All the problems are solved by threatening someone with a gun. It's the basis for a great society. The negotiation period for exiting EU has always been 2 years, it has nothing to do with delays. Do you think you can negotiate millions of pages of contracts, obligations and agreements in a few weeks or something?
It was to be triggered by article 50 immediately and the referendum vote was to be final, without an additional approval by parliament. Every day that passes is one step closer to never. Today's news: Sir Richard Branson funding new campaign group to fight Brexit ... https://www.theguardian.com › World › EU referendum and Brexit 15 hours ago Apparently the 'it's a done deal' isn't shared by all.
Once government "gets control over you", it's almost impossible to get that control relinquished. Historically, it has taken guns and bloodshed! Even if Brexit "sticks", the EU will make it as painful, punitive, and expensive as possible. Besides their financial greed and power lust, the EU would want to make an example to other EU members... "Don't F with the EU." (Which is interesting. The European countries voluntarily banded together to form the EU... with the presumption it would benefit all members. What they actually got... was the modern version of Hitler's desire to dominate and control all of Europe under his thumb.)
No it wasn't. There was no obligation by the government to ever trigger it, legally. They could've just said "so 51% of the people are misguided" and ignore it. I'm pretty sure the brexiteers have sobered up and a new vote would be something like 60/40 for remain. All these "patriots" will fade to the background once they can't get payday loans any longer.
Brexit isn't going to happen. The British government is going to simply ignore the vote. That is what happens when you let your government disarm you.
You're completely delusional. EU is trying to make it hard for the UK because there was so much wasted time trying to make UK happy as they always had so many special requests. Most Americans don't understand how deeply EU affects every citizen, it's not like you could or should jump out of the union with ease. EU's point is to counter American, Chinese and perhaps Russian power in the world. It's been a success in many ways and failure in others. I suppose of California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii wanted to form a new country, the rest of the states would make it easy for them? Give me a break, they would probably oppose it militarily in the end.
I never said the referendum legally required the govt to trigger article 50. I said the gov't stated it was going to do it immediately (Cameron spoke of an intention to trigger the Article 50 process immediately following a leave vote and of the "two-year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit."[36]) from wikepedia.... and that there was no obligation or need to get any votes from parliament. And now they're not doing it immediately and the losers have gone to court to require a vote in parliament. It's not going at all like the gov't promised and why don't you just admit it.
Cameron isn't around any longer. I find it amazing so many take what politicians say literally, the naivete is is mind-blowing. It went to the courts because there was a case, you apparently want a situation where the head of the government says something and that's final, luckily we have checks on power.
Here's a bit more to consider, take it or leave it, I liked the different perspective. The folly of triggering Article 50 "Immediately after the Brexit vote, all the analysis I saw argued that Article 50 would not be triggered for some time. They all made a simple mistake: they were thinking rationally about what would be best for the UK. Rick has an excellent analogy that elaborates on one that I and others have used, and it really would be best if you read his blog rather than for me just to repeat it. The conclusion, which this earlier analysis I mentioned had also come to, is that triggering Article 50 without any kind of idea about what any agreement would look like puts the UK in a very weak negotiating position. "This is why the EU were pressing for Article 50 to be triggered as soon as possible. Their real fear is that the prospect but not the actuality of the UK leaving would hang over them for years, and that was the UK’s strongest card. Before playing this card the UK could at least get a clear idea of what the EU might be prepared to offer, and possibly get some commitments that sketch the broad outlines of any deal. Once Article 50 is triggered, the UK will be far more desperate for a deal than the EU. It would only be a slight exaggeration to say it allows the EU to dictate terms. Triggering Article 50 was our best card, yet it is a card that Theresa May is determined to throw away. "Just to emphasise the point, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether you voted to Remain or Leave. Anyone who actually wants a good deal from the EU when we leave should realise that the UK’s negotiating position becomes instantly weaker once Article 50 is triggered. I do not know whether those who have successfully pushed for triggering Article 50 so soon simply live in a deluded state where they think that the UK will be in the stronger negotiating position, or whether they are desperately afraid that if it is not done soon people will go off the whole idea of leaving. But whichever it is, it is an act of folly, whether you want to leave or not. It substantially increases the likelihood of getting a bad deal. "As for Labour’s position, I’m afraid all I can say is you were warned. Jolyon Maugham describes Labour’s position as checkmating itself, but I strongly suspect this is a match the Labour leadership do not want to win. The fact that others in the PLP are content to go along with this does not make it any better. As I wrote at the time, all this was one very good reason for voting for Smith rather than Corbyn. "And if Labour wants to position itself as being the party that can make a success of Brexit, that road spells doom. If MPs think they can avoid losing votes to UKIP or the Conservatives in their traditional heartlands by adopting this line (or trying to be all things to everyone and therefore in reality champion of nothing), they will lose many more votes in their new heartlands than they will save in the old. Many voters feel much more attached to Europe than they do to Labour. This is something I have argued for some time, and this poll suggests I am right. If Labour backs Brexit they will get less votes than the Liberal Democrats. As I also wrote during the Labour leadership election, Brexit changes everything. "But I do not want to get distracted by that. The key point is that triggering Article 50 so soon does not make sense even if you voted Leave. "So if MPs, pro or anti leaving, had any sense at all, and any independence at all, they would vote against. Yes the right wing press will scream and brand you an ‘enemy of the people’, but if have the interests of the British people as your priority rather than your short term popularity that is what you will do. You could even get voters on your side if you explain why you are doing it. This is one of those moments, like the Iraq war vote, where it is utterly obvious what should be done. We are not yet a country that is run by the Mail and the Sun, but triggering Article 50 will make it look suspiciously like we are." https://mainlymacro.blogspot.ca/2016/11/the-folly-of-triggering-article-50.html
They had an referendum on leaving the EU. And you say, after the fact, that they shouldn't have taken it literally. You are a dumb fuck.