EU Referendum / BREXIT

[Renegade Vile]

This concerns me personally. The only reason I can live and work here in Ireland is because I have EU treaty rights. I'm not sure what this means for me being here. At the moment I have my papers in order until 2019, but after that (I don't think before it) I may lose all rights to be here.

My wife has similar concerns. We live in Belgium, but she's a UK resident. She has a temporary card that got permanently extended because we're married and have a child. Normally there shouldn't be an issue, but she might be in bureaucratic hell for a bit, including for travel in and out of the country on her id card -or- her UK passport...
I'm going to have to check whether I need to get a passport too, since the UK normally fell under the Treaty of Shengen so my id could just function as my passport. I doubt this will change, but you never know. I hope you get some clarity soon; my wife's nervous, either way.

[AmberStarfire]

I'm sorry to hear your family are facing this situation too, RV. Looking up information online, it seems like British ex-pats won't need to leave other countries overnight, but I'm not sure to what extent it varies by country. Is the Brexit vote decided now or is it still ongoing?

I'm in the Republic of Ireland so it's not a part of the UK, but my husband has a UK passport, which is why I can be here. I probably could apply for a UK passport myself, but again that isn't going to help me. I'm looking online to find out how it will affect me but so far I haven't found the information I'm looking for.

[Lilias]

I'm looking online to find out how it will affect me but so far I haven't found the information I'm looking for.

This might help, concerning the ROI. The UK literature hasn't been updated yet, which is only to be expected. Whenever the break is implemented, it is likely to mean residence cards for all at first.

[AmberStarfire]

Thanks Lilias. I've been legally resident for over 8 years, so I could likely remain on those grounds. However, when I was going from temporary visas to the EU Treaty Rights, it was the latter that I needed, so I'm not sure.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Well, Mr.Juncker said just before the referendum that if there was a Remain win there would be nothing further that Cameron could get in negotiations with the EU, no further whittling down on anything (and this likely helped the Exit side) but he may just have been trying a tough tactic. perhaps showing off that "if the Brits vote out, they won't be getting an easy ride either, so watch your step" .- without coming right out and saying it.   ;)

Maybe have to count in that some of the things politicians would be saying, in the UK and in Europe, will be more about position fighting or about trying to stick to a certain line than about their real limits to what they're gonna accept.

If EU officials make any concesions to the Brits during exit negotiations they will shoot themselves in the foot. If the UK is, essentially, allowed to be "in" while being "out" everyone would go that way and it would be the end of the EU. Or, at least, that's the conventional wisdom, far as I can tell.

[gaggedLouise]

If EU officials make any concesions to the Brits during exit negotiations they will shoot themselves in the foot. If the UK is, essentially, allowed to be "in" while being "out" everyone would go that way and it would be the end of the EU. Or, at least, that's the conventional wisdom, far as I can tell.

Yes, but Juncker meant Cameron's bid to "renegotiate" some key parts of Britain's membership deal after a win. Which he had hoped to get, but didn't, of course. So it would have been "in, but better off" not "out but still in". Of course "in, but with a revamped deal" could have been a puller for more countries to try to go the same way, but the UK is a much bigger player in the EU than Slovakia, Hungary or Belgium, so it's always had better chances of getting its own way.

[Kythia]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/british-lose-right-to-claim-that-americans-are-dumber

[Lilias]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/british-lose-right-to-claim-that-americans-are-dumber

Until The Donald is elected, at least.

http://fusion.net/story/318640/delete-your-golf-course/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fusion&utm_content=link

[Kythia]

Until The Donald is elected, at least.

http://fusion.net/story/318640/delete-your-golf-course/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fusion&utm_content=link

That's true, there's light on the horizon. Fingers crossed they're stupider than us when given the chance. I do enjoy making fun of them.

[Cycle]

Apparently Cameron is resigning.  Well, at least the man has class. 

If he were in the U.S., he'd be calling for a recount, accusing the system of being rigged, demanding that his supporters go out and protest, seeking the ouster of every election official, and insisting that regardless of the math he can still win!!!

[TheGlyphstone]

To be fair, if Cameron had to pay millions of pounds out-of-pocket to become Prime Minister in the first place, in addition to whatever donations and supporters he accumulated, he might be a bit less rational/more emotionally invested in keeping what he'd "won".

Some days I'm envious of countries like the UK for having what looks like a far more sensible form of government. Other times I'm more keenly aware of the flaws that parliamentary government has. I'm not sure which one today is.

[Azrael]

the result is an unmitigated disaster, and one that nobody has got anything from.  Farage is marching around like a smug twat declaring victory, and the Leavers are thrilled.  except that everything the Leave campaign promised was a lie that they withdrew hours after winning.  So even if you were a small minded racist, you still haven't won, because Britain will not be cutting immigration.  or cutting EU red tape, or funding the NHS.  the referendum has done nothing but cause severe harm economically, and for the future.

[gaggedLouise]

The fastest route to applying some kind of damage control, once they start negotiating (in July or in a few months time?), might be to go for putting Britain inside the EEA sphere, like Norway and Iceland. A kind of margin "quarter-member status". But it would really mean most of the supposed goals of the Brexit campaign - taking back a firmer control of what laws apply in the UK, cutting red tape, stopping free movement of people with Europe - would effectively vapourize. Norway is a rich country because of its oil fields, but it still has to accept a lot of what the EU decide about trade and economy, without much of a chance to pitch its own demands. If they pushed their feet into the ground and made definite demands, the EU would just be able to threaten cutting down on their EEA status and the trade agreements they are enjoying. Plus the UK, as an EEA but non-EU country, would still be paying most or all of its EU membership fee, but getting no investments, no support in return. That would be a real nail in the eye to Farage, Boris and most people from the Brexit campaign.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/24/the-sky-has-not-fallen-after-brexit-but-we-face-years-of-hard-la/

[Azrael]

all of those goals have gone already, Leave abandoned them yesterday.

the 'Norway option' is the best chance we have left, and that is just ending up with a much worse version of what we had to begin with.

[HairyHeretic]

And that's not going to happen.

England is going to get hammered HARD for this, because if they aren't, it's going to give other leave movements in other countries the idea that they can do this too.

The way things look now there's a good chance that Scotland may go for independence in order to remain within the EU, and can use the same arguements as England did for leaving it. You also have the majority of Northern Ireland voted stay, and some rumbling about making it part of the Republic again. That could potentially see a flare up of trouble again along sectarian lines, though I'd like to hope peace has had enough of a chance to sink in that it wouldn't.

There's also news stories saying some of the larger multinationals are uneasy about this, and while they may not openly pull out, there may be a surprising lack of new (or even renewed) projects in England, as opposed to other counties.

[Nachtmahr]

The fastest route to applying some kind of damage control, once they start negotiating (in July or in a few months time?), might be to go for putting Britain inside the EEA sphere, like Norway and Iceland. A kind of margin "quarter-member status". But it would really mean most of the supposed goals of the Brexit campaign - taking back a firmer control of what laws apply in the UK, cutting red tape, stopping free movement of people with Europe - would effectively vapourize. Norway is a rich country because of its oil fields, but it still has to accept a lot of what the EU decide about trade and economy, without much of a chance to pitch its own demands. If they pushed their feet into the ground and made definite demands, the EU would just be able to threaten cutting down on their EEA status and the trade agreements they are enjoying. Plus the UK, as an EEA but non-EU country, would still be paying most or all of its EU membership fee, but getting no investments, no support in return. That would be a real nail in the eye to Farage, Boris and most people from the Brexit campaign.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/24/the-sky-has-not-fallen-after-brexit-but-we-face-years-of-hard-la/

I believe that it's been said by EU officials that this is very unlike to happen, if not entirely ruled out at this point. The problem is that if this referendum ends up only having the one consequence that the UK "Takes back control" of it's laws and such, then a dozen other countries are going to start replicating it, and the EU will break regardless. If the UK really wants out, it has to accept the consequences of this decision and get out, or they can choose to stay in and be a member on the same terms as other member countries, and help shape upcoming EU-reforms that will solve of the perceived problems with the EU as it is now.

Special treatment really isn't much of an option, and as others have pointed out in this thread (At least I seem to remember that it was pointed out at some point) Norway is still bound by the majority of the same rules and laws as other EU countries.

It seems like the issue people have with the EU is that it's leadership is too centralized and has too much authority, and yet people also want the EU as an organization to take full responsibility for anything bad happening in a member state. It's like people are asking for the EU to actively just be a scapegoat, as they want them to be responsible and keep everyone safe and happy while not making any executive decisions on anyone's behalf, which is never going to work out. It's like asking the centralized government of the U.S.A. to not make laws on behalf of individual states and uphold the constitution, but still accept full responsibility of any negative event whilst powerless to do anything about it.

I think it's very important that members of the EU retain their individual cultural identity, and I think it's slightly hyperbolic to imagine a "United States of Europe". Such a thing would hardly be possible, and it would be inherently undemocratic as smaller countries would stand to have less authority than larger ones, making full cooperation almost impossible. And would everyone have to be taught English or German as a first language, with their own being secondary? The political micro-management of such an undertaking would be beyond anyone, especially with nationalism and right-wing tendencies on the rise. But if we want to be progressive and move forwards then we have to work together on a global scale. We have to accept that we can't keep clinging to all our values for all eternity, and eventually we will all have to give a little in order to take a little. We're probably never going to be all the same, but we need to work on the radical barriers between cultures and accept that some people and some regions don't think or feel the way we do.

Or maybe that's all just me and I certainly won't claim to be an expert of any kind. I just think we need more cooperation and teamwork to overcome the problems we're facing, not less. I think we need to be careful with decisions like the one the UK just made. It might end up going well or it might turn out to be a catastrophe, we can't really do anything but guess and look at predictions right now. I'm sure a lot of people are hoping it goes wrong just so that they can have their "Told you so!"-moment, but I don't think that's a healthy attitude.

If one thing worries me about the UK right now.. It would probably have to be the very public presence of people like Boris Johnson who frankly seems to have little to no idea what he's doing. I don't think the comparison to Donald Trump is entirely unjustified.

I hope this wasn't too sentimental?

[Stan']

The "exit" vote is a surprise.  For years, the EU has been a sinking ship (looking at the likes of Greece, etc) and it's quite obvious that there needs to be major changes to the way it is run.  If not, then there will be many more countries starting to question their membership.

The "out of touch" bureaucrats in Brussels certainly didn't help their cause by promising to make it as difficult as possible if Britain decided to leave.  Anyway, good to see the "remain" side have lost the vote with dignity, and haven't resorted to name calling, respecting people's opinions by not calling them stupid and demanding a second, third or fourth vote until they get their way... oh wait...

[gaggedLouise]

Yes, I agree many of the problems the Brexit voters felt caught up in are really about globalization rather than just the EU. Globalization of work, free-moving capital streams in and out of Europe and eroding local industry/business, the loss of political initiative and so on. And how it's become much harder to keep up a sensible tax policy, because most big corporations can relocate to some other place, or they'll have leverage over the government anyway. It's about China and the global economy as much as it is about the EU - but the bumbling, heavy-handed politics of the EU over the last ten years haven't been helpful. I don't think the idea of a "united federal Europe" (a hardline USE in some form) has strong popular support anywhere, except in a few countries where the national government has traditionally been the weak boy and Brussels, then, is seen as the big guy who can actually get things done, who does the heavy lifting, but the UK is not that kind of a country. It has a huge amount of pride and belief in itself, and cabinets that are actually used to getting something done, moved into reality from their own ideas.

The EU inner circle really needs to pull back on some of its bold assertions of where they are planning to go; they feel old, the whole idea of a centralized and quasi-infallible Euro government has smelled of dead fish for quite some time now. Also, I think there's a north-south cultural divide here. French and Italian politicians and thinkers are used to making bold, sweeping overstatements and sounding like they are standing with the carved tablets of the law in their hands when they discuss Europe and politics, there's that kind of high-flying, Latin rethorical style, and well, Germany has adopted that manner sometimes too. They don't always mean what they say as literal fact statements or even as bids for what they expect to get, it's more for show, a wall of theatrical talk. This is really confusing to many of us from "northern " cultures 'cause we're used to a more matter-of-fact approach in politics and law, a bit more sober and with much clearer lines separating the lofty ambitions (or theories) and the actual things that people are trying to achieve.

[Nachtmahr]

Anyway, good to see the "remain" side have lost the vote with dignity, and haven't resorted to name calling, respecting people's opinions by not calling them stupid and demanding a second, third or fourth vote until they get their way... oh wait...

Pardon me, but wasn't this the tactic of the "Leave" campaign from the beginning? At least, that's my impression from what I've heard coming from them.

[Suiko]

I think that whichever way the vote went, the 'loosing' side would react badly - it's been a really important vote that's affected everybody, so obviously there'll be heated reactions.

I also think that it would be wrong in any election or vote to demand another one just because you didn't get the result you wanted - that's how democracy works. I didn't want a conservitive government, but that's how the votes were tallied.  That's how it goes sometimes.

[Nachtmahr]

I don't think this whole thing with wanting another vote is just up to people being displeased that they didn't get the result they wanted. This is a monumental decision that's been made, and the winning side won with less than 2% which really isn't a convincing victory. It would also seem that a lot of people made an uninformed decision or voted against their own interests out of spite, assuming the "Leave" side was destined to loose.

Having another vote probably wouldn't be entirely amiss in a situation as tense as this one. If "Leave"-enthusiasts are confident that they've won this, then I don't see why they wouldn't want another vote. (I mean, other than the obvious answer.)

If I were a UK citizen I would probably have voted to stay, and you might argue that I'm biased because of that.. But I think a second vote to confirm the result now that people have an increased awareness of the potential ramifications would be sensible. If it turns out that the "Leave"-majority was a fluke then.. Yeah, there's really no way to just annul all of this.

Even if it doesn't come down to a vote, then at least a national poll of some kind wouldn't go amiss once everything that's happened has settled in and the potential consequences (Both good and bad) appear more clear.

[Suiko]

I can see your point, but whichever way the vote landed you could always say that some people made an uninformed decision - you can't go through every household and make sure that everyone knows what they're talking about. True, 2% isn't a lot, but over a million people is a fair few.

And again, whichever way the vote landed, it would always be wrong to have another vote because it didn't go the way you wanted it to. It's like in general elections people don't demand second votes because their party didn't get in, unless there's suspected altering of ballots or something.

And I don't think that the potential ramifications can be judged yet, it's barely been over 24 hours and everything is still up in the air, in full panic mode and nothing has had chance to even remotely settle yet.

If there was to be another vote (and I still don't think there should be) then there needs to be time at least for the climate to calm down slightly - adding yet another slew of uncertainty into the mix right now wouldn't help matters.

[Suiko]

Also just a PS to the general thread, I hope I'm not coming across as rude. Politics are dirty and hard to discuss, but I definitely don't want to offend/upset anyone or whatever.

[Nachtmahr]

I'm the same as you: I'm not here to upset or hurt anyone. Even if the two of us do disagree on this issue, it's nothing personal. :)

Anyways, back on topic..

Well.. No, you can't really go around and making sure that everyone has all the facts and statistics at hand before making any political decision, but this is not a general election, and thus I feel like it's not a very relevant comparison? If you elect a government that the majority of the people later distrusts or dislikes, said government can be removed by the people.

This decision to leave the EU doesn't come with a panic-button or an ejector seat. If you're out you're out. I think, if anything, something as dramatic as this would be a good excuse for implementing a "Failsafe" vote of some kind. Having a second vote in a year or so just to make sure that people still want this probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

Less than 2% of a 72% turnout just doesn't feel like enough to justify making this decision in my mind. If another vote was had and the same result occurred with "Leave" taking winning by a similar amount, then sure, they've one. But this? This honestly feels like it's within the margin of error. It's hard to say how they remaining 28% of voters would have voted, and it's their own fault for not showing up.. But I just feel like this is too dramatic to just go "Well, 1,5-2% said out, so we're out!".

[Suiko]

The thing is the issue is so divisive. It is something that seems to be genuinely split down the middle, so I honestly think that the results would never be by an overly significant margin. How many times would you want to hold a vote before saying enough is enough? What's would you define as a definite margin?

What if it was held again, and this time the Remain side won by 2%? Would that suddenly be fine because it's Remain? Would there then need to be yet another one because of slim margins? It could go on forever.