Should Britain drag out this process now or step up to the plate as some Europeans are asking? Does dragging it out improve the prospects of Scotland Bremaining (Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) ? Does it send out a signal that Britain is not that keen on accepting responsibility for its decisions? Can anyone here who voted stay see any silver linings?
I think Britain should do what they think is best for them, however long it takes. I can't help think that those Europeans asking for quick negotiations are still reeling from shock and speaking from emotion rather than sense. First Britain needs to work out what it wants itself, then start negotiations for it. No, dragging it out increases the risk, I think. Scotland will try to carry out their own negotiations with the EU on what they could do if they vote to leave the UK, and they won't waste time. As soon as it is clear what an independent Scotland can do with regard the EU they will call a 2nd referendum on leaving the UK. On the other hand, if the EU can't offer Scotland any quick-fix, then they may want to wait to see what the UK agree before having that referendum. I'm not sure how much sense it would make to go for a 2nd referendum on their independence while it is unclear what remaining in the UK would look like. Maybe some would prefer they didn't have a clear idea as it would make independence more likely? By delaying? No, I don't think, as long as it's not drawn out simply to draw it out but rather because the time is needed to establish the necessary agreements. Short-term? No. Long-term (5+ years) then yes - we get to make our own decisions, our own trade agreements etc. It will, though, depend on what initial agreements are reached with the rest of Europe, as that will determine the extent of the short-term damage to our economy, which in turn will shape the long term.
What is this ? The Scottish Parliament can veto this? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244 It may be getting worse.
What if a delay is for internal party political reasons such as the issue of who replaces Cameron as leader of the Tory party ?
There is no good news and the news that we have is bad. Just how bad remains to be seen. How we ever joined the EU is something of a mystery - we joined at a time when "Don't mention the war" was a popular catchphrase. Maybe at the time people were following a charismatic leader speaking of an economic union whereas now we have a conspicuous absence of charismatic leadership and were offered the opportunity to leave a political union with at least one nation we aren't particularly fond of. Actually just one nation and if anyone is wondering if its 'them' then it isn't. Certainly for my generation and older I am fairly sure the result was a consequence of events occurring long before most of us were even born. I submit as evidence a product from a manufacturer of popular toys:- http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/battle-of-britain-75th-anniversary-gift-set.html?___SID=U So (dishonourable exceptions aside) absolutely nothing to do with race, colour or creed. Just history which we are all powerless to change.
Question: What are the odds that there will be a second brexit referendum vote in UK? (a "do-over" if you will)
Nil, in my opinion. The petition (3m signatures, but now being investigated for fraudulent identities) is all very well, but it changes nothing. 17m people voted to leave.
A silver lining is that this is the first time I have noticed the phenomenon of "living in denial" within myself. It was just an academic concept up till now Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am getting over it now.
Anyone wanna hazard a guess as to if and when the UK gvmt will invoke article 50? Will GB use Scotland's section 29 to avoid brexit?
It is clear that the politicians who were pushing Brexit didn't really have any plan in place for if they won. Wild claims were made about how nothing bad would happen, that immigration would diminish and/or stop (they have had to admit this was incorrect and immigration would probably continue as it does now), that funds used to pay the EU would be put to other things in the UK (they have now admitted this was a mistake). But they literally pushed these ideals, advised people to stop listening to the experts who were saying they were wrong and who pretty much predicted what did eventually happen. This was a power play and they have won. And now as everyone looks to them to find out what's to happen now, they seem to be shrugging and giving an 'I dunno' answer while avoiding eye contact. Now one of them is suggesting that perhaps Article 50 should not be triggered. And suggesting that before doing anything, the UK figures out what it really wants out of it.. In other words, suggesting that maybe a time of reflection is needed.. Did none of them think to do this before encouraging people to vote leave? Did none of them even consider that this rancid mess would end up squarely in their laps? The more this is drawn out, the further instability it causes for the EU and the world markets. Industries in the UK need to know what the plan will be. The UK will now have to actually make deals with the rest of the world. They haven't really had to do that for the last several decades. Now they will need to not just try to broker deals and agreements with the EU, but also with the rest of the world. And that will take even more time. Do they even have the staff with the knowledge and ability to do this? Because they haven't really had to do this kind of thing since they joined the EU. Who is going to lead the trade talks with countries like China, India, Russia, Japan, Australia, African countries, North and South American countries and the rest of the Asian markets? Who is going to be leading the talks with the EU to try to broker these agreements? Leave campaigners who have been touting the evils of the EU and the migrants coming from the very countries they will now need to negotiate with? Time will be needed to establish the necessary agreements. No one is denying that. This could very well take 10 years. You cannot undo 40+ years in 2 years. But there is also the fact that the longer this takes, the angrier the EU will become because it is causing further instability. To wit, the UK needs to show that it has a plan. At present, all we are seeing from the Leave political wing are looks of shock, horror and fear. With no plan even on the horizon. The mere suggestion that it could take a few months to have a new PM while the Tories claw each other's eyes out is ridiculous. The opposition is not doing much better. And now the Liberal Democrats are going to be campaigning on a 'rejoin the EU' for the next election. And people are angry enough, they could very well be successful. Considering that the voting demographic will change and all those very, very, angry 16 year olds who were denied the right to vote and who overwhelmingly wanted to remain for their future, will have the right to vote in the next election if it is held in 2020, and who will, in the coming few years be living with the hardship and dark prospects of the next several years because of Brexit, will probably feel an overwhelming urge to give a big fat FU to the politicians they felt did this to them. I'm sorry, but this whole thing is laughable. And the issue is, this isn't just affecting the UK. It is affecting the whole world. In effect, the world is paying for a successful campaign that was based on lies and misinformation, that was designed to feed hatred and bigotry. The irony is that people voted for this referendum as though they were sending a political message. That is what elections are for and they treated this like it was an election. The market might bounce back, but the longer the Brexit politicians stall and don't even suggest what the plan should be or will be, the more unstable it will remain. One of the big losers in this is the science sector. They benefited greatly from the EU by way of funding, staff, research and education. Their concern, and rightly so, is whether the UK Government is going to be able to match the level of funding and support they had received from the EU - over 8 billion pounds between 2007 and 2013 - which is apparently way more than the UK provided to the science sector. I doubt the EU will be willing to further develop the UK's science sector over that of its own members. Consider the effects on that alone. Consider just how much the UK will lose from the science sector alone. As for funding, if they weren't getting it from the UK before, they certainly won't be getting as much in the near or even distant future. Austerity measures will probably be a bigger feature in the UK than it is now. Who knows? One politician is suggesting they don't trigger it at all or perhaps taking time to reflect on what it is the UK really wants out of this, despite campaigning to leave the EU: Meanwhile, Liam Fox cast doubt on the necessity of triggering the article 50 clause of the Lisbon treaty that sets out the legal process for a country’s EU withdrawal. “A lot of things were said in advance of this referendum that we might want to think about again and that [invoking article 50] is one of them,” said the Conservative MP. “I think that it doesn’t make any sense to trigger article 50 without having a period of reflection first, for the cabinet to determine exactly what it is that we’re going to be seeking and in what timescale. Mind boggled.. Nigel Farage has said that invoking Article 50 should be done "without delay" while Boris and co are saying much time is needed. For the first time ever, the EU may agree with Farage. So it could be in a few months from now, or a few years from now. No one really knows. Meanwhile, the fun times from this Brexit vote commence and continue. Racists and bigots who feel emboldened now with this vote are now leaving graffiti, letters and cards to foreigners, demanding they leave because the UK is now for British only. Not to mention holding up large signs by sides of the road demanding repatriation of migrants. Even children in schools are being targeted. I wonder how well this will help the UK's negotiation in regards to immigration and the safety of EU members living and working in the UK..
I think I heard that the Norwegian agreement would leave EU travel /work entitlements unchanged (not sure on that) and that is what the leavers were hot under the collar about.
Norway's situation is different. To wit, their situation was not caused by a general majority saying 'FU' to the EU. The UK's situation is that it's what they are calling a nasty divorce. Greenland left the EU a long time ago, and again, it wasn't a rage filled exit as we have seen with the referendum. The entitlements such as unlimited and visa free travel, work and education, for example, will depend solely on how much the EU are willing to allow the UK to enjoy those benefits after what is a nasty divorce. People in nasty divorces don't always feel inclined to give the other party to the divorce everything they want simply because the other party wants it or demands it.
No, forget all this legalistic crap. The British political system is not going to try to lawyer its way out of obeying the clearly expressed will of the people at the ballot box. That would be quite preposterous. The Scots Parliament may have a bash, but from what I read they don't have the powers to thwart it. The best I think they can achieve is a fast-tracked EU application, ready to go as soon as they can mount a secession referendum. And that will be some years away, I think, as right now their economy would not be self-sustaining. And they will have decide whether or not to try avoiding commitment to join the Eurozone, which will require some head-scratching.
I do not believe that petty vindictiveness will play a big part in the EU's posture during negotiations. By then, tempers will have cooled and Angela Merkel will have soothed everyone's bruised feelings. Both parties will, I feel sure, be able to avoid the temptation to wallow in immature "nasty divorce" tactics. There may however be a rational goal of showing that GB loses something tangible, pour décourager les autres. I see no reason why a Norway, or Swiss, model would be unacceptable to the EU, because this would achieve exactly that, seeing as it will not give the Leavers what they want. Norway and Switzerland have to pay for the privilege of access, i.e for a upkeep of the rules and regulations that enable the Single Market. And they have to abide by all those rules and regulations, with no input into how they are formulated. As for controlling immigration, that too is not in Norway and Switzerland's hands, as the attached briefing makes clear: http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/immigration-and-justice/norway-and-switzerland/ From what I understand, this is why Michael Gove, for one, does not favour a Swiss or Norwegian model. However, what he thinks he can get that is better is highly unclear. I don't think he has any effing idea, actually. He floated at one stage the "Albanian model". However as this is a one-off transitional agreement, designed as a favour to Albania, to help it get in shape for EU membership, it seems highly unlikely the EU would agree to its terms - on an indefinite basis - for a member that has just walked out forever. The Leave people have no agreement at all on what they want instead. A significant number of their major figures are swivel-eyed fanatics with little idea of realpolitik, so lots of ideological argument can be expected. That is one of things that will be so damaging over the next year or so. What business will invest here under these conditions? On which subject, Tata Steel now may well walk away from the plant in S Wales, after all the efforts of Cameron's government to keep them here. The people of Wales, already in receipt of EU development grants for deprived areas, have not only bitten the hand that feeds them but done their best to put off a major business that could help them survive. Ditto with Nissan's car plant in Sunderland - Sunderland also voted to leave. Own goal or what? These are mostly Labour voters. THIS is why I blame Corbyn for the result, and why half his shadow cabinet has now resigned. A political bloodbath can be forecast with some confidence. Which is not good for investors in GB at all.
I think a lot of it may come down to who takes over from Cameron. In saying that, negotiating with the EU should only happen once the UK gets its house in order. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the negotiations did not start in earnest until after the next election in 2020, unless one is held sooner. That would provide a clearer mandate, particularly if a party pushing for Brexit wins the election with a detailed plan for the UK clearly stated. This is, of course, if a party does not manage to win a bigger share of the coalition pie on a remain ticket going into that election, in which case, I'd suggest moving to Ireland until it all blows over. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But in all seriousness, how do you think this could play out before the next election? What could happen if a party running on a rejoin or remain in the EU ticket manages to win big? And would they want to wait for 2020 for the next election, possibly after already exiting the EU or in the process of negotiations, which could result in more austerity measures being imposed in the UK pre or post election to try to repair the damage done to the economy by this huge market downturn and loss of the pound on the market? Because either way, people will be angry and that will be reflected in the next election. Brexiter's who were hoping for a no immigration and who bought into the bigoted campaign of UKIP, could find themselves poorer and paying more for goods and services, while not seeing a reduction in immigration which could cause all sorts of backlash, not to mention the young remain voters who may seek revenge on the politicians they feel did this to them. A good outcome is that the UK manage to retain the Single Market and allow UK passport holders to travel and work freely in the EU and vice versa, but only now having no say in policies that affect the EU and in a round about way, the UK, which is ironic because it will then mean that the UK really would be under the control of the EU while touting it was free. Do you think this lack of planning and foresight by the Brexit campaign is going to harm them at the next election? And do you think it would be a good idea for a Brexit supporter to take over from Cameron, in the hope that they might have formulated a plan and just not told anyone of it? And with Labour's instability, what other options are there? I say this with fervent hope that UKIP are soundly smacked down in the next election.. But I do agree with everything that you have said. And I definitely agree that there could be a goal of making an example out of the UK to discourage other nations from following in the same footsteps as the UK.
I can't see that anyone will wait until 2020 for an election. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if they called an election almost as soon as a new PM was elected, with the intention of giving them the strengthened mandate to pull the UK out. If that happens and if, say, Labour and Conservatives both campaign on the leave ticket, i.e. following the so-called "will of the people", then it would be rather interesting to see what support a "Remain" party got (quite high, I imagine). And if, say, the LibDems got in on that ticket (possible if the Remains united behind them) then I could see them basically apologising to the rest of EU and saying that we made a big booboo. If, and it's a big IF, Article 50 had not yet been invoked then there is still hope. But unfortunately I can also see a pro-leave Conservative becoming the next PM in October and them invoking Article 50 as soon as they can - before the country has an opportunity to give any other message (through any General Election). In which case any subsequent election would be to vote for the best post-EU party - 'cos there would be no coming back. It's a confusing mess. I can only apologise for the stupid people in our country - too many of whom voted Leave as a protest vote in the belief that they had no chance of winning. Buyer's remorse... only they're not the only one affected. That's already happened - at least from an internal point of view. No country now would be foolish enough to call a referendum until its house is well and truly not just in order but repainted, refurnished, and with the whiff of coffee and fresh bread circulating the corridors. In terms of wanting to stop others leaving the EU, what hurts the UK will also likely hurt the rest of the EU - maybe to a lesser extent, though. I think the UK will effectively crawl back via a Norwegian-style arrangement that can be agreed quite quickly I'd have thought, if for nothing else than to shore up any uncertainty in the markets. The UK will end up economically damaged and paying out similar amounts to the EU budget as now, and will not have a seat at the table. With that security in place, the real negotiations could then proceed that will take many years to work through, if at all, but gradually tailor a better solution for both parties. So basically the EU wins, the UK loses massively - in its ability to affect change to the EU as well as having a rather dented economy. Although ironically the change the UK wanted from the EU might actually come to fruition as part of the EU's own internal changes to stop others from wanting to leave. If so it's ironic and a pity it took the UK to leave to get the EU into a state (no pun intended) such that the UK would never have thought of leaving.
Indeed it is, so much is unknown at this point. It's entirely possible that the UK may never leave the EU. It may be unlikely at this point, but it is possible. As conditions worsen in the UK, as they discover the Norway or Swiss solutions aren't that great, they may have a change of heart. "The prospect of the fifth biggest economy wanting to apply to join the EEA after Brexit perplexes her. “If the Brits are against all the regulations made in Brussels, I think the EEA way is not the solution. Being an EEA member means you are not at the table, yet you have to take in much of the legislation. When you listen to the debate going on on the leave side in Britain, it is hard to imagine that the EEA should be a solution to their problems.” http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/norwegian-model-realities-brexit-norway-uk-eu If the UK goes down the Norway model, it gets 99% of the regulation it so dislikes and no seat at the table and no voice in making those regulations. Boy, that's a bight move. You get virtually all the stuff you dislike and no say in the making of those laws and regulations. That's a step up? And in all likelihood now, Scotland with leave the United Kingdom and Northern Island may follow suit. So in the end the UK will be a much weaker smaller nation and much less influential, economically and militarily. So in the end what do you have...a bunch of older people wondering who will fund their healthcare and pensions?
