EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Not my words but the words top gear magazine...

The EU could just put business on hold. It's stable and functioning better than we are right now.

Italian banks, general Mediterranean poverty/unemployment, eastern-European reluctance to accept refugees. The UK is still far from chaos, even after last week's events.

Right, we don't know who we're allowed to trade with, we don't know who's allowed to live here, we don't know where we're going and we don't have a plan on how to get there.
Europe's fucked.

But the EU won't begin to negotiate until we serve notice, which suggests an impasse...

New Chinese customer, after 15 months negotiation, asks for quote in $, this week, for delivery of materials next February. What £/$ exchange rate do we use?

Suggesting that Cameron would be prepared to jeopardise the chances of the Conservatives winning the next election for the sake of remaining?

I just watched this speech. Farage called for a 'grownup and sensible approach' to negotiating a new relationship and in literally the next sentence insulted everyone in the room by telling them they had never done 'a proper job in their lives'. Not very magnanimous in victory is he?

it means we're in the Matrix, and it won't be long before Larry Fishburne shows up with guns..

Which is why we should act quickly, right? Put it off and we might run out of time to secure the deal we want?

The only way this makes sense is that if the people in the background are dead set on not following through on the referendum result.

Although I still think EEA membership is the long game - for Boris at least.

tick follows tock ;)

EEA membership

Poor value for money.

Agreed, but it might be the best that's on offer (assuming a general election isn't called and Labour run on a 'we will not act on the referendum outcome' ticket).

Put it off and we might run out of time to secure the deal we want?

The opposite, in fact. Putting it off means that the UK has 2 years plus however long the UK puts off triggering article 50

Triggering it gives the UK 2 years.

Various French / German eurocrats and politicians have stated that they will not engage with the UK in informal talks (i.e. not before article 50 is invoked), but that's posturing at best.

Either way - At the moment, the UK is still a fully fledged member of the EU, with as much say in it as the other member states. Which includes a say in how the EU treats the UK in any potential exit from the EU.

Various French / German eurocrats and politicians have stated that they will not engage with the UK in informal talks (i.e. not before article 50 is invoked), but that's posturing at best.

Why would it be posturing?

There are so many possible permutations of what could happen, why would the EU wish to waste an enormous amount of work considering so many dead-end possibilities in the hope that one or two of them may be the shortlist.

The UK needs to say what it wants... in, or out. If we go with out, it's done and dusted and we can start negotiating what that looks like and it's a process that needs to be fast simply because there's a clock running.

I don't believe they are posturing, they are acting to reduce wastage of expensive resources (lawyers and politicians), whilst attempting to shorten the amount of time that we all must exist in this uncertain state.

They're doing the right thing for Europe. Which is, after all... the point of them.

How many Brexiters does it take to change a lightbulb?

We never promised there was a lightbulb.

Which includes a say in how the EU treats the UK in any potential exit from the EU.

I thought that this was the only bit we where kept away from.

I don't see that the EU can stop us going to have chats with individual member countries either. I suspect that Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia etc. would be quite happy to have a chat with us about it.

Not everyone will, but if we've got something in place with a number of the countries, before we start, then we're part way there at least. If we could manage to get the 27(?) that we need (which can be done without France and Germany) then we'd be set.

It'll be a bloody hard job though.

EEA membership. Still immigration, still EU fees, but no say. And not redevelopment money for poor areas then (I assume?)

Well done to all involved, you have sold out all the Brexiters.

Technically the UK is a full member, but having this attitude does not help. As in "hey we are still friends yeah?" "No, and fuck off" Not everything is written down, such is diplomacy. So anybody going along with what the UK wants is going to be sparse. (bar Poland I believe they called for time for here)

I really don't think it's posturing either. They're trying to get shut of UK fast because uncertainty is damaging for Europe's economy. The sooner the can make that uncertainly a problem for Britain alone, the sooner they can get on with certainty.
They need to get the Article 50 button pushed, refusing informal negotiations prior to that is a decent way to get it pushed.

Why would it be posturing?

It's posturing if the German government are saying it, as they are not the EU.

Sure, there's a whole heap of expensive, time consuming negotiations ahead, and the various parties may choose to minimise these prior to any Article 50 triggering, but any amount of negotiation now is negotiation in addition to the time boxed negotiation following the triggering, and from a position of relatively greater strength for the UK.

I understand the motive. I just don't see it being followed up, and it sounds like chest beating.

Aren't Switzerland at serious risk of being kicked out of the EEA as a result of their freedom of movement referendum? If not kicked out of the EEA, I think they are losing their EU trade deals fairly soon over it.

'It's posturing if the German government are saying it unilaterally.'

It's not.

And how is this relative strength going to evolve? Only Brexiters believe strength for the UK to be decreed by the natural order of things. It seems more likely that the damage is going to become more apparent as time passes.

I really don't think it's posturing either. They're trying to get shut of UK fast because uncertainty is damaging for Europe's economy. The sooner the can make that uncertainly a problem for Britain alone, the sooner they can get on with certainty.
They need to get the Article 50 button pushed, refusing informal negotiations prior to that is a decent way to get it pushed.

I disagreed with you earlier @Fintan, but this is bang on.
For those who lament the impact this has had to their white collar careers, consider how bad this uncertainty is for the unemployed 20-somethings all over Europe.
The decent thing to do would be to decide in or out ASAP, not to get clever with endless reruns of the referendum and every little interest group expecting to have their say in the upcoming negotiations.

If UK goes out, aim for an amicable divorce by way of swiftly shifting to the EEA then ask nicely to re-enter in about 5 - 10 years – when the codgers who voted out have died off.

Article 50 can't be triggered by Cameron. It has to have parliamentary approval:

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

Which begs the question as to whether a vote to trigger it would ever be won, given the majority of MPs are against it.

Interesting arrangement of videos on the BBC website earlier....

1 Attachment