I know we are commited to leaving the EU but since we are a) fully paid up members and currently net contributors to the EU and b) haven't yet triggered the leaving process and so are effectively still 'IN' and impacted by decisions made, why are we excluded from said summits? Have we 'taken our bat home' or are we not invited to these events? Can't see why TM can't turn up and rock the boat a bit.
So if you are not invited to the party should you have to keep paying for admission ? Besides we should at least be allowed to sit in the naughty corner and listen to what is going on even if we can't actually contribute to the discussions. I assume we are still paying for the junket that all the other leaders are enjoying.
Why? We've voted to leave it's got fcuck all to do with us anymore. And as for paying, we probably are, maybe they could use some of that 350 million quid a week..... Oh.
Been reading a few articles in the foreign papers regarding Brexit . One article in Der Spiegel was saying how difficult Brexit makes it for Germany , they now have to find funds pretty quickly to help the EU balance its budgets . I had never realised just how much we , and Germany actually paid in . It seems quite incredible that our two contributions are more than the rest of the EU put together .....by several billions. Uk and Germany 28.3 billion The rest combined 19 billion.
Mmm. Weren't you one of the biggest proponents of Brexit on here? - *this* is exactly what was voted for. People wanted out, and now the rest of the club are making plans for how to continue once we have gone. So there is absolutely no point us being there.
Don't blame them after the consensus of idiotic voters followed the blond idiot and farrage who has made a living from the EU and now neither of them give a ****. ..
Assuming we still have a veto on any new madcap schemes they come up with whilst we are still actually members of the EU.
Who said we all followed Farage and Boris. I voted out as the Euro is doomed it cannot work as countries cannot control their own interest rates and the EU is a failing organisation with people like Junckers, Merkel and Hollande all talking about greater union whilst all of them really have an agenda looking after their own national interests .
Johnson is the Foreign Secretary so will be heavily involved and Nigel Farage who couldn't influence anything due to not being in government in any way .
The best we can hope for is that they realise they will have to keep working with us free of tarriffs outside the EU given the balance of trade between us and Germany, etc. They're probably more likely to do this in our absence rather than be seen to capitulate with us present?
Just before we get this thread moved to the outer boundaries again..... a question! We all have different views on this issue, and each is to be respected. But I'd hope we can agree on this: we don't know what the final deal will look like. We may or may not retain full or partial single market participation. We may or may not retain full or partial free movement of peoples. We may or may not fully exit both of these arrangements. We don't know these things now, and we certainly didn't know them at the time of the referndum. So are we saying that this important issue should have been put to the people when we didn't have knowledge on these things, but we will not allow them to decide once we do? I'm struggling with the logic of that! A sort of Blind Man's EU Buff!
I think that's a reasonable position. The problem is that the EU quite reasonably will refuse to discuss some/most of those issues until we have triggered Article 50.
Actually it is quite funny watching Renzi trying to take the vacant chair at the 'Top Table with Germany and France'. He is trying to manoeuvre Italy into being one of the big three as a replacement to the UK. The problem for him though is that Italy is a drain on EU resources being part of 'ClubMed' whereas UK was (and currently still is) a major contributor to the EU coffers. ONly Merkel seems to realize without the UK the EU project is really coming off the rails and Junckers and the rest of the commission seem to be 'whistling past the graveyard' and in total denial. Agree with Orsen Khat's comments above that a) none of us know what will be the final offer after negotiation on the single market and migration policy and also b) that any final decision whether to accept is far to important to rubber stamp without the UK voters having a say. However, I fail to see on point b) that there is any mechanism to do that since once you trigger the exit process (according to the very short 'back of a *** packet' section regarding member state withdrawal in the EU rules) there is very little detail on how the process works. This is because the EU commission were too arrogant to think anyone would ever want to leave the club. I still think most of it is academic as it will all fold sooner rather than later and we should really be focussed on life after the EU rather than trying too hard to stay in. I can't imagine many people who managed to get a seat in a lifeboats struggling to get back on the deck of the Titanic. More likely to spend their energy rowing away as fast as they could to get clear of the undertow and avoid getting sucked down with the ship as it sinks. More and more academic opinion seems to beopenly stating that the EU or more specifically the Euro is doomed and you cant have the EU as they want it to be without the Euro.
Tekktyke, Article 50 prescribes that any withdrawal will be in accordance with the member state's own constitutional arrangements. TM thinks she can do this under the royal prerogative but I think she is wrong. RP can't trump act of parliament, so there will have to be a vote in parliament before the European Communities Act 1972 could be repealed. It's perfectly possible that if given a vote, MP's will vote to give effect to the will of the people. If she attempts to activate without parliamentary approval then those bringing the legal case will seek an injunction until it is determined. The case will go all the way to the Supreme Court, whichever way it goes. And probably ultimately (delicious irony) to the ECHR! Whatever the final outcome, it's going to take a long, long time.