and to my homeland, one of the big problems in the UK is the hatred towards those who are successful and the fact that most Brits (in my experience) would rather make sure nobody else is getting something they aren't getting, even if it causes them economic harm.  So sweetheart trade deals will be criticized by the opposition as being designed for big-business and to help the rich, the same with the other ideas I had above - and most of the things the UK should do probably can't be done, because everyone will want to make sure they downvote and block anything that might funnel money into the pockets of someone whose already wealthy.

[Corporate666]

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.

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.

The process will take months if not years.  There will be ups and downs as the process proceeds, and ultimately we all know the end result.  It's up to the UK what they do economically from here on.  It's absolutely not a given that they will do worse, economically, than if they had stayed in the EU, just as it's equally not a given whether the EU will do better or worse.  It all depends on what the legislation and trade deals they enact over the coming months look like. 

[nctnico]

Geographically and logistically, they are the gateway to Europe.

What have you been smoking??? Whatever gets shipped into the UK overseas has to be shipped out again overseas so that doesn't work very well. Add the exchange rate risks to that and you should see the problem. No UK harbour is in the top 10 of these lists when it comes to cargo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_ports_in_Europe

[apis]

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.

2) The UK will not sink into the sea but they won't be "fine". Just to give one example: several researchers will lose their funding if the UK leaves the EU, and at the moment they will have no idea if they should start looking for a new job or continue with their EU funded research projects. Activating article 50 is the only thing that counts if the UK is going to leave. EU doesn't even have the power to kick out the UK if they decide to ignore the referendum.

[zapta]

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.

This is an UK internal process. If and when their parliament will decide to leave they will notify the EU. Same goes for any other member.

[Macbeth]

Can I just remind the EU that UK are the 2nd largest contributor after Germany to the project and the sooner we are gone the sooner that large chunk of regular cash vanishes.

Of course Juncker and his chums in the commission will not lower their salaries and all the other benefits to reflect that loss, indeed I imagine they will be claiming much overtime and other crisis expenses to deal with it. This gravy training just amplifies the loss of the UK contribution to normal EU citizens who usually benefit.

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.

[zapta]

The betting odds say no article 50 this year. They were wrong about the referendum at odds of only 25% for Leave winning.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/article-50-triggered-in-2016

[3db]

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.

In addition if there's no agreement then it's WTO rules.
I wonder if the EU Canada agreement includes free movement of people. 

[vodka]

I see the way of acting of the minister british,and they never  really want to go out . They only want  to Europe give all the right but not the duties.

The british are cheeks

[Tepe]

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.

A guess: Getting rid of the UK means getting rid of the brakeman who slows down the ever-increasing-union train.

As for the UK's pecuniary contributions to the EU coffers - what is the net contribution actually? How much will the EU system actually lose when the money flow from the EU coffers to the UK also stops?

I'm going to miss that brakeman, though.