[Far-Right Sage]

Istanbuller is of course correct in that it is not Britain which destabilized the EU. The EU destabilized itself, through many years of a horrendous domestic and foreign policy and arrogant smug refusal to admit any fault, reverse course one iota or even successfully ameliorate the effects its own disastrous policies have produced for the continent (and Britain). Well done and good show.

Hollande is already running around terrified of the idea that Le Pen and Front National will succeed in tabling a similar referendum in France. That is the next government to face this kind of insurrection after delivering only more waves of immigrants, more liberal-interventionist wars, more economic stagnation and mismanagement.

Oh cool FR$ is back too. Good to see you old timer.

I'm stoked that the UK has destabilized the EU. The forces that accomplished this important task are lamentable but I'll takes whats I can gets.

And what a joyous occasion it is for our reunion!

The way you summed it up mirrors my sentiment exactly. Johnson is cringe-worthy. Farage and UKIP have a few admirable elements and I do believe he genuinely believes what's he saying but they overall are a terribly unfortunate red herring who serve to misdirect the energies of those I'd much rather see influence the British political discourse. It was simply a case of jumping on board to recognize our natural interests in this case, and favoring a temporary strategic alliance with otherwise unsavory forces to use as a vehicle to take us to a better place. So today I tip my hat to them. Once the deed is done we can go back to opposing camps.

[Dr Cosmo]

England - Iceland

Before



After

[hartmut]

.....
Brexit is merely a political withdrawl; it's not as if the UK will be raising a drawbridge against allcomers or Berlin will need to build a wall again.

...

"merely"? Would it not be more appropriate to say simply, it is a political withdrawal.
And doesn't that mean inevitable to give up influence on points that must affect life in Britain?
And what for? For independence from what and from whom?
Those who where the Leave- campaigners , which are obviously presently not in the mood to be champaigners , are found now in a silence which contrasts spectacular to the noise made by them before.
It is indeed very nice not "raising a drawbridge", but wasnt that a main emotional issue for Leave?
Another question of course rises by the way: Could such a noble stance be served by a "merely" "political withdrawl"?
Will have Britain proper influence on that topic by deciding to leave the European family?

Allow me a further remark: Berlin is indeed not hazarded by a new wall.
But if our version (AfD) of UKIP, (which could in new future be renamed to KIP) is going to win such strength on public opinion we will have new walls.
And these will be foreseeable soaked with blood. We are not an island. We live on a continent with a bloody, bloody history,
interrupted up to now only by a model that was emphasized by Churchill in his famous Zurich-Speech 1946.

Meanwhile Britain will (will it?) spin its own wheel an thats o.k.
The Germans feel sad that you go, the French and the Italians say "Go!".
What, for heavens sake, will be the advantage for the (U)K ?
What a folly is it to give up "merely" political influence?
Whenever in history was it really possible for Britain to stay successfully aside from the continent at its door?

[noemon]

Istanbuller has sour grapes that Turkey's main ally in Europe now counts for nothing, and of course he is not alone, Erdogan apologised to Russia and reproached Israel as a direct result of British influence falling right down to sub-zero in the EU. His buddy is no longer important and fear has grabbed him by the ears.

[colliric]

What name should this funny comedy be given?
Mr. Bean goes to politics?
Major role this time not played by Rowan Atkinson, but by Boris Osborne looking since his victory like a sheep?

No Minister

and it's sequel....

No Prime Minister

[Potemkin]

Istanbuller has sour grapes that Turkey's main ally in Europe now counts for nothing, and of course he is not alone, Erdogan apologised to Russia and reproached Israel as a direct result of British influence falling right down to sub-zero in the EU. His buddy is no longer important and fear has grabbed him by the ears.

I almost feel sorry for Erdogan. His foreign policy has stumbled from one calamity to another. Just when he thinks it can't get any worse, another shitstorm gathers on the horizon....

Notice I said 'almost'.

[soron]

I found it interesting that EU chief diplomat Federica Mogherini presented her paper on closer military cooperation within the EU right after the Brexit vote. This is something most EU countries wanted to do for years but it was always frustrated by London's veto.
Putting this kind of reform on the agenda right after the Brexit referendum looks like a message of it's own: "now we can finally get the things done that Britain always blocked".

So yes, the UK has given up political influence. The world isn't the same as 1970. Either the Europeans stand together or they will just be pushed aside by the US, the Chinese, Russia, or whatever power might rise in the future.

Defense aside I can see one other topic being put on the table "soon" and that is the overdue regulation of financial markets and products - another thing that couldn't be done in the past die to London's veto.
When that happens, then the English economy will definitively take a hit. Financial services were pretty much the only commodity that showed good profits and growth.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Either the Europeans stand together or they will just be pushed aside by the US, the Chinese, Russia, or whatever power might rise in the future.

Europeans would be capable of cooperating. They don't need the EU, in its current form, for it.

Defense aside I can see one other topic being put on the table "soon" and that is the overdue regulation of financial markets and products - another thing that couldn't be done in the past die to London's veto.
When that happens, then the English economy will definitively take a hit. Financial services were pretty much the only commodity that showed good profits and growth.

Which regulations do you mean? The FTT is set to be implemented in 2016 by all those who want to, if I remember correctly.

I might be missing something, since I don't know what exactly you are talking about, but this rather looks like a positive for the UK since EU markets will become relatively less attractive.

[soron]

Europeans would be capable of cooperating. They don't need the EU, in its current form, for it.

I serioulsy doubt that. We have seen during the War for Oil (Iraq 2003) how Europeans were roped into finghting a war that was at best in the sole interest of the US and at worst against European interest.
If Europe would cooperate more on military issues, that might put a stop on this. And to do this within the EU is the logical thing to do.

Which regulations do you mean? The FTT is set to be implemented in 2016 by all those who want to, if I remember correctly.

FTT is not what I had in mind, but a completely new set of regulations. Like making products illegal that exist for the sole purpose of tax evasion. Or requiring more transparency how products are bundled and rebundled. Certainly better oversight and harsher penalties for market manipulations.
And a clear separation between investment banks and loan banks.

I might be missing something, since I don't know what exactly you are talking about, but this rather looks like a positive for the UK since EU markets will become relatively less attractive.

I don't know what you mean - the regulations of financial markets which would make UK look more attractive ? I do not think so. The major advantage of the UK was, that their financial products could be sold anywhere in the EU. When they are no longer a member, I understand that those products have to be certified in some way, which will not work in every case.

[Hong Wu]

Some of the temper tantrums about destroying Britain have been lolworthy. Does the EU want a tiny version of Greece (Scotland)? Haven't they basically been parasites on the rest of the UK for decades?

[Nonsense]

I see that OSBORNE is going to make good on his threat to punish the poor for HIS gross mis-handling of the national economy.

Tax rises,plus spending cuts are his recipe, which will be a disaster for all of us.

He has already blown the Quantative Easing(Q.E) total of £375 BILLION & has been given a blank cheque to increase the national debt from the Bank of England to the tune of another £250 BILLION.


It's time to kick these 'Tory' jokers into the political wilderness along with their 'Liberal' bedfellows.

A negotiation on BREXIT should concentrate on getting the EU to disconnect the question of 'free movement' from any market settlement.
It was not right that that rule entwined with external migration allows people entering the EU from outside to do or go as they will anywhere they like in the EU & claim benefits at will.

ONLY 100% EU citizens born & bred should have such rights.

For those,I agree that the EU rule is 100% correct.

If that could be settled,I would accept any attempt at setting aside the referendum result,subject to a further referendum on the negotiatons when they conclude or,'IF' they get started.

When the new P.M is appointed,the first action should be to sack George OSBORNE.

[Thompson_NCL]

Some of the temper tantrums about destroying Britain have been lolworthy. Does the EU want a tiny version of Greece (Scotland)? Haven't they basically been parasites on the rest of the UK for decades?

No. Scotland has been paying its own way thanks to oil for the most part, but as they have just discovered, oil prices can go down.

[killim]

It's time to kick these 'Tory' jokers into the political wilderness along with their 'Liberal' bedfellows.

A negotiation on BREXIT should concentrate on getting the EU to disconnect the question of 'free movement' from any market settlement.
It was not right that that rule entwined with external migration allows people entering the EU from outside to do or go as they will anywhere they like in the EU & claim benefits at will.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that this is not possible. Like in: NOT going to happen in any case. It is just not possible.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I serioulsy doubt that. We have seen during the War for Oil (Iraq 2003) how Europeans were roped into finghting a war that was at best in the sole interest of the US and at worst against European interest.
If Europe would cooperate more on military issues, that might put a stop on this. And to do this within the EU is the logical thing to do.

You are right that the EU lends itself to it, but it isn't necessary. The obvious example to demonstrate this is the Anglo-Saxon countries' cooperation' within NATO.

What is necessary is an overall alignment of interests which doesn't currently exist in Europe, the most prominent example of misalignment being the east west divide. Having said that, there are nevertheless common interests, so cooperation still makes sense.

I don't know what you mean - the regulations of financial markets which would make UK look more attractive ? I do not think so. The major advantage of the UK was, that their financial products could be sold anywhere in the EU. When they are no longer a member, I understand that those products have to be certified in some way, which will not work in every case.

Access to the EU market is one advantage of the UK financial service sector, and not having access will hurt it, no question. But I find that Continental Europeans tend to overestimate the EU importance, as if the EU was the centre of the world. Note that TheCityUK, a UK financial services lobbying group and obviously strongly opposed to Brexit, have estimated that up to 100,000 jobs could be lost by 2020 if the UK leaves. That's their worst case scenario and, yes, it's bad, but there are 1.2 million people employed in finance in Britain. This should give you a rough idea about the extent of dependency of the finance sector on the EU. It's significant, but EU market access is far from being the only advantage of the UK as a financial service centre and it's certainly not the major advantage.

As for the regulations, they are likely to increase the UK's attractiveness post-Brexit relative to the Continent compared with a Brexit scenario where the EU doesn't start regulating the hell out of the finance sector, i.e. the UK will still be negatively impacted, but probably less.

[Albert]

What is so hard to understand about the fact that this is not possible. Like in: NOT going to happen in any case. It is just not possible.

Why is it not possible?

[noemon]

Because it is a fundamental treaty of the European Union, the free movement of goods, services, capital & people, referring of course to EU citizens, EU goods, services & capital within the EU and not non-EU.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Why is it not possible?

EU dogma about the future of the EU has so far prevented any deviation from the four pillars. Unlimited free movement is also something the Eastern European countries strongly support.

For rich countries the attractiveness to join the EU is by now quite low. The attractiveness of joining the euro is pretty much non-existent. Relatively poor and developing are still lining up for obvious reasons. Lots of conflict potential here.

[Albert]

Because it is a fundamental treaty of the European Union, the free movement of goods, services, capital & people, referring of course to EU citizens, EU goods, services & capital within the EU and not non-EU.

You are missing my point. Why in practice, 'free trade', aka abolition of tarrifs and so on; has to also come with unlimited movement of people between borders?

What you just repeated is EU dogma that it preaches, everyone knows that.

@Kaiserschmarrn Eastern Europe and other 'not so well off' countries in Europe support it because it gives their citizens benefit. This is why Camaroon had the hardest time negotiating with eastern Europe for limiting migration to Britain and stoping benefits/dole EU migrants recieve there.

[Potemkin]

You are missing my point. Why in practice, 'free trade', aka abolition of tarrifs and so on; has to also come with unlimited movement of people between borders?

Free trade is not jut the abolition of tariffs, Albert - it involves the free movement of capital and the free movement of labour power. In fact, the free movement of all the means and factors of production (except land, obviously). Abolishing tariffs is simply one aspect of permitting that free movement of capital, workers and resources, and not even the most important one. If you restrict the movement of workers across national borders, then you do not have free trade, by definition.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Not quite, Potemkin. You don't have a single market without the free movement of labour. Free trade in goods and services, movement of capital and labour together facilitate a single market.