UK forum members, BREXIT?

[Tepe]

Junker has been specific, others less so.

Exactly! After all, Juncker is not really the one who calls the shots. This is for the Council to decide (meaning France and Germany can throw their weight around).

[MK14]

Junker has been specific, others less so.

There has also been debate as to whether Article 50 is the sole route to leaving.

I've heard from recent news sources, that the meetings are occurring (or going to occur), anyway. We can just ignore the EU, and just meet up with the relevant parties, outside of the EU buildings etc. Hence the news report, which was (something on the lines of) that the EU people are complaining, that we are planing to do just that.

We are free to talk to anyone in the EU, about anything we like. The EU can't affect that. They can moan about it, sure. But they are NOT in a position to do much about it.

I think (realistically), it is expected to take about 5 years. Even that may still be overly optimistic.

[dannyf]

"their intention is to secure a deal that allows all EU citizens living in the UK to stay (except those convicted of a crime during their stay) on the understanding that the EU provides the same for UK citizens already living in the EU. "

That's counterintuitive and against the spirit of brexit, driven mostly by immigration concerns.

I think a more likely case is for the UK to have country specific deals with individual countries, not with EU. This allows UK the ability to pick and choose who can stay and who must leave.

This will be good for Western Europeans and bad for Eastern Europeans and other migrants.

[doobedoobedo]

Probably best we ignore commissioners as far as is possible some of them are quite clearly insane http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222

[tggzzz]

As for "taking people seriously", what should happen when they realise their mistake and want to change it?

That will depend on how long they take to realize it, won't it?  With a bit of luck something might be possible even after invoking Article 50 while the two year period is still running though it would probably be difficult - after all, the EU negotiators will have you by the balls in that situation.  After it has run out it will probably be very hard to get opt-outs and rebates if you should decide to join again.

But that doesn't answer the question of how the people can tell parliament that it changed its mind... 

Just so. A general election is traditional, but it is completely unclear what parties will exist at that point.

The 27 have to crucify us, to make it plain to their disaffected electorate that, while "in" might bad, "out" is worse.

[Tepe]

I've heard from recent news sources, that the meetings are occurring (or going to occur), anyway.

That is very plausible

[tggzzz]

Probably best we ignore commissioners as far as is possible some of them are quite clearly insane

And exactly how is that different from politicians - and wannabe politicians?

But no, assume the 27 want to stay in - their politicans (not the Brussels bureaucrats) will crucify us to make it clear to their electorate where the electorate's interests lie.

[doobedoobedo]

"their intention is to secure a deal that allows all EU citizens living in the UK to stay (except those convicted of a crime during their stay) on the understanding that the EU provides the same for UK citizens already living in the EU. "

That's counterintuitive and against the spirit of brexit, driven mostly by immigration concerns.

I think a more likely case is for the UK to have country specific deals with individual countries, not with EU. This allows UK the ability to pick and choose who can stay and who must leave.

This will be good for Western Europeans and bad for Eastern Europeans and other migrants.

No. It would set a bad precedent. I can't see those who arrived legally and don't have criminal convictions (either here or abroad) being deported.

And many people voted leave due to the anti-democratic structure of the EU, not just because of the uncontrollable migration.

[Tepe]

I think a more likely case is for the UK to have country specific deals with individual countries, not with EU. This allows UK the ability to pick and choose who can stay and who must leave.

More likely the UK will have to bend over on this one - unless it wants to (1) deport a lot of people who pay taxes in the UK and (2) have to deal with the return of a lot of UK pensioners who are not going to pay a penny in taxes.

[tggzzz]

I've heard from recent news sources, that the meetings are occurring (or going to occur), anyway.

Of course they will; it is inconceivable that they won't.

But all that matters is the results of the meetings.

We know some of the guns they can point at our heads, e.g. cutting off City of London access to Europe and letting Paris/Frankfurt become the financial centre, or starving our scientists of funding and access (already happening ).

What guns can we point at their heads? Fomenting internal strife so their electorates want grexit/iexit/sexit/etc?

[doobedoobedo]

Probably best we ignore commissioners as far as is possible some of them are quite clearly insane

And exactly how is that different from politicians - and wannabe politicians?

But no, assume the 27 want to stay in - their politicans (not the Brussels bureaucrats) will crucify us to make it clear to their electorate where the electorate's interests lie.

In doing so they would also crucify themselves.

I drive a Mercedes, I like it, but if Germany does as you suggest, next time I'll get a Jag or a Lexus.

[tggzzz]

"their intention is to secure a deal that allows all EU citizens living in the UK to stay (except those convicted of a crime during their stay) on the understanding that the EU provides the same for UK citizens already living in the EU. "

That's counterintuitive and against the spirit of brexit, driven mostly by immigration concerns.

I think a more likely case is for the UK to have country specific deals with individual countries, not with EU. This allows UK the ability to pick and choose who can stay and who must leave.

This will be good for Western Europeans and bad for Eastern Europeans and other migrants.

No. It would set a bad precedent. I can't see those who arrived legally and don't have criminal convictions (either here or abroad) being deported.

Judging by the timing of arguments and swing to leave, that's the will of the UK electorate, which is apparently sacrosanct.

And many people voted leave due to the anti-democratic structure of the EU, not just because of the uncontrollable migration.

Shrug. Individual motivations are irrelevant.

Basically the votes were a poke in the eye for Westminster and EU. It succeeded, with the side-effect that everybody gets skewered.

[tggzzz]

Probably best we ignore commissioners as far as is possible some of them are quite clearly insane

And exactly how is that different from politicians - and wannabe politicians?

But no, assume the 27 want to stay in - their politicans (not the Brussels bureaucrats) will crucify us to make it clear to their electorate where the electorate's interests lie.

In doing so they would also crucify themselves.

Nonsense.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the news since 1956, we are not the centre of the world.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the news for the past decade or two, power is shifting to the far east. That's where the profits are to be made.

[MK14]

I've heard from recent news sources, that the meetings are occurring (or going to occur), anyway.

Of course they will; it is inconceivable that they won't.

But all that matters is the results of the meetings.

We know some of the guns they can point at our heads, e.g. cutting off City of London access to Europe and letting Paris/Frankfurt become the financial centre, or starving our scientists of funding and access (already happening ).

What guns can we point at their heads? Fomenting internal strife so their electorates want grexit/iexit/sexit/etc?

They (the EU) ideally want a deal, which means that although "technically" we have left the EU. To all intenses and purposes, we are still fully paid up members.

I DON'T think we (the UK), really know for sure, all the various motivations, wants, reasons and desires, for the voting public to leave, anyway.

Some things are sort of known, such as excessive red tape, allowing potentially inappropriate countries to join, immigration and lack of direct/obvious voting systems to control the EU's politicians etc.

But even the above list is partly speculation, and 48% (i.e. the Remainers) of the people who voted, DON'T necessarily agree with even the above list (in theory).

So I expect the currently in power at the time, party(s) and Prime Minister and/or parliament etc, to essentially decide for us. Potentially misinterpreting what the voting public really want, in the process.

I see the new EU "deals", as being rather problematic, from a huge number of angles.

The voters want some things (which probably varies from person to person), our government want and will aim for something (potentially) completely different, and the EU will *ONLY* agree to something completely different again.

tl;dr
A big mess !

But hopefully it will all turn out ok on the night.

[TheAmmoniacal]

Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had WMDs.  He had to do that to keep Iran at bay (among others).  That is was all a bluff didn't come up until AFTER we invaded.

That isn't true. Even back then there was enough information to conclude the WMDs wheren't there. Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/chilcot-report-2003-iraq-war-was-unnecessary-and-invasion-was-no/

I'd like to know how you define WMDs? All the chemical weapons aren't destructive enough for you?

[doobedoobedo]

"their intention is to secure a deal that allows all EU citizens living in the UK to stay (except those convicted of a crime during their stay) on the understanding that the EU provides the same for UK citizens already living in the EU. "

That's counterintuitive and against the spirit of brexit, driven mostly by immigration concerns.

I think a more likely case is for the UK to have country specific deals with individual countries, not with EU. This allows UK the ability to pick and choose who can stay and who must leave.

This will be good for Western Europeans and bad for Eastern Europeans and other migrants.

No. It would set a bad precedent. I can't see those who arrived legally and don't have criminal convictions (either here or abroad) being deported.

Judging by the timing of arguments and swing to leave, that's the will of the UK electorate, which is apparently sacrosanct.

And many people voted leave due to the anti-democratic structure of the EU, not just because of the uncontrollable migration.

Shrug. Individual motivations are irrelevant.

Basically the votes were a poke in the eye for Westminster and EU. It succeeded, with the side-effect that everybody gets skewered.

I notice you just ignore anything that doesn't fit the agenda you're determined to push.

[Tepe]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/revealed-how-the-west-set-saddam-on-the-bloody-road-to-power-1258618.html

That was at the height of the cold war. What your article fails to mention is that the current leader was propped up by the Soviet Union.  Karim was also no angel and was also communist. Even then he was making expansionist claims for Kuwait and other ME pieces of dirt. He started out fine then things rapidly detiorated as they always do there.

So at the time I’m willing to bet even your country was supportive of the CIAs mission to depose a communist ruler in the region propped up by the Soviets.

Given who the PM in Apis's country was at the time (Olof Palme), this is doubtful in the extreme

[tggzzz]

I've heard from recent news sources, that the meetings are occurring (or going to occur), anyway.

Of course they will; it is inconceivable that they won't.

But all that matters is the results of the meetings.

We know some of the guns they can point at our heads, e.g. cutting off City of London access to Europe and letting Paris/Frankfurt become the financial centre, or starving our scientists of funding and access (already happening ).

What guns can we point at their heads? Fomenting internal strife so their electorates want grexit/iexit/sexit/etc?

They (the EU) ideally want a deal, which means that although "technically" we have left the EU. To all intenses and purposes, we are still fully paid up members.

I DON'T think we (the UK), really know for sure, all the various motivations, wants, reasons and desires, for the voting public to leave, anyway.

Some things are sort of known, such as excessive red tape, allowing potentially inappropriate countries to join, immigration and lack of direct/obvious voting systems to control the EU's politicians etc.

But even the above list is partly speculation, and 48% (i.e. the Remainers) of the people who voted, DON'T necessarily agree with even the above list (in theory).

So I expect the currently in power at the time, party(s) and Prime Minister and/or parliament etc, to essentially decide for us. Potentially misinterpreting what the voting public really want, in the process.

I see the new EU "deals", as being rather problematic, from a huge number of angles.

The voters want some things (which probably varies from person to person), our government want and will aim for something (potentially) completely different, and the EU will *ONLY* agree to something completely different again.

tl;dr
A big mess !

But hopefully it will all turn out ok on the night.

That's pretty sane.

I'm looking for reasons (i.e. cause and effect) to be optimistic. All the brexiteers have offered so far is (at best) pious hopes without rational justifications.

Over the decades when I've been pessimistic about something, my pessimism has turned out to be justified. I've learned to trust my pessimism.

(There was one notable/trivial exception - I was in Cornwall for the 1999 total eclipse and actually saw the corona and prominences, which I didn't believe would happen 10 minutes beforehand!.

[tggzzz]

"their intention is to secure a deal that allows all EU citizens living in the UK to stay (except those convicted of a crime during their stay) on the understanding that the EU provides the same for UK citizens already living in the EU. "

That's counterintuitive and against the spirit of brexit, driven mostly by immigration concerns.

I think a more likely case is for the UK to have country specific deals with individual countries, not with EU. This allows UK the ability to pick and choose who can stay and who must leave.

This will be good for Western Europeans and bad for Eastern Europeans and other migrants.

No. It would set a bad precedent. I can't see those who arrived legally and don't have criminal convictions (either here or abroad) being deported.

Judging by the timing of arguments and swing to leave, that's the will of the UK electorate, which is apparently sacrosanct.

And many people voted leave due to the anti-democratic structure of the EU, not just because of the uncontrollable migration.

Shrug. Individual motivations are irrelevant.

Basically the votes were a poke in the eye for Westminster and EU. It succeeded, with the side-effect that everybody gets skewered.

I notice you just ignore anything that doesn't fit the agenda you're determined to push.

And just what agenda is that? (Hint: there isn't one).

Please supply cause-and-effect reasons (i.e. not pious hopes) to be optimistic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/12/we-mustnt-rain-on-the-leavers-parade-but-its-a-disquieting-outlo/
http://uk.businessinsider.com/credit-suisse-post-brexit-recession-risk-analysis-and-equity-strategy-2016-7
and many others, unfortunately.

[MK14]

That's pretty sane.

I'm looking for reasons (i.e. cause and effect) to be optimistic. All the brexiteers have offered so far is (at best) pious hopes without rational justifications.

Over the decades when I've been pessimistic about something, my pessimism has turned out to be justified. I've learned to trust my pessimism.

(There was one notable/trivial exception - I was in Cornwall for the 1999 total eclipse and actually saw the corona and prominences, which I didn't believe would happen 10 minutes beforehand!.

I think whatever ends up happening, it will be for the best.

It is kind of exciting in some respects. Because I'm use to learning/reading about history, and now suddenly I am in the middle of something, which might be very big and major.

If there wasn't big changes like this (Brexit), we would be still living under the Romans, or still living in caves.

If other countries also leave, things could get very interesting, and we may see a new and improved EU come out of it.

But I'm confused and a bit worried to hear that recently, countries like Germany, have got significantly more support for the EU, than before Brexit. But I guess time will tell, things could easily change in the coming months and years.

I think other EU countries are also disappointed in the EU, for various reasons.

[dannyf]

"I'd like to know how you define WMDs"

Birth: people couldn't have died if they were never born.

Birth is the number one cause of death.

Here you have it.

[tggzzz]

That's pretty sane.

I'm looking for reasons (i.e. cause and effect) to be optimistic. All the brexiteers have offered so far is (at best) pious hopes without rational justifications.

Over the decades when I've been pessimistic about something, my pessimism has turned out to be justified. I've learned to trust my pessimism.

(There was one notable/trivial exception - I was in Cornwall for the 1999 total eclipse and actually saw the corona and prominences, which I didn't believe would happen 10 minutes beforehand!.

I think whatever ends up happening, it will be for the best.

It is kind of exciting in some respects. Because I'm use to learning/reading about history, and now suddenly I am in the middle of something, which might be very big and major.

If there wasn't big changes like this (Brexit), we would be still living under the Romans, or still living in caves.

If other countries also leave, things could get very interesting, and we may see a new and improved EU come out of it.

But I'm confused and a bit worried to hear that recently, countries like Germany, have got significantly more support for the EU, than before Brexit. But I guess time will tell, things could easily change in the coming months and years.

I think other EU countries are also disappointed in the EU, for various reasons.

Other countries and people, myself included, are disappointed in the EU. OTOH before the referendum I predicted that it would be made clear that our leaving would (be made to) encourage others to remain.

Will the EU break up? Quite possibly, but I doubt it. I don't think the money markets have enough power to do that. OTOH, they do have the power to indirectly encourage the far left and far right to assert themselves.

I'll note that today the money markets decided to give the German government lots of money at negative interest rates, i.e. the investors expect to lose money. I wonder if they will be so generous when the UK next issues bonds.

Whether it will all turn out for the best is, of course, undecidable - even in hindsight!

[tggzzz]

If other countries also leave, things could get very interesting, and we may see a new and improved EU come out of it.

Why do you seem to doubt other countries will leave? What is going to stop them? If you are interested in history then look into the break up of the USSR. Once the first country declared it's independence others followed in fairly quick succession.

Why would there be a new and improved EU? Surely that would require fixing the flaws in the present one. If that hasn't been done already then you shouldn't expect it to be done any time soon. It is in the too-hard basket.

There is no need to over think the fate of the EU. You can reliably expect people to do what they have done in the past.

It is possible other countries will leave. If it is made clear that leaving is worse than remaining, then other countries will stay. And it is in the power of the 27 to ensure that happens.

Sometimes a major shock is necessary to bring people/countries to their senses and either be grateful for what they've got or mend their ways.

The USSR is a poor example since the other countries were conquered rather joined willingly.

[MK14]

If other countries also leave, things could get very interesting, and we may see a new and improved EU come out of it.

Why do you seem to doubt other countries will leave? What is going to stop them? If you are interested in history then look into the break up of the USSR. Once the first country declared it's independence others followed in fairly quick succession.

Why would there be a new and improved EU? Surely that would require fixing the flaws in the present one. If that hasn't been done already then you shouldn't expect it to be done any time soon. It is in the too-hard basket.

There is no need to over think the fate of the EU. You can reliably expect people to do what they have done in the past.

I agree, what you are saying makes a lot of sense.

Sadly it is probably UNREALISTIC to expect the EU to significantly change.

Also I feel like we have (regardless of which way we voted) stepped forward, on our OWN (for now). Partially in the hope that others will follow in our footsteps, then we don't need to worry anymore about all the red tape and trade agreements and open/free people movements etc. As the organisation will be finished with.
So yes, I agree, other countries may well leave. Things (politically) are tending to move to the "right" in the EU, in general, which probably favors leaving the rigid EU.

On the other hand, the USSR exit countries, have not necessarily done brilliantly. Depending on your viewpoint.

Yes they are relatively free, democratic and potentially capitalistic. But it is taking a very long time, for them to grow back into, "normal" countries.

E.g. The standard of life in Ukraine is not really as good as it would be in a middle of the road, EU country. From what I have heard. But if the population are happy, and enjoying things, with local produce available at affordable prices, then things are not that bad (depending on ones definition of "good").

[MK14]

Other countries and people, myself included, are disappointed in the EU. OTOH before the referendum I predicted that it would be made clear that our leaving would (be made to) encourage others to remain.

Will the EU break up? Quite possibly, but I doubt it. I don't think the money markets have enough power to do that. OTOH, they do have the power to indirectly encourage the far left and far right to assert themselves.

I'll note that today the money markets decided to give the German government lots of money at negative interest rates, i.e. the investors expect to lose money. I wonder if they will be so generous when the UK next issues bonds.

Whether it will all turn out for the best is, of course, undecidable - even in hindsight!

Really there is no such thing as the "BEST" transistor, so I was being a bit silly with my terminology.
Best to someone might mean a very cheap transistor, but poor quality.
Best to someone else, might mean a very expensive, but really powerful and high quality transistor.

It use to be that the "EU", was a bunch of different countries.

Increasingly, these days, the "EU" is sort of "Germany" and hence Angela Merkel, as regards controlling influences. I could easily be wrong about this, but it is just the impression that I get, these days.

There could also be dangers, if the EU massively splits up, and yet some countries remain in it.

This is sort of analogous to the USSR. Which supposedly disappeared a few decades ago, yet Putin seems to sometimes act as if it still exists, and that he wants to rebuild it. His attempts at times, are getting dangerously close to starting world war 3, or at least a major conflict between Russia and the USA, and maybe other players.
If Nuclear weapon use can be withheld during such a conflict, it should NOT be too bad, especially if it is over in a few weeks (which is probably a completely unrealistically short time period).
But then there is the question on what China would do, if Russia and the USA started fighting each other ?

I guess a remaining, but much smaller EU, which many EU countries have exited, would be more of a pain in the neck, rather than a military danger, like the cold war was, at times.