"Angela Merkel sees no chance of British U-turn on Brexit"

[crossroads3]

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/angela-merkel-sees-no-chance-of-british-u-turn-on-brexit/amp/#

So is that it then - can the rest of the EU do this despite the fact that Article 50 has not been invoked and it looks like no one really wants to?

I realise that they can't allow the instability to carry on, but legally the UK will be an EU member until Article 50 is detonated or whatever the expression is? It's not actually up to the other countries??

Yup, the EU cannot kick the UK out, and the UK has not left until it invokes article 50. However,ignorimg the referendum result would be political suicide, and I'm sure the EU could make it very uncomfortable for us, on the other hand the referendum result was political suicide too, and we seem to be oretty thick skinned when it comes to what the EU thinks of us...

So why is Merkel making these factless kinds of statements ?

Beginning to feel hopeless now. Because of Merkel .

it's all to punish us. there will be a deal. but they are playing hard. thet have to. we will end up being gratefu to be allowed any concessioon.

dont forget that if we leave, the whole eu "project" will be in jeopardy. its in their interests to strike a deal.

She's saying that because the apparent indecision by the UK (we don't even have leaders anymore) creates a jittery time for the EU.

Basically, it's akin to your husband telling you he wants a divorce, before deciding he wants to continue living in the same house as you for the time being. He hasn't signed the divorce papers either. It makes it difficult to really continue your life.

Because whilst they cannot kick the UK out, in the real world they are out already. DC is being excluded from talks, various UK EU folk have resigned already.

The UK maintaining this limbo situation is good for no-one , hence why the EU won't begin negotiations until we invoke article 50 - this needs to be done quickly, and all of the planning needed should have been done before the referendum to facilitate this.

Maybe she's saying it because she believes in democracy.

And if we ignore democracy we peel back years and years of progress.

Guys, just watch this. He's very frank (it is 'Hardtalk' after all) about how Europe views the UK right now. It's 30 minutes long, but very informative. Radek Sikorski is the former Polish foreign minister and knows BoJo from Oxford.

Hardtalk interview with Radek Sikorski

GoodStuffAnnie

I said this before, I'll say this again. If you think "Democracy" is all about holding the results of a glorified opinion poll as something holy, thing again.

By your definition, America would still have slavery now, if it had all boiled down to ONE referendum of keeping slaves or not.

Because I'm pretty sure the first one would have been a 'keeper'.

We could do a U-turn, she can't actually kick us out. The referendum isn't legally binding and it hasn't been ratified by our Parliament. I think she'd have a massive legal battle if we said we're staying. It's not as if there's a precedent for this.

She's signalling clearly that we can't drag it out as long as we like while we decide the terms - or rather quickly make up policies - because it's creating massive instability.

If only Labour were in good shape and could form an alliance with the LibDems & Scotland and oppose leave democratically, I think that would be the only shot.

.

Did America have a referenda about slavery? I didn't know that.

It's not a glorified opinion poll it's a vote. We HAVE to uphold it otherwise we have nothing.

GoodStuffAnnie

It's an opinion poll. It's not legally binding. Several referendums elsewhere have been ignored.

About slavery - the confederate states wanted to secede because they wanted to keep slavery and 'take back control'. Well - you no longer have the confederate states these days, do you. It's now the United States of America.

Interesting snowbells, I think the guy is taking this personally as well which colours his view.

at the end of day its going to come down to money isn't it, he says the EU will be hard pushed to give us a deal better than Norway when our economy is FIVE TIMES bigger than Norway.

who needs our money? what do we need?

Its a house of cards, do they want to push it by being hard or do they want too give us a deal that matches our weight? Tricky.

Oh lord.

Bringing slavery into it now. If anyone is the slaves here its the poor of the EU working for a higher goal of the winners of the union which ain't the common man.

Your framing that in a really strange way.

RainYourRottingMyDhaliaBulbs

I gave you an example - what would happen if we just listen to the minor majority ONCE, and then shut up, never to talk about the topic again. Likely, slavery would still be there.

Who allows zero hour contracts? Who wants you to give your life for your employer? It's the UK government. Not the EU.

The European Commission actually reprimanded the UK over zero hour contracts. This is what they said:

"It is important that people on zero-hours contracts do not become trapped in a succession of short-term, low quality jobs with inadequate social protection. The UK has an obligation to ensure compliance with the working conditions standards set by EU labour law, including paid annual leave proportionate to time worked and respect for the Working Time Directive."

If you want to make a case for the poor of Britain, you're backing the wrong side.

Snowbells thanks for the interview link. It is very sobering viewing.

RainYourRottingMyDhaliaBulbs

our economy is FIVE TIMES bigger than Norway

Read the casualties thread. Our economy will weaken at a fast rate.

'Our economy' is not a static thing! Watch this space: soon you might be rid of all the migrants you so dread because they tend to go where there is a strong economy. I am an EU immigrant (living in the uk for a very long time) from one of the countries that has suffered hugely through the financial crisis and I don't wish it anyone, not to my worst enemy.