What happens to now? [UK\EU]

[Wildtree]

What's next? That's obvious.
King Arthur returns.
If he doesn't that shows how things aren't that bad.

[ranzino]

Merkel says that is not the case.

you know EU has to kick UK's butt...at least a little bit. maybe it becomes a british Switzerland at best. But even our most beloved ( and envied ) Confoederatio Helvetica has to follow Brussels rules. You failed miserably, Farrage & Co. ?

[Deleted]

you know EU has to kick UK's butt...at least a little bit. maybe it becomes a british Switzerland at best. But even our most beloved ( and envied ) Confoederatio Helvetica has to follow Brussels rules. You failed miserably, Farrage & Co. ?

They don't have to

[ranzino]

They don't have to

to kick UK's butt ? if you want access to EU's market as non-member you'll have to swallow some ugly toads, as we say in german.

[Deleted]

EU could actually be mature and support a democratic decision and say no hard feelings shall we continue?
or
EU could be petulant and throw its toys out and showcasing their distaste for its members democratic choices

[Deleted]

EU could actually be mature and support a democratic decision and say no hard feelings shall we continue?
or
EU could be petulant and throw its toys out and showcasing their distaste for its members democratic choices

It was UK's decision to leave the EU, therefore losing the benefits of the EU is just a natural thing. Because it would be the end of the EU if a member state can decide to leave and having the plus side of it.

[THE Bigzoman]

I bet they never enact the Lisbon Treaty.

New Parliament is gonna be like: Not my problem. That's old parliament. It's the current month. Get with the times.

[ranzino]

EU could actually be mature and support a democratic decision and say no hard feelings shall we continue?
or
EU could be petulant and throw its toys out and showcasing their distaste for its members democratic choices

For a soft reminder: Switzerland voted "no" to EU membership. and when they pulled a stunt with their immigration referendum, they lost access to several EU programs and EU is still able to invoke the so-called gulliotin clause to terminate ALL agreements.

[Kalis]

you know EU has to kick UK's butt...at least a little bit. maybe it becomes a british Switzerland at best. But even our most beloved ( and envied ) Confoederatio Helvetica has to follow Brussels rules. You failed miserably, Farrage & Co. ?

Merkel said that is not the case, it does even make sense for it to be the case either.

[ranzino]

Merkel said that is not the case, it does even make sense for it to be the case either.

Germany is not the only EU member with opinions. And the Brexit negotiations are AFAIK decided by majority. What Mutti Merkel says, is irrelevant if she is no longer Chancellor after the next election 2017, way earlier than Brexit is in effect.

[Deleted]

Merkel said that is not the case, it does even make sense for it to be the case either.

Merkel is actually the only EU saying it. It's the "good cop, bad cop" diplomacy, don't fall for it. And what she actually said is a rush exit is worse for both parts, nothing was ever said about the negotiations.

[Deleted]

It was UK's decision to leave the EU, therefore losing the benefits of the EU is just a natural thing. Because it would be the end of the EU if a member state can decide to leave and having the plus side of it.

Which will also mean that EU will lose the benefits of the UK.
It's really a tough call now in Brussels.
If they allow UK to continue unhindered trade with EU, while at the same time releasing them from political and ideological influence and obligation, many other countries can try and break loose from the EU.
If they decide to punish them by imposing obstacles for their trade with EU, that will hit EU as well, which already is weakened from losing one of its major contributors.

Unfortunately, none of the options is a good one.

[Deleted]

Which will also mean that EU will lose the benefits of the UK.
It's really a tough call now in Brussels.
If they allow UK to continue unhindered trade with EU, while at the same time releasing them from political and ideological influence and obligation, many other countries can try and break loose from the EU.
If they decide to punish them by imposing obstacles for their trade with EU, that will hit EU as well, which already is weakened from losing one of its major contributors.

Unfortunately, none of the options is a good one.

Precisely. It's just that the idea of financial and economical status quo after the Brexit is completely mindblowing.

[ranzino]

Which will also mean that EU will lose the benefits of the UK.
It's really a tough call now in Brussels.
If they allow UK to continue unhindered trade with EU, while at the same time releasing them from political and ideological influence and obligation, many other countries can try and break loose from the EU.
If they decide to punish them by imposing obstacles for their trade with EU, that will hit EU as well, which already is weakened from losing one of its major contributors.

Unfortunately, none of the options is a good one.

Make love not war ! call off the family split and remain our most beloved but sometimes quarrelsome sibling.
EU will change, because it has to.

[PACOX]

Worst case scenario Scotland and Irland are leaving the UK and the £ loses again around 20-30% of its value

you know, 70 years ago that would've started a world war.

[Trassk]

Best case scenario is that England is a bit more of a shittier place than it was.

Someone's needlessly bitter.

[Varitok]

It was never about the "EU ruling Britain", it was because the immigration issue.

It was about EU and Britain, Immigration was a big part of it but why would you let an outside governing body (which you had no say in electing its head by the way) tell you how many migrants you will take, what you are going to do and what laws will be enforced upon everyone. Thats a countries choice and not the EU. I thought it was a good system until I actually started looking into it.


Good on the UK though, I guess Remain voters got complacent.

[owbu]

Immigration was a big part of it but why would you let an outside governing body (which you had no say in electing its head by the way) tell you how many migrants you will take

But that didnt happen did it? Letting other people from the EU in is the core principle of the EU, so that was something your goverment agreed on, when they joined the EU and the british peopled declared okay, when they didnt brexit in 1975. New states can only join in when every country agrees, so "but there is new countries, we didnt agree on" also doesnt really work.

The EU was trying to make its members share the refugees more - but it was getting nowhere, because the EU doesnt have the policitical power to do stuff like this against the will of its members. I really feel like the british people somehow didnt see through that nice little thing their goverment had set up, where everytime they had to do something unpopular, they blamed it on the EU, even though nothing ever happens in the EU without at least Britain, France and Germany accepting it.
At least that one really came back to bite them

[apepi]

Guys it is fine, just wait until the sexy breakup sex happens.

[Kallisto]

It was about EU and Britain, Immigration was a big part of it but why would you let an outside governing body (which you had no say in electing its head by the way) tell you how many migrants you will take, what you are going to do and what laws will be enforced upon everyone. Thats a countries choice and not the EU. I thought it was a good system until I actually started looking into it.


Good on the UK though, I guess Remain voters got complacent.

Well why vote for a head that has no power anyway. The most important people (those that had the power) we did vote on. So it wasn't some other telling us what to do. It was us voting on people to represent us in a PR system not in the FPTP system.