The remaining 27 nations came together to set the negotiation guidelines for the Brexit.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press ... uidelines/

Two phase approach, phase 1:
- provide as much clarity and legal certainty as possible to citizens, businesses, stakeholders and international partners on the immediate effects of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union;
- settle the disentanglement of the United Kingdom from the Union and from all the rights and obligations the United Kingdom derives from commitments undertaken as Member State.

Phase 2:
Preliminary and preparatory discussions on a framework for the Union - United Kingdom future relationship


Brexit: EU demands 'serious UK response' on citizens' rights
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39755124

So now the real process will begin. Two years of negotiations.

Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with the way the UK seems to be excluded from EU Brexit meetings? After all, they are still fully paid-up members, and will continue to pay until they leave. If the other 27 countries want to discuss issues to which the UK has nothing to contribute, they should discuss this elsewhere, not at EU level, IMHO. There seems to be a deliberate policy of ostracising the UK, which I really don't feel is appropriate. Remember the summit last December where Mrs May was ignored and left standing uncomfortably on her own? If this is the level of maturity of the remaining EU heads of state, I despair and fear for the future of the organisation.

Braybuddy wrote:

Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable with the way the UK seems to be excluded from EU Brexit meetings? After all, they are still fully paid-up members, and will continue to pay until they leave. If the other 27 countries want to discuss issues to which the UK has nothing to contribute, they should discuss this elsewhere, not at EU level, IMHO.

So you want to set up yet another body for the sole purpose of not ostracizing the leaving member? It would be silly to pretend that EU-27 meet anywhere else.

The EU parliament, commission, etc. keep all their British members, just like the rest of the EU agencies, and will keep working for the UK until the last day.

JJJ wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

So you want to set up yet another body for the sole purpose of not ostracizing the leaving member?

But that body has already been set up. It has met on several occasions.

The EU must have a position, and the UK must have a position. What would be the point of the UK being in the first meeting ? Should the other 27 be invited in London to weigh in on the UK position too ? Did the UK ask the 27 before organizing a referendum, or before invoking article 50 ?

Dutchy wrote:

Brexit: EU demands 'serious UK response' on citizens' rights
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39755124

This is pathetic. Mrs May offered last year to grant the right of residency to all EU citizens living in the United Kingdom in exchange for reciprocal rights for British citizens living in the EU. The European Union had the opportunity to sort this issue out months ago, but instead, it was reported in November 2016 that Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk had decided to prevent the deal from going ahead - this in spite of the fact that it had support from more than 20 other EU countries. The EU have nobody to blame but themselves for this particular debacle - it didn't even need to be an issue, but they have made it one.

Braybuddy wrote:

There seems to be a deliberate policy of ostracising the UK, which I really don't feel is appropriate. Remember the summit last December where Mrs May was ignored and left standing uncomfortably on her own? If this is the level of maturity of the remaining EU heads of state, I despair and fear for the future of the organisation.

I'd add to that today's comments by soon-to-be-ex-French President Francois Hollande that the UK must be "weaker" outside of the EU. It really is hard to see how the EU can sustain such bullying tactics in future. It seems quite clear that the EU is seeking to make some sort of example out of the UK "pour encourager les autres". An organization which rules through fear is not one I would wish to have any part of. However, I can understand why they would wish to discuss their negotiating position without representatives from the United Kingdom. This is quite a peculiar situation, because as you noted, the UK remains a full member of the EU until it actually leaves. It appears that the EU is acting like the UK is already left, while still being happy enough to take British money. I can see how this attitude would only harden attitudes towards the EU on the British side of the English Channel.

Aesma wrote:

The EU must have a position, and the UK must have a position. What would be the point of the UK being in the first meeting ? Should the other 27 be invited in London to weigh in on the UK position too ? Did the UK ask the 27 before organizing a referendum, or before invoking article 50 ?

Of course both sides need to have positions, but if the rest of the EU wants to discuss their terms, this should be discussed elsewhere. The UK flag still flies over EU institutions and they still contribute, so they should be entitled to attend EU meetings, IMHO. You are a member of a club or you are not, and the UK is still a member.

Braybuddy wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The EU must have a position, and the UK must have a position. What would be the point of the UK being in the first meeting ? Should the other 27 be invited in London to weigh in on the UK position too ? Did the UK ask the 27 before organizing a referendum, or before invoking article 50 ?

Of course both sides need to have positions, but if the rest of the EU wants to discuss their terms, this should be discussed elsewhere. The UK flag still flies over EU institutions and they still contribute, so they should be entitled to attend EU meetings, IMHO. You are a member of a club or you are not, and the UK is still a member.

You can't argue with yourself. There is no point Britain being in these discussions as they are the other party, and this is a meeting to outline the policies of the remainder nations. There have been no decisions taken regarding treaties, so these meetings are nothing more than setting up their stall for the commencement of the negotiations.

it's like a divorce; you cannot use the same solicitors for both parties as it would be pointless. Both sides need to be able to put their case to the other, and now Britain has declared Article 50 the remainder EU needs to negotiate as a bloc.

Braybuddy wrote:

Of course both sides need to have positions, but if the rest of the EU wants to discuss their terms, this should be discussed elsewhere. The UK flag still flies over EU institutions and they still contribute, so they should be entitled to attend EU meetings, IMHO. You are a member of a club or you are not, and the UK is still a member.

The UK continues to contribute to all workings and decision making in the EU, except those that relate to Brexit. A meeting of EU Member States (a Council meeting) where the only topic of decision is the departure of the UK can only logically take place without the UK.

You guys aren't getting my point at all. Of course the UK and EU will need to formulate their own positions. The remaining 27 are holding EU summits in Brussels to which the UK is excluded. If they want to discuss the business of a member leaving, these should be discussed elsewhere, ie not in Brussels nor any EU summits, IMHO, while the UK is still a member. They should be held elsewhere.

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Brexit: EU demands 'serious UK response' on citizens' rights
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39755124

This is pathetic. Mrs May offered last year to grant the right of residency to all EU citizens living in the United Kingdom in exchange for reciprocal rights for British citizens living in the EU. The European Union had the opportunity to sort this issue out months ago, but instead, it was reported in November 2016 that Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk had decided to prevent the deal from going ahead - this in spite of the fact that it had support from more than 20 other EU countries. The EU have nobody to blame but themselves for this particular debacle - it didn't even need to be an issue, but they have made it one.

I thought the official statement was, no deals before article 50 is triggered. If both sides want the same, then this point should be quite easy.

KLDC10 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

There seems to be a deliberate policy of ostracising the UK, which I really don't feel is appropriate. Remember the summit last December where Mrs May was ignored and left standing uncomfortably on her own? If this is the level of maturity of the remaining EU heads of state, I despair and fear for the future of the organisation.

I'd add to that today's comments by soon-to-be-ex-French President Francois Hollande that the UK must be "weaker" outside of the EU. It really is hard to see how the EU can sustain such bullying tactics in future. It seems quite clear that the EU is seeking to make some sort of example out of the UK "pour encourager les autres". An organization which rules through fear is not one I would wish to have any part of. However, I can understand why they would wish to discuss their negotiating position without representatives from the United Kingdom. This is quite a peculiar situation, because as you noted, the UK remains a full member of the EU until it actually leaves. It appears that the EU is acting like the UK is already left, while still being happy enough to take British money. I can see how this attitude would only harden attitudes towards the EU on the British side of the English Channel.

I think it is all about: "you can't have all the perks and not contribute". I think there are some fractions whom would like to see the UK been made as an example. But others don't. The prime ministers of Ireland, The Netherlands and Denmark, came together and said they just want the trade to continue as it was. And yes the UK weakened itself to have the Brexit, they placed itself outside of the largest trading block in the world.

And the UK has decided send a signal to the EU. This could get ugly.

"At a Brussels summit marked by unusual harmony among the 27 leaders, there was a flash of the cross-Channel acrimony which some fear could wreck any deal when officials accused London of cynically vetoing some EU spending and demanded it back down or face disrupting the start of talks next month."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKBN17U33V

Hasn't clicked in Jean Claude's head that we're still a member and perfectly entitled to veto whatever we like in situations where member states can veto?

Where on earth did the EU find these people?

So you think the UK can take the EU hostage for two years ?

The UK should do something with their laughable delusions of grandeur and for god's sake finally make up their mind what they really want. One week it's hard Brexit, the next week they allegedly want "special" relationship with the EU. May's government looks like that idiot Trump, campaining for something without having a clue about what they are getting themselves into.

Aesma wrote:

So you think the UK can take the EU hostage for two years ?

But it's not taking the EU hostage, its vetoing spending we disagree with.

The EU spends far too much tax payers money, you should be thanking us!

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So you think the UK can take the EU hostage for two years ?

But it's not taking the EU hostage, its vetoing spending we disagree with

Wishful thinking... This spending plan had already been discussed and negotiated at lenght among all members and had been agreed on already by the UK.

Then, out of nowhere, the UK sent an email on tuesday night to issue a 'reserve' on the spending plan to be passed on wednesday, citing the will to avoid making 'sensitive' decisions before the elections...

Except the decision had already been made. I can see why many would see this as unusual and a possible attempt by the UK to threaten the EU with disruptions during negotiations.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So you think the UK can take the EU hostage for two years ?

But it's not taking the EU hostage, its vetoing spending we disagree with.

The EU spends far too much tax payers money, you should be thanking us!

Actually you agreed with it, until the last moment.

And it's spending concerning the migrant crisis. You don't want to play games with that, there could be unintended consequences.

Everything plays out as expected. The hostility of the Brexit campaign continues in the British position and the Eu is moving to a mirror position in response.

L410Turbolet wrote:

May's government looks like that idiot Trump, campaining for something without having a clue about what they are getting themselves into.

Campaigning for something, she doesn't believe in herself. She advocated remain. And yes, the Brits got themselves in a position that no one knows how to get really get out of without major financial and other losses, for Britain itself, but also for the EU. A position like Norway, Iceland or Switzerland seems not feasible in the UK.

Braybuddy wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

So you want to set up yet another body for the sole purpose of not ostracizing the leaving member?

But that body has already been set up. It has met on several occasions.

Sure it has met. Precisely in Brussels.

Maybe it's time to read the famous article 50, especially 50.4

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

There is no doubt that the Brexit is becoming a very serious political disaster for the UK. Just enough persons voted for it in anger for UK governments that destroyed jobs, shipped off jobs and remaining ones far too filled by EU and non-EU work migrants, reduced sovereignty, of subsidizing poorer members with their hard earned taxes, over some EU members as to the handling of the refugee crises from the Middle East and Africa, anti-Muslim bias, as well as domestic austerity. Many UK nationals want all the advantages like selling goods and services into the rest of the EU, but not the responsibilities or greater good.

The EU came into being to end the wars that continued for centuries, most notably WWII with its devastation. It also was a unifying to battle the USSR and communism. Now it has become perhaps 'too much' democracy, allowed Germany and France to dominate Europe rather than the UK, allowed too many members who are poorer and not really European with massive expansion of member nations to the East and Southeast. For sure the UK doesn't want Turkey to be an EU member, for sure they don't want to subsidize the politically corrupt and economic disasters Greece and Italy are. Of course the UK wants to continue to be a full member in the EU for its advantages and hold a negotiation card to cut the deal most favorable to them and their own selfish terms. How it will affect the rest of the EU, with demands by other members to withdraw for similar reasons as the UK could mean its end with its disruptions that hurt them and the world.

Aesma wrote:

So you think the UK can take the EU hostage for two years ?

That is not at all what the UK is doing - we have a convention here in the UK that no major policy or spending commitments may be signed up for or announced during the period immediately before a general election, in order to prevent the governing party from buying votes.

The UK government is simply putting signing up for this budget on hold, as it is obliged to do, until after the election.

But, if the EU does decide to seek to "punish" the UK for leaving, it should not be at all surprised if the UK does choose to use its veto as leverage.

seahawk wrote:

Everything plays out as expected. The hostility of the Brexit campaign continues in the British position and the Eu is moving to a mirror position in response.

I'm sure you'll find that both sides of the argument see the hostility as originating on the other side.

Personally, I find some of the current "noise" coming out of Brussels a bit concerning. The EU seems to be expecting the UK to agree to the EU's demands (e.g. legally binding protection for the EU citizens currently residing in the UK) before we can even start discussing any of what the UK wants. No right-minded person would ever agree to such a way of carrying out negotiations.

It's also becoming apparent that the EU expect the "divorce bill" that they want the UK to pay to include everything that that the UK would have had to pay during the current budget period, without offsetting that against any of the benefits that the UK would have received (but no longer will) during the same budget period. Again, clearly unrealistic.

I also think it is totally disingenuous of the EU to refuse to allow the UK to even start making any changes for the future (e.g. discussing trade deals with other countries) before we have actually left, when the EU have already started on the process of moving EU bodies (e.g. the medicines agency) out of the UK.

Seems to me that our beloved EU leaders are determined to ensure that the UK is seen to be considerably worse off after leaving the EU. If that attitude continues then they need to prepare themselves for the possibility of the UK leaving with no agreement at all - as Theresa May has said, "no deal is better than a bad deal". Yes, no deal would be bad for the UK but it will also be bad for the EU, and will likely lead to a huge amount of discord between the remaining countries.

Personally, I believe that the most likely trigger for the eventual break up of the EU is not the UK leaving with a decent agreement; it is the UK leaving with no agreement at all.

ltbewr wrote:

Now it has become perhaps 'too much' democracy, allowed Germany and France to dominate Europe rather than the UK, allowed too many members who are poorer and not really European with massive expansion of member nations to the East and Southeast.

You have to blame the UK for that. At the time the "core" EU nations were against early expansion to the east and it was the UK who led a coalition of peripheral members to let them in, going back to Thatcher famous '92 speech at the Hague.

Was it merely geopolitics aimed at Moscow or a bid to dilluting the power of the central EU countries? Probably a bit of both. But look where it got all of us.

speedbored wrote:

Seems to me that our beloved EU leaders are determined to ensure that the UK is seen to be considerably worse off after leaving the EU. If that attitude continues then they need to prepare themselves for the possibility of the UK leaving with no agreement at all - as Theresa May has said, "no deal is better than a bad deal". Yes, no deal would be bad for the UK but it will also be bad for the EU, and will likely lead to a huge amount of discord between the remaining countries.

Personally, I believe that the most likely trigger for the eventual break up of the EU is not the UK leaving with a decent agreement; it is the UK leaving with no agreement at all.

If you want to leave with not deal, JUST DO IT!

The only little problem you have is the UK admitted to not have even started to put numbers behind that stance.....

Olddog wrote:

If you want to leave with not deal, JUST DO IT!

I'm pretty sure that there are very few people who actually want that.

Unfortunately, given the stance being taken currently by some of the people involved, it seems to increasingly be the most likely outcome.

JJJ wrote:

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not comfortable with this. What organisation excludes fully paid-up members from decision making? If the EU 27 want to exclude the UK, then perhaps it would be incumbent on them to refuse UK contributions, which I don't see happening.

Aesma wrote:

So you think the UK can take the EU hostage for two years ?

No, and anyone who understands how UK politics works would know that's not what's happening. But hey, feel free to paint the UK as the bad guys as usual.

speedbored wrote:

That is not at all what the UK is doing - we have a convention here in the UK that no major policy or spending commitments may be signed up for or announced during the period immediately before a general election, in order to prevent the governing party from buying votes.

The UK government is simply putting signing up for this budget on hold, as it is obliged to do, until after the election.

speedbored, stop being reasonable and logical!

JJJ wrote:

You have to blame the UK for that.

Yeah, it's all our fault. Everything that's wrong in Europe is our fault.

Braybuddy wrote:

JJJ wrote:

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not comfortable with this. What organisation excludes fully paid-up members from decision making? If the EU 27 want to exclude the UK, then perhaps it would be incumbent on them to refuse UK contributions, which I don't see happening.

I really don't understand you. The UK has implemented article 50, the UK agreed to Article 50 with agreeing to the Lisbon treaty. They just follow the agreed upon rules by all members, including the UK. And it is more than reasonable, in your world view, the UK could block something if something in the framework doesn't suit their own negotiation position with the UK.

scbriml wrote:

JJJ wrote:

You have to blame the UK for that.

Yeah, it's all our fault. Everything that's wrong in Europe is our fault.

Not really, but when it comes to too fast an expansion sure it is. In the words of a certain Mr. Blair it was "One of the greatest achievements of British diplomacy of the last decades".

Braybuddy wrote:

JJJ wrote:

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not comfortable with this. What organisation excludes fully paid-up members from decision making? If the EU 27 want to exclude the UK, then perhaps it would be incumbent on them to refuse UK contributions, which I don't see happening.

Club rules. Which the UK agreed and had more than a hand in making.

speedbored wrote:

That is not at all what the UK is doing - we have a convention here in the UK that no major policy or spending commitments may be signed up for or announced during the period immediately before a general election, in order to prevent the governing party from buying votes.

The UK government is simply putting signing up for this budget on hold, as it is obliged to do, until after the election.

Your elections have nothing to do with your prior commitments. The uk agreed on a budget and suddenly they say, by the way, as WE decided on snap election, contrary to what May said a dozen of times, uk contributions to budget is void....

It just mean May wants a WTO deal. And I am very happy for that.

Olddog wrote:

Your elections have nothing to do with your prior commitments.

Perhaps. But this is not yet a commitment as it has not been signed off.

The EU have been aware of this convention in the EU for very many years. If this particular spending was so important then the EU should have brought forward signing it off to before the UK blackout period began. They had plenty of time to do so, and chose not to - the more cynical of us might see that as a deliberate attempt by the EU to paint the UK as being difficult.

scbriml wrote:

But hey, feel free to paint the UK as the bad guys as usual.

Johnson and May with their positions changing like April weather are more than capable to make themselves look like banana republic politicians. Seriously, is it really that much to expect when the UK activated the Article 50, on a date of their choice, to have finally figured out themselves what they reallly want, when and how? It's been almost a year since the referendum. Have the Tories not done their homework to define what they reallly want, when and how way before the referendum took place? Obviously not.

ltbewr wrote:

too many members who are poorer and not really European with massive expansion of member nations to the East and Southeast. For sure the UK doesn't want Turkey to be an EU member

I would love to hear from an American what "not really European" really means and for whom. You obviously have not been paying attention because the UK, with half-Turkish Boris Johnson at the forefront, has been by far the loudest advocate of Turkey's EU membership.

speedbored wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Your elections have nothing to do with your prior commitments.

Perhaps. But this is not yet a commitment as it has not been signed off.

The EU have been aware of this convention in the EU for very many years. If this particular spending was so important then the EU should have brought forward signing it off to before the UK blackout period began. They had plenty of time to do so, and chose not to ...

These elections were called out of the blue by May and took everyone by surprise. Should the EU have guessed it? Or should all the other nations scramble their schedule to accomodate one of its member's whimsical government?

And why would the whole EU need to suffer from the vagaries of the UK's national politics? This is a spending deal which had already been agreed on well before the elections were announced. I find it hard to see this as anything other than a political statement.

In any case, this is hardly going to win the UK any favors from EU negotiators.

Dutchy wrote:

I really don't understand you. The UK has implemented article 50, the UK agreed to Article 50 with agreeing to the Lisbon treaty. They just follow the agreed upon rules by all members, including the UK. And it is more than reasonable, in your world view, the UK could block something if something in the framework doesn't suit their own negotiation position with the UK.

It would be more reasonable, in my world view, seeing that the UK cannot participate in these meetings, that it be not treated as a full member. Which would entail the EU not accepting all or part of the UK contribution. Mrs May has been accused of wanting her cake and eating it. Seems that applies to the EU 27 as well.

JJJ wrote:

Club rules. Which the UK agreed and had more than a hand in making.

What's wrong with having an opinion?

Francoflier wrote:

These elections were called out of the blue by May and took everyone by surprise. ....

Perhaps but there was still plenty of time to call an ambassadors meeting to sign of on what everyone seems to be claiming was "already agreed" - after all, all of the EU ambassadors required for the meeting should have been on-site anyway.

Francoflier wrote:

In any case, this is hardly going to win the UK any favors from EU negotiators.

Having lived through our entire membership of this corrupt, mismanaged organisation, I'm pretty sure that you'll be very hard pressed to find anyone in the UK expecting any favours whatsoever from the EU.

speedbored wrote:

Having lived through our entire membership of this corrupt, mismanaged organisation, I'm pretty sure that you'll be very hard pressed to find anyone in the UK expecting any favours whatsoever from the EU.

You mean like getting special discounts when paying for the EU budget, getting special opening clauses when it came to the goal of European integration, getting a consensus on limiting the movement of EU nationals and their social welfare claims until after 2020...

I do not normally comment on these political issues, but I though I share my opinion this time. Having worked in the UK for many years and I think it is an absolutely lovely country (apart from the weather), I kind of support the EU27 on this. I believe the UK has had some less capable leaders in the past decades and that a lot of their citizens blame the EU for that (with speedbored, Seahawk and Braybuddy among them). Imo, the referendum should have never happened and the Leave-campaign had won on "alternative facts / fake news" (to use the words of a certain Mr. Trump).

I think the UK has a very weak position in this whole leaving-process. I also can't see this turning into a win-win situation, as that is the whole point of joining the EU, to raise living standards for both parties and that's also why that process is so time consuming, to make sure everyone benefits. Logically, if this process is reversed, i.e. one decides to leave, it is inevitable that one or, likely, both parties will loose. I think it will be very hard to reach acceptable terms in 2 years time with Mrs. May, but I sincerely hope that they do, as no agreement is definitely worse than a bad agreement. (it just depends what you call 'bad') Norway, Switzerland, etc have determined that being part of the trade union is definitely worth some money.

I also feel kind of sorry for Scotland and Northern Ireland, who overwhelmingly voted to remain. That also shows that the United Kingdom is not so united after all. Maybe they should fix their own issues before blaming the EU27.

Let's also not forget that if no agreement is reached by 2019, all current treaties cease to apply (and then indeed the UK no longer needs to pay, but many people will loose their job and things will get more expensive, that is, if you can still buy them). You also can't blame the EU for taking the necessary steps in order to comply with their own rules (like moving all EU organisations to the Continent).

sf260 wrote:

Imo, the referendum should have never happened

Why?

sf260 wrote:

(with speedbored, Seahawk and Braybuddy among them)

I'm not a UK citizen, I'm Irish, and living in Ireland.

If you went thru a divorce, did your lawyer or yourself invited your ex to listen your strategy before the trial ? My wife is a lawyer and finds that idea hilarious

Olddog wrote:

If you went thru a divorce, did your lawyer or yourself invited your ex to listen your strategy before the trial ? My wife is a lawyer and finds that idea hilarious

It's not a divorce. It's a monumental international undertaking. All these similes get ridiculous.

Olddog wrote:

If you went thru a divorce, did your lawyer or yourself invited your ex to listen your strategy before the trial ? My wife is a lawyer and finds that idea hilarious

What's even more hilarious is that you're commenting without properly reading my posts . . .

Braybuddy wrote:

What's even more hilarious is that you're commenting without properly reading my posts . . .

What is even more hilarious is someone took the time to post the article 50.4 and you failed the basic reading test.

To see the bickering here is sad and unsettling. I am stuck with what I have going on in my country so I won't and don't point any fingers, but isn't the EU supposed a tiny bit more enlightened than the USA in its politics etc?

One thing I have found ridiculous have been the cries to "do it now", Get a move and get out!". This is a large undertaking and the process is truly not one to be rushed, and anyone advocating such is either being irresponsible, petty, or is just not thinking clearly and understanding the what is involved. Yes the Article 50 process is specified with a required two year frame, but all the parties involved should really have everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, in place and strategies formulated prior to that time. The EU and the UK should have pushed for something like a five year process but it appears hurt feelings got in the way (and I mean that, I'm seeing what appears to be sour grapes and people hurt that their ideas, their "union", have been spurned) and now act like "Well fine, you don't like me?... then get out and get out NOW!" The EU27 and the UK should have convened together as members of the EU and formulated together the exit strategy, then when the two year window started began to implement that plan (quite likely with some last minute changes and arguments about how elements would be implemented but the framework would have at least been in place).

Some are comparing this to divorce, but it absolutely is not and should not be considered such. This a corporate undertaking, this is more like business and not marriage with love etc. involved. This is FAR more like a corporation breaking up and should be treated as such. Everyone's emotions are getting in the way and that is screwing everything up (and yes, I realize that often politics are fraught with emotions). This is what has lead to the thousands of years of acrimony that exists in many conflicts around the world. I am not saying this will lead to any war now but it is what leads to persistent discord unless someone steps and starts to treat this as a non-divorce, kills the "love and hate" aspect, and just moves on with the business tasks at hand.

Of course I am just a non-participant sitting behind a screen across the sea so I am sure many will discount what I say since "I'm not there" (or my favorite "like you have any right to say anything, look at what your country has going on...") but this is just my opinion based on what I see. (It is also similar to what I see going on my country where everyone seems to be getting emotional and unwilling to cooperate to get the best results, to get needed tasks completed. I really hate that.)

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

To see the bickering here is sad and unsettling. I am stuck with what I have going on in my country so I won't and don't point any fingers, but isn't the EU supposed a tiny bit more enlightened than the USA in its politics etc?

One thing I have found ridiculous have been the cries to "do it now", Get a move and get out!". This is a large undertaking and the process is truly not one to be rushed, and anyone advocating such is either being irresponsible, petty, or is just not thinking clearly and understanding the what is involved. Yes the Article 50 process is specified with a required two year frame, but all the parties involved should really have everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, in place and strategies formulated prior to that time. The EU and the UK should have pushed for something like a five year process but it appears hurt feelings got in the way (and I mean that, I'm seeing what appears to be sour grapes and people hurt that their ideas, their "union", have been spurned) and now act like "Well fine, you don't like me?... then get out and get out NOW!" The EU27 and the UK should have convened together as members of the EU and formulated together the exit strategy, then when the two year window started began to implement that plan (quite likely with some last minute changes and arguments about how elements would be implemented but the framework would have at least been in place).

Some are comparing this to divorce, but it absolutely is not and should not be considered such. This a corporate undertaking, this is more like business and not marriage with love etc. involved. This is FAR more like a corporation breaking up and should be treated as such. Everyone's emotions are getting in the way and that is screwing everything up (and yes, I realize that often politics are fraught with emotions). This is what has lead to the thousands of years of acrimony that exists in many conflicts around the world. I am not saying this will lead to any war now but it is what leads to persistent discord unless someone steps and starts to treat this as a non-divorce, kills the "love and hate" aspect, and just moves on with the business tasks at hand.

Of course I am just a non-participant sitting behind a screen across the sea so I am sure many will discount what I say since "I'm not there" (or my favorite "like you have any right to say anything, look at what your country has going on...") but this is just my opinion based on what I see. (It is also similar to what I see going on my country where everyone seems to be getting emotional and unwilling to cooperate to get the best results, to get needed tasks completed. I really hate that.)

Tugg

Thank you. That really makes sense to me.

The initial EU position stated that any member could veto, I thought the EU was a democratic organization where some decisions could be implemented by a majority vote. How exactly is the UK going to get any kind of deal unless it specifically caters to the demands of each member?
Personally, after the election if the Tories win the position should be that they are going WTO and spend their resources getting the country ready and sorting out the divorce bill. No way I see any deal in the next two years being agreed by all 27, what I do see is an agreement to continue negotiations for a number of years at the status quo to give another government the chance to have a new vote, after all, all past votes with a negative outcome forced a revote with a positive outcome - Ireland -.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

sf260 wrote:

Imo, the referendum should have never happened

Why?

Because the fundamentals of a society, or the way how different nations interact with each other, are not black or white as the result of a referendum. You can do such a referendum every 5 years, with alternating results, what are you going to do? Leave and join every time?

You only need a good campaign to win a referendum, it doesn't matter much if half of your arguments are true or false. (B. Johnson and N. Farage already admitted right after the referendum that some of their slogans won't materialise as they may not have been completely accurate)

If there wasn't a war in Syria, and if there wasn't such in influx of refugees in the last couple of years in the EU, would the result of the referendum still be the same, or would the Remain camp have won with 52%? (migration control is the 2nd biggest reason for people to vote for Brexit, so it largely influenced the outcome. I have lived in the UK and there are indeed also quite some Polish, Ukrainian, Romanian workers, but they do jobs the British youngsters don't want to do, so I can hardly see that being a real reason in the migration topic. If it is, they should motivate their own people instead of leaving the EU)

In most modern democracies, this is also the reason why a victory of the opposition during an election won't have a dramatic effect of the course of the country in the short term. They'll need some victories in a row to make some really meaningful changes.

The European Union is a project of the last 70 years. It is far from perfect, but that is also why it keeps evolving. I still think it makes our continent a better place.

Tugger wrote:

To see the bickering here is sad and unsettling. I am stuck with what I have going on in my country so I won't and don't point any fingers, but isn't the EU supposed a tiny bit more enlightened than the USA in its politics etc?

One thing I have found ridiculous have been the cries to "do it now", Get a move and get out!". This is a large undertaking and the process is truly not one to be rushed, and anyone advocating such is either being irresponsible, petty, or is just not thinking clearly and understanding the what is involved. Yes the Article 50 process is specified with a required two year frame, but all the parties involved should really have everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, in place and strategies formulated prior to that time. The EU and the UK should have pushed for something like a five year process but it appears hurt feelings got in the way (and I mean that, I'm seeing what appears to be sour grapes and people hurt that their ideas, their "union", have been spurned) and now act like "Well fine, you don't like me?... then get out and get out NOW!" The EU27 and the UK should have convened together as members of the EU and formulated together the exit strategy, then when the two year window started began to implement that plan (quite likely with some last minute changes and arguments about how elements would be implemented but the framework would have at least been in place).

Some are comparing this to divorce, but it absolutely is not and should not be considered such. This a corporate undertaking, this is more like business and not marriage with love etc. involved. This is FAR more like a corporation breaking up and should be treated as such. Everyone's emotions are getting in the way and that is screwing everything up (and yes, I realize that often politics are fraught with emotions). This is what has lead to the thousands of years of acrimony that exists in many conflicts around the world. I am not saying this will lead to any war now but it is what leads to persistent discord unless someone steps and starts to treat this as a non-divorce, kills the "love and hate" aspect, and just moves on with the business tasks at hand.

Of course I am just a non-participant sitting behind a screen across the sea so I am sure many will discount what I say since "I'm not there" (or my favorite "like you have any right to say anything, look at what your country has going on...") but this is just my opinion based on what I see. (It is also similar to what I see going on my country where everyone seems to be getting emotional and unwilling to cooperate to get the best results, to get needed tasks completed. I really hate that.)

Tugg

Yes, I agree with you. But like you have said, politics are more often than not emotions. The whole Brexit campaign was on both sides. I find it kind of odd that the most Google the day after the referendum was in the UK: "what is the EU" http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechcons ... rexit-vote, or much I say shocking. So the government didn't a very good job, objectively, explain what was at stake here, how can people expect to cast a vote on its merits, if they don't know what it is about?

After the polls closed, perhaps both parties could have handled it much better, almost a year has passed when the article 50 was triggered. The two-year period was agreed upon and I think you don't want to drag this out too much. Let's hope we now go into a period where bureaucrats are handling the real negotiations, so we can have a good relationship after the Brexit, that will benefit both.

Why wouldn't you have the right to speak your opinions here? I find that people whom aren't directly involved have a better perspective, they can zoom out of the daily "fight". So I, for one, welcome your views.