UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

You do not need E.U. membership to have either customs union (eg Turkey) or Single Market (eg Norway)

Turkey isn't in THE Customs Union. It's in A customs union. There is no precedent for a major state not in the EU to be a member of THE Customs Union.

There are many custom unions in the world. Mercosur for one.

Turkey is in the same customs union as the EU and some other countries so if by THE customs union you mean the customs union the EU is the answer is yes, it's on the same boat as EU countries, etc.

Indeed for Turkey it is a customs union, rather than the customs union...

This is what the negotiation team should be concentrating on... membership of both the customs union and single market would solve so many of the negatives of leaving the E.U. including most importantly trade deals, just in time manufacturing businesses, access to the single market (including services) and the good Friday agreement.

Olddog wrote:

While the march was nice, nothing will stop Brexit now. I very much doubt that the ECJ says that a leaving member can cancel its article 50...

Considering that all members have pledged to follow the idea of European unity in the Lisbon treaty, many scholars believe that the EU would be likely to re-instate Britain as a member.

seahawk wrote:

Olddog wrote:

While the march was nice, nothing will stop Brexit now. I very much doubt that the ECJ says that a leaving member can cancel its article 50...

Considering that all members have pledged to follow the idea of European unity in the Lisbon treaty, many scholars believe that the EU would be likely to re-instate Britain as a member.

Those are different things though, if all members agree no one calls on the ECJ, and that makes it legal. But if, let's say Cyprus, decided to disagree, then we get to hear what the ECJ thinks.

Best regards
Thomas

The ECJ is supposed to hear the article 50 case on november 27, while the UK government is trying to cancel that move.

If the ECJ says that article 50 can't be unilaterally cancelled, it is one less blackmail weapon for the UK. Only the ambiguity is good for TM.

Olddog wrote:

The ECJ is supposed to hear the article 50 case on november 27, while the UK government is trying to cancel that move.

If the ECJ says that article 50 can't be unilaterally cancelled, it is one less blackmail weapon for the UK. Only the ambiguity is good for TM.

According to your link the case is not about the UK unilaterally retracting the Article 50 declaration but still with the unanimous assent of the EU27.

It seems to be more about whether the UK parliament can request that retraction instead of the PM.

Because of Brexit the EU is stuck and can't move in any direction. In a way it's helped because with what's happening in other countries, finding that direction could prove difficult. Nevertheless, the UK back in would be unlikely to help.

Aesma wrote:

Because of Brexit the EU is stuck and can't move in any direction.

Huh? How did you get that idea? The EU is already in the process of moving on – as an example, the effort towards a common defense policy had always been vetoed by the UK and now it's already on its way.

And contrary to the all-consuming Brexit drama in the UK, for the EU it's merely a smaller sideshow and beyond every country's preparations (including for no deal) actually doesn't have much impact on ongoing debates or policies.

In a way it's helped because with what's happening in other countries, finding that direction could prove difficult. Nevertheless, the UK back in would be unlikely to help.

That is a very weird view which seems lightyears away from what is actually happening.

Italy not respecting treaties, after Hungary and Poland. Any initiative on fiscal policy, immigration, or anything is sure to be blocked. Common defense is basically France and Germany alone. Even Germany might not hold considering the weak position Merkel is in.

Aesma wrote:

Italy not respecting treaties, after Hungary and Poland. Any initiative on fiscal policy, immigration, or anything is sure to be blocked. Common defense is basically France and Germany alone. Even Germany might not hold considering the weak position Merkel is in.

The usual boundless hysteria about just normal european business as usual.

It is the whole point of the EU that all the problems of all its member states are automatically problems in and to a large part of the EU. That's the whole idea!

That means that all of those problems still need resolution, but it also means that its member countries can and should work out solutions together instead of externalizing their problems as they've done through all the millenia before.

Today's problems are just as serious as problems had been in earlier times, but as in earlier times it's still better to work on many problems together than to get stuck alone.

The EU has never been a pleasure cruise – it's always been about working at solving largely the same problems its members would still be having if the EU had not existed, but being more successful about it, more often!

Klaus wrote:

The usual boundless hysteria about just normal european business as usual.

It is the whole point of the EU that all the problems of all its member states are automatically problems in and to a large part of the EU. That's the whole idea!

That means that all of those problems still need resolution, but it also means that its member countries can and should work out solutions together instead of externalizing their problems as they've done through all the millenia before.

Today's problems are just as serious as problems had been in earlier times, but as in earlier times it's still better to work on many problems together than to get stuck alone.

The EU has never been a pleasure cruise – it's always been about working at solving largely the same problems its members would still be having if the EU had not existed, but being more successful about it, more often!

Very well said Klaus. The whole point of the EU is to work together here on earth to solve problems, and share the job to get it done the best way possible, just like we do in Heaven and Hell.

In Heaven:
Policemen are British
Cooks are Italian
Mechanics are German
Lovers are French
And the Swiss control and coordinate all activity.

In Hell:
Policemen are German
Cooks are British
Mechanics are French
Lovers are Swiss
And the Italians control and coordinate all activity.

Another foreigner sticking their nose in to internal matters

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... heresa-may

noviorbis77 wrote:

Another foreigner sticking their nose in to internal matters

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... heresa-may

Stop sticking your internal matters into our faces and we won't need to deal with your unholy mess!

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Another foreigner sticking their nose in to internal matters

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... heresa-may

Stop sticking your internal matters into our faces and we won't need to deal with your unholy mess!

Well in just over 4 months we’ll have parted out ways permenantly. Then we won’t have the undemocratic EU dictating the rules.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Then we won’t have the undemocratic EU dictating the rules.

Two fundamental flaws in such a short sentence, in itself quite impressive Novoirbis.......

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Another foreigner sticking their nose in to internal matters

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... heresa-may

Stop sticking your internal matters into our faces and we won't need to deal with your unholy mess!

Well in just over 4 months we’ll have parted out ways permenantly. Then we won’t have the undemocratic EU dictating the rules.

Won't happen because there is no such thing as an "undemocratic EU".

It's always been controlled by the elected national governments and by the elected Parliament. In fact, it's much more democratic than the UK by itself, so you'll have less democratic control after Brexit than you've had in the last 40 years.

Blindly believing self-interested, lying propagandists has never been a good idea.
Take it from a german. I know what I'm talking about!

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Then we won’t have the undemocratic EU dictating the rules.

Two fundamental flaws in such a short sentence, in itself quite impressive Novoirbis.......

indeed, its so easy to research and find out some facts.... (apologies for mentioning facts in a Brexit thread)

It's interesting that when you compare the democratic structure of the EU compared to that of the UK (not that we have a bad system - but could be better) the EU structure is in fact more democratic and not less....

I hope it will be business as usual when I visit England and Holland in April next year...
And I am gonna try the channel tunnel train for the first time!! So looking forward to that

noviorbis77 wrote:

Well in just over 4 months we’ll have parted out ways permenantly. Then we won’t have the undemocratic EU dictating the rules.

Why wait that long? The two years in A50 is a maximum. A maximum to safeguard that the EU doesn't have to pull around forever with a country which is unable to make decisions.

It took more than 9 months just to press the A50 button, so Brexit should in fact have been reality at the latest several months ago.

Tomorrow it is 28 months since you had the referendum. What has happened? 28 months of mud slinging eastwards over the Channel. And nothing else. Why not for once get your act together and do something about it? The sooner, the better. There i no reason to wait until 11 p.m. on 29 March.

Klaus : that's the theory but it's not working. Immigration has been a rising issue for a long time and still not much has been done, what has been decided hasn't been implemented, meanwhile far right parties are rising across the continent and win elections.

Economic/fiscal policy of pure austerity has obviously been a disaster and yet some countries are still not convinced of this. A country like Italy out of the Euro would very simply devalue its currency, something it can't do right now, leading to the current crisis. The proposed Italian budget is misguided and will be rejected by the EU, then what ?

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Another foreigner sticking their nose in to internal matters

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... heresa-may

Stop sticking your internal matters into our faces and we won't need to deal with your unholy mess!

Well in just over 4 months we’ll have parted out ways permenantly. Then we won’t have the undemocratic EU dictating the rules.

Or better, you hope that there won‘t be an agreement whereby de facto nothing changes.

prebennorholm wrote:

Tomorrow it is 28 months since you had the referendum. What has happened? 28 months of mud slinging eastwards over the Channel. And nothing else. Why not for once get your act together and do something about it? The sooner, the better. There i no reason to wait until 11 p.m. on 29 March.

It's looking like 29th March might be too soon.

The Times are reporting that since the EU Withdrawal Act, there are an estimated 800-1000 pieces of legislation that need to be implemented into British Law, so far the UK government has only done 71 of them.. it does not look like there will be time to get the UK's laws in order before Brexit day....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -vxd6wrh35

Another reason to have an extension to Article 50, but of course Brexstremists would have a hissy fit over that.....

Aesma wrote:

Klaus : that's the theory but it's not working. Immigration has been a rising issue for a long time and still not much has been done, what has been decided hasn't been implemented, meanwhile far right parties are rising across the continent and win elections.

https://www.statista.com/chart/10327/mi ... terranean/

I would say they have. The deal with Turkey was a key point in reducing arrivals. Just like earlier deals with Morocco and Mauritania brought down the numbers back in the day.

Aesma wrote:

Klaus : that's the theory but it's not working. Immigration has been a rising issue for a long time and still not much has been done, what has been decided hasn't been implemented,

You're apparently expecting miracles instead of actual political work, which is rarely as glamorous or as immediate as one might hope theoretically. In the real world one aspect of politics is confronting unwanted challenges and finding a way through them. And while the refugee issue has substantially receded with the shrinking numbers, it's still on the agenda and will remain so for some time.

It's just nonsense to pin those difficulties on the EU – they would have existed either way, they would just be even worse without the EU with the other countries having no obligation to even deal with it.

meanwhile far right parties are rising across the continent and win elections.

Sometimes. More often they don't. And again this is not as simple as you make it out to be, and especially you're trying to pin that on the EU even though the weakening of the moderate and left parties is a parallel development in many nations, not one caused by the EU.

Economic/fiscal policy of pure austerity has obviously been a disaster and yet some countries are still not convinced of this. A country like Italy out of the Euro would very simply devalue its currency, something it can't do right now, leading to the current crisis. The proposed Italian budget is misguided and will be rejected by the EU, then what ?

Devaluation is not an actual solution either, especially not nowadays compared to earlier, in some way simpler times. In particular, debt would mostly remain in hard currency anyway and it would immediately balloon to even more unsustainable heights vs. the GDP shrinking with devaluation. Only if most of the debt was domestic a devaluation would rob the creditors of much of their assets (together with most workers via the inevitable inflation).

Having a separate, weaker currency is not a panacea at all – quite the contrary as you can see in many other countries.

And even the UK is already seeing some of those effects now, and those will likely exacerbate after Brexit.

Brexit has been a domestic british reaction to domestic british problems caused by domestic british policies – unfortunately it ruins Britain's most important international relationships without any need or connection to the actual issues, which all remain unresolved and most are even exacerbated by Brexit.

Irrational times.

Richard28 wrote:

(not that we have a bad system - but could be better)

I have to disagree. Single seat constituencies and FPTP is a pretty bad system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Another nation being screwed over by the EU

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45954022

What the EU says or does "against" Italy doesn't matter much. What the markets will do to Italy's debt, that's another story.

It is also Italy being in the euro that has led to this, which of course the UK never was, so in relation to Brexit this has no relevance.

Aesma wrote:

What the EU says or does "against" Italy doesn't matter much.

Yes, it does, actually. It just doesn't come down on the reckless politicians quite as harshly right away as the markets do.

Richard28 wrote:

It is also Italy being in the euro that has led to this, which of course the UK never was, so in relation to Brexit this has no relevance.

No, the Euro was and is a boon to Italy as well (and even the current populist leaders have buried their anti-Euro rhetoric more recently) and Italy even had more leeway than it would have had with a separate currency, but excessive debt is excessive debt.

Just with the Euro without the added brutality of the debt spiralling out of control even faster due to a plummeting home currency on top of it all!

Having a small, soft and weak home currency is more a burden and a risk than an advantage!

Olddog wrote:

While the march was nice, nothing will stop Brexit now. I very much doubt that the ECJ says that a leaving member can cancel its article 50...

I've been passing up news on Bretix because I was against it - but as an ignorant Yank my opinion doesn't matter.

The question I have is the potential for the Brits to vote again before the last day and vote to cancel Article 50? If that happens would the PMs of the EU countries put on political pressure onto the ECJ?

In general terms, when will the Brits be provided with clear guidance of issues that the politicians ns hav e already agreed on?

Ken777 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

While the march was nice, nothing will stop Brexit now. I very much doubt that the ECJ says that a leaving member can cancel its article 50...

I've been passing up news on Bretix because I was against it - but as an ignorant Yank my opinion doesn't matter.

The question I have is the potential for the Brits to vote again before the last day and vote to cancel Article 50? If that happens would the PMs of the EU countries put on political pressure onto the ECJ?

In general terms, when will the Brits be provided with clear guidance of issues that the politicians ns hav e already agreed on?

No chance. We are leaving.

noviorbis77 wrote:

No chance. We are leaving.

How is NATAO going to function, especially during multi-country training?

Will NATO be the only area where the UK and the EU protect teach other?

Ken777 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

While the march was nice, nothing will stop Brexit now. I very much doubt that the ECJ says that a leaving member can cancel its article 50...

I've been passing up news on Bretix because I was against it - but as an ignorant Yank my opinion doesn't matter.

The question I have is the potential for the Brits to vote again before the last day and vote to cancel Article 50? If that happens would the PMs of the EU countries put on political pressure onto the ECJ?

In general terms, when will the Brits be provided with clear guidance of issues that the politicians ns hav e already agreed on?

Four things on article 50:

1) There is a European court of justice hearing (on November 27th) to decide the legalities of withdrawing Article 50,this should give clarity on the issue.
2) In the meantime, the UK has also sought counsel on this subject, but has refused to release details of its findings/position
3) The author meanwhile of the article 50 letter says it could be withdrawn as it merely expresses an intention to do something, and intent can legally be withdrawn.
4) EU leaders have said verbally that they would welcome the withdrawal of article 50 and not oppose it

So there should be some public legal clarity on this subject soon. In the meantime how things move is very much in the hands of the UK Parliament

For sure support for Brexit is waning as more and more evidence of the harm it will do to this country becomes evident, and political pressure to avoid a "no deal" scenario grows.

The #peoplesvote campaign is to give people a final, informed say on the final negotiation, to accept or decline the terms with an option to remain in the EU, which seems on the face of it a very logical, sensible and democratic way forward, especially in light of the almost total failure to deliver on the key promises from 2016.

However the hard liners want to deny the people that chance to express an opinion, arguing that the decision was made in 2016 and cannot be re-considered in light of the facts.

The final decision will be down to parliamentary arithmetic and it is not clear other than to suggest that:

- there is no parliamentary majority for a no deal, yet government is trying to remove the ability for parliament to vote against this (so much for taking back control)
- there is likely no majority for a deal that does not meet the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, which is a huge sticking point in not only negotiating a "backstop" but also any final deal
- there could be a majority for Single Market Membership but the government is currently opposed to this.

all a big mess really,

The ECJ is immune to political pressure.

Just remember when ECB wanted to repatriate the European Banking Agency in the Eurozone, the UK complained to the ECJ and they won... You can imagine that the ECB and the Eurozone nations applied all the pressure they could and nada.

Thanks to UK referendum, EBA is now moving to Paris and the European Medical Agency to Amsterdam.

I hear British journalists working in France that there is no time to do a referendum anymore, and I'm baffled. In France our constitution (or maybe organic law) prescribes that if a President of the Republic can no longer fulfill his mandate, the president of the senate takes over, while an election is organized right away and must happen ASAP. In 1974 Georges Pompidou died in office and the presidential election happened 1 month later. That was in 1974 !

Ken777 wrote:

The question I have is the potential for the Brits to vote again before the last day and vote to cancel Article 50? If that happens would the PMs of the EU countries put on political pressure onto the ECJ?

In general terms, when will the Brits be provided with clear guidance of issues that the politicians ns hav e already agreed on?

For reference, this is the full text of Article 50 (emphasis is mine):

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

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.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

It clearly defines a trigger mechanism where the intention to withdraw only is of relevance at the instance Article 50 is being triggered and it just doesn't matter whether that intention is actually maintained throughout the withdrawal period. And for good reason, because otherwise it would be constantly abused as a blackmailing lever.

Among other things, the exiting country immediately loses much of its participation powers about a) its own exit and b) decisions on european matters affecting the post-exit future of the Union (so pretty much everything). And that as well makes clear that it's a one-way street with a trigger, not a gas pedal you could just stop pressing down.

It would take unanimous consent among both the departing and all remaining countries to change anything about it, and that is the only place political will could enter into the equation after the fact (meaning: now).

National leaders saying that the UK would be welcome to reverse its decision is much easier said than done and my impression is that they're not really aware of all the EU implications the way Michel Barnier and his team are.

It could definitely open the door to a much less damaging Brexit than the one the current UK government is apparently pursuing but I don't see much of a chance to actually reverse Brexit this far down the exit chute. It would effectively amount to a re-accession as defined in Article 50 (referring to Article 49 about that).

Aesma wrote:

I hear British journalists working in France that there is no time to do a referendum anymore, and I'm baffled. In France our constitution (or maybe organic law) prescribes that if a President of the Republic can no longer fulfill his mandate, the president of the senate takes over, while an election is organized right away and must happen ASAP. In 1974 Georges Pompidou died in office and the presidential election happened 1 month later. That was in 1974 !

But at the same time, judging by the speed they are doing brexit preparations it sort of makes sence.

agill wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I hear British journalists working in France that there is no time to do a referendum anymore, and I'm baffled. In France our constitution (or maybe organic law) prescribes that if a President of the Republic can no longer fulfill his mandate, the president of the senate takes over, while an election is organized right away and must happen ASAP. In 1974 Georges Pompidou died in office and the presidential election happened 1 month later. That was in 1974 !

But at the same time, judging by the speed they are doing brexit preparations it sort of makes sence.

Don't forget that with consent it is also possible to extend article 50.

Should the UK decide that further public consent is required to proceed then my guess is that such an extension could be necessary.

Probably for around 3 billions € a year.

Olddog wrote:

Probably for around 3 billions € a year.

indeed, would come at a cost.

but for longer term stability not a bad price to pay, especially with the costs of Brexit

(remember even the soft EEA solution would result in an estimated loss of £30bn-£48bn in exports and 0.3m - 0.8m jobs)

Klaus wrote:

It would take unanimous consent among both the departing and all remaining countries to change anything about it, and that is the only place political will could enter into the equation after the fact (meaning: now).

National leaders saying that the UK would be welcome to reverse its decision is much easier said than done and my impression is that they're not really aware of all the EU implications the way Michel Barnier and his team are.

There may be a little grandstanding about it, but I find it quite likely that the EC and member states would rubber stamp an annulment since - honestly - it's in everyone's best interests to do so. Any delays or conditions would merely lead to yet more months of uncertainty and administrative chaos - and the associated effects on business etc.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Klaus wrote:

It would take unanimous consent among both the departing and all remaining countries to change anything about it, and that is the only place political will could enter into the equation after the fact (meaning: now).

National leaders saying that the UK would be welcome to reverse its decision is much easier said than done and my impression is that they're not really aware of all the EU implications the way Michel Barnier and his team are.

There may be a little grandstanding about it, but I find it quite likely that the EC and member states would rubber stamp an annulment since - honestly - it's in everyone's best interests to do so.

No, it wouldn't be; That's the whole point!

It would be far, far worse to open the floodgates for countries abusing Article 50 as an all-purpose instrument of extortion once the precedent of an easy revocation was established.

This miscalculation is based on the same mistakes as the misconception about "a good deal" being "in everybody's interest": That one was clearly not true either (and for pretty much the same reasons), as the UK government has by now found out to their considerable chagrin.

Any delays or conditions would merely lead to yet more months of uncertainty and administrative chaos - and the associated effects on business etc.

Yeah, but that's by very far the smaller price to pay compared to the disintegration of the European Union overall.

The anti-EU propaganda in the UK has successfully eroded both just basic knowledge about and any shred of respect for the European Union as an institution and has planted the idea in people's heads that the EU was just some joke of a club which nobody else was taking seriously either, so there was no point in even trying to understand anything about it.

And that misconception has not just driven Brexit but it is still widespread even among remainers.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Klaus wrote:

It would take unanimous consent among both the departing and all remaining countries to change anything about it, and that is the only place political will could enter into the equation after the fact (meaning: now).

National leaders saying that the UK would be welcome to reverse its decision is much easier said than done and my impression is that they're not really aware of all the EU implications the way Michel Barnier and his team are.

There may be a little grandstanding about it, but I find it quite likely that the EC and member states would rubber stamp an annulment since - honestly - it's in everyone's best interests to do so. Any delays or conditions would merely lead to yet more months of uncertainty and administrative chaos - and the associated effects on business etc.

It will come at a price. At least the EU will force the Uk to agree on changing the Lisbon treaty by better defining the costs of using Article 50 in the future.

Klaus wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Klaus wrote:

It would take unanimous consent among both the departing and all remaining countries to change anything about it, and that is the only place political will could enter into the equation after the fact (meaning: now).

National leaders saying that the UK would be welcome to reverse its decision is much easier said than done and my impression is that they're not really aware of all the EU implications the way Michel Barnier and his team are.

There may be a little grandstanding about it, but I find it quite likely that the EC and member states would rubber stamp an annulment since - honestly - it's in everyone's best interests to do so.

No, it wouldn't be; That's the whole point!

It would be far, far worse to open the floodgates for countries abusing Article 50 as an all-purpose instrument of extortion once the precedent of an easy revocation was established.

This miscalculation is based on the same mistakes as the misconception about "a good deal" being "in everybody's interest": That one was clearly not true either (and for pretty much the same reasons), as the UK government has by now found out to their considerable chagrin.

Any delays or conditions would merely lead to yet more months of uncertainty and administrative chaos - and the associated effects on business etc.

Yeah, but that's by very far the smaller price to pay compared to the disintegration of the European Union overall.

The anti-EU propaganda in the UK has successfully eroded both just basic knowledge about and any shred of respect for the European Union as an institution and has planted the idea in people's heads that the EU was just some joke of a club which nobody else was taking seriously either, so there was no point in even trying to understand anything about it.

And that misconception has not just driven Brexit but it is still widespread even among remainers.

For goodness sake, give the EU cheer leading a rest. Maybe you are the one who has been brainwashed with its propaganda.

seahawk wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Klaus wrote:

It would take unanimous consent among both the departing and all remaining countries to change anything about it, and that is the only place political will could enter into the equation after the fact (meaning: now).

National leaders saying that the UK would be welcome to reverse its decision is much easier said than done and my impression is that they're not really aware of all the EU implications the way Michel Barnier and his team are.

There may be a little grandstanding about it, but I find it quite likely that the EC and member states would rubber stamp an annulment since - honestly - it's in everyone's best interests to do so. Any delays or conditions would merely lead to yet more months of uncertainty and administrative chaos - and the associated effects on business etc.

It will come at a price. At least the EU will force the Uk to agree on changing the Lisbon treaty by better defining the costs of using Article 50 in the future.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Anyone with a basic understanding of contracts and legal texts clearly understands what it's saying.

The brexiteers just didn't take it seriously and more and more britons are now seriously getting cold feet as the self-selected cliff edge is approaching!

noviorbis77 wrote:

For goodness sake, give the EU cheer leading a rest. Maybe you are the one who has been brainwashed with its propaganda.

There's little point in pleading with me about helping to keep your own Brexit delusions alive, while the actual and rather sobering reality is coming home to roost as we speak.

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

For goodness sake, give the EU cheer leading a rest. Maybe you are the one who has been brainwashed with its propaganda.

There's little point in pleading with me about helping to keep your own Brexit delusions alive, while the actual and rather sobering reality is coming home to roost as we speak.

Ok. You cannot be reasoned with.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

For goodness sake, give the EU cheer leading a rest. Maybe you are the one who has been brainwashed with its propaganda.

There's little point in pleading with me about helping to keep your own Brexit delusions alive, while the actual and rather sobering reality is coming home to roost as we speak.

Ok. You cannot be reasoned with.

That would require some actual reason.

Klaus wrote:

seahawk wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

There may be a little grandstanding about it, but I find it quite likely that the EC and member states would rubber stamp an annulment since - honestly - it's in everyone's best interests to do so. Any delays or conditions would merely lead to yet more months of uncertainty and administrative chaos - and the associated effects on business etc.

It will come at a price. At least the EU will force the Uk to agree on changing the Lisbon treaty by better defining the costs of using Article 50 in the future.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Anyone with a basic understanding of contracts and legal texts clearly understands what it's saying.

The brexiteers just didn't take it seriously and more and more britons are now seriously getting cold feet as the self-selected cliff edge is approaching!

There are plenty not fully regulated questions, like when the divorce payment is due, what is all covered and also no final authority in case of a disagreement.

You can easily legislate, that 10% of the divorce payment have to been paid upfront as a compensation for the extra work the EU and the remaining members have to do. This 10% are lost if you decide to stay. You can also have a binding agreement, that the ECJ is the final authority in case of a disagreement on the divorce payment, with every country agreeing to accept the verdict even after having left the EU.