Does the UK actually leave the EU in the next 3 years?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Vote

[ag]

The United Kingdom of Small Britain and Belfast Suburbs will leave the EU. Scotland and big chunks of Ulster will not.

[Green Line]

The United Kingdom of Small Britain and Belfast Suburbs will leave the EU. Scotland and big chunks of Ulster will not.

You're getting more and more unhinged as the night goes on.  Pop a pill, buddy!

[ag]

The United Kingdom of Small Britain and Belfast Suburbs will leave the EU. Scotland and big chunks of Ulster will not.

You're getting more and more unhinged as the night goes on.  Pop a pill, buddy!

I am happy you enjoy it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cameron resigning by October  live on BBC

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Belfast property is about to get very, very cheap as every Protestant in town sells to jump islands.

[swl]

It depends on when the UK government decides to notify the EU It wants to leave, triggering the 2 years negotiation period. It won't happen under Cameron apparently, so October at the earliest. Then if they decide to have new general elections it could be delayed further. And finally if negotiations start in early 2017, they will be difficult because both France and Germany will have elections and their government won't have a clear mandate. So we can imagine a scenario where the 2 years negotiation period only starts at the end of 2017.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here's a loophole that could prevent Brexit:

-UK hashes out a leaving agreement in the next two years.
-Calls for a second referendum on accepting that agreement.
-Referendum fails on buyer's remorse.
-Brexit is cancelled.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Here's a loophole that could prevent Brexit:

-UK hashes out a leaving agreement in the next two years.
-Calls for a second referendum on accepting that agreement.
-Referendum fails on buyer's remorse.
-Brexit is cancelled.

You know, could they follow this game plan, and send a terrible agreement to voters on purpose so that they would vote to stay?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Note that the referendum was not legally binding. The government is politically pledged to act on the but not constitutionally so. This means that the situation is uncertain and dependent on political considerations rather than legal ones.

It depends on when the UK government decides to notify the EU It wants to leave, triggering the 2 years negotiation period. It won't happen under Cameron apparently, so October at the earliest. Then if they decide to have new general elections it could be delayed further. And finally if negotiations start in early 2017, they will be difficult because both France and Germany will have elections and their government won't have a clear mandate. So we can imagine a scenario where the 2 years negotiation period only starts at the end of 2017.

The 'plan' (and pro-Leave Tories have said the same!) seems to be to stretch things out almost indefinitely. Christ knows with what goal.

[ag]

Note that the referendum was not legally binding. The government is politically pledged to act on the but not constitutionally so. This means that the situation is uncertain and dependent on political considerations rather than legal ones.

It depends on when the UK government decides to notify the EU It wants to leave, triggering the 2 years negotiation period. It won't happen under Cameron apparently, so October at the earliest. Then if they decide to have new general elections it could be delayed further. And finally if negotiations start in early 2017, they will be difficult because both France and Germany will have elections and their government won't have a clear mandate. So we can imagine a scenario where the 2 years negotiation period only starts at the end of 2017.

The 'plan' (and pro-Leave Tories have said the same!) seems to be to stretch things out almost indefinitely. Christ knows with what goal.

If I were a Pro-EU Britisher I would insist on starting the process immediately. Likewise, if I were German. Long protracted negotiations will only exacerbate the uncertainty. Raus means Raus.

[ag]

BTW, is it clear that EU itself cannot consider the referendum to be the invocation of Article 50? Because I am pretty certain many Europeans do not want to wait.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/top-eu-leader-we-want-britain-out-as-soon-as-possible?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[ingemann]

Note that the referendum was not legally binding. The government is politically pledged to act on the but not constitutionally so. This means that the situation is uncertain and dependent on political considerations rather than legal ones.

It depends on when the UK government decides to notify the EU It wants to leave, triggering the 2 years negotiation period. It won't happen under Cameron apparently, so October at the earliest. Then if they decide to have new general elections it could be delayed further. And finally if negotiations start in early 2017, they will be difficult because both France and Germany will have elections and their government won't have a clear mandate. So we can imagine a scenario where the 2 years negotiation period only starts at the end of 2017.

The 'plan' (and pro-Leave Tories have said the same!) seems to be to stretch things out almost indefinitely. Christ knows with what goal.

If I were a Pro-EU Britisher I would insist on starting the process immediately. Likewise, if I were German. Long protracted negotiations will only exacerbate the uncertainty. Raus means Raus.

EU have said before the election, that in case of leave, they want the process to start as early as possible. The rest of EU have no interest in having UK at the table any longer and the faster UK leave the better. But realistic at best we look forward to UK leaving in 2 to 2,5 years. Of course UK will likely be ignored from now on on all other subjects than the Brexit. Their interests are no longer relevant to the rest of the members, only in the parliament will they have any influence at all..

[Illiniwek]

Here's a loophole that could prevent Brexit:

-UK hashes out a leaving agreement in the next two years.
-Calls for a second referendum on accepting that agreement.
-Referendum fails on buyer's remorse.
-Brexit is cancelled.

What are the odds of a second referendum though? I certainly am not getting my hopes up.

[Silent Hunter]

Here's a loophole that could prevent Brexit:

-UK hashes out a leaving agreement in the next two years.
-Calls for a second referendum on accepting that agreement.
-Referendum fails on buyer's remorse.
-Brexit is cancelled.

Any agreement would have be to ratified by the European Parliament... and the member states, IIRC.

[Simfan34]

Note that the referendum was not legally binding. The government is politically pledged to act on the but not constitutionally so. This means that the situation is uncertain and dependent on political considerations rather than legal ones.

It depends on when the UK government decides to notify the EU It wants to leave, triggering the 2 years negotiation period. It won't happen under Cameron apparently, so October at the earliest. Then if they decide to have new general elections it could be delayed further. And finally if negotiations start in early 2017, they will be difficult because both France and Germany will have elections and their government won't have a clear mandate. So we can imagine a scenario where the 2 years negotiation period only starts at the end of 2017.

The 'plan' (and pro-Leave Tories have said the same!) seems to be to stretch things out almost indefinitely. Christ knows with what goal.

If I were a Pro-EU Britisher I would insist on starting the process immediately. Likewise, if I were German. Long protracted negotiations will only exacerbate the uncertainty. Raus means Raus.

This would not make much sense, unless I was pro-EU in the sense that I supported the European Union in general, rather than Britain being in the EU. I would imagine the latter type of person would also prefer if the process dragged on without any fixed end date, which could only make an actual exit less likely as time went on-- which would be exactly what I want, no?

Virtually no one claims that the process can be completed in 3 years. The minimum date according to Liam Fox is 2019; Tusk has said 7 years, and people consider that to be wildly unrealistic. The only way it would happen is if the British government invoked Article 50 in the next year and, as would be the likely result, was kicked out two years later with negotiations still very, very, very far from being complete. This is the kind of worst-case scenario that I imagine only Nigel Farage or someone actively wishing to do harm to the UK-- eg, Nicola Sturgeon or, apparently, ag-- would be willing to let occur.

I can't imagine there not being an inter-party consensus to not invoke Article 50 until the country was "ready" to leave; whatever that ends up meaning, it probably won't happen within the next 3 years. Since the EU can't actually do until Article 50 is invoked, except for possibly expelling Britain (which, if that's actually possible, presumably would require the unanimous support of the other members, which definitely is impossible), I'm pretty sure that no, the UK will not leave the EU within the next 3 years. IF it ultimately ends up leaving I'm split as to whether it will even happen within the next ten years.

[ag]

I imagine only Nigel Farage or someone actively wishing to do harm to the UK-- eg, Nicola Sturgeon or, apparently, ag-- would be willing to let occur.

This is a grave accusation, I object to. I do not want to harm UK - but neither do I want to harm the EU.

As long as secession is announced but not implemented, UK status within the Union is going to become untenable, as time passes - and it will be a source of grave aggravation among the other members. The other 27 will be constantly discussing whatever policies or changes they want to introduce. What is the role of the UK? Its consent would still needed - to do anything in an institution it has declared itself abandoning. UK MEPs would continue voting on legislation for others. A UK-appointed EU commissioner for whatever will be making rulings his only country claims not to be bound by. This is hugely destructive for the EU, in the first place, which would be losing more of its legitimacy among the Germans, the Poles and the Irish by tolerating it.

Nor will this delay help the UK. Lengthy negotiations with an uncertain end will make it impossible to  to plan any long-term business or personal strategy. If you are HSBC, do you move to Frankfurt or stay in London? If you are BMW, do you open a factory in Birmingham or not? If you are some local firm, competing with an international giant - do you invest in British production, counting on the foreigners leaving or not? If you are a Polish electrician, do you move to Liverpool, counting that you will still be able to live there after the final secession, or do you move to Lyons, since Brits would expel you while your kid is in the 4th grade of a British school? If you are a Britisher planning to retire, do you buy that house in Alicante or do you go to Bournemouth instead? Until and unless those treaties are done, nobody knows.

Divorce is not something you want to take 10 years to work through, from announcement to a final decision on who gets your cat´s tail, and who takes the ears. If marriage is, indeed, over, you want it to be over fast.  Even if you have hopes to salvage it, protracted divorce procedings are not the way to go. You want the realization that it is over to hit there - that is the only way anybody will take time and effort to reconsider. Slow divorce only means acrimony.