If the UK starts muddling through, the EU should firmly act and suspend UK membership: we can not allow uncertainty, and a future ex-member abusing the good will of the rest of the EU.
Cameron promised to trigger article 50 immediately: if he does not, we should force him to.
> Cameron promised to trigger article 50 immediately
Did he?
edit: it seems to as the following quote is frequent (and from as early as February) though I can't find an original citation:
> Mr Cameron previously said he would trigger Article 50 as soon as possible after a Leave vote
though it follows up with this interesting
> but Boris Johnson and Michael Gove who led the campaign to get Britain out of the EU have said he should not rush into it.
And the following "wtf-worthy" declaration:
> They also said they wanted to make immediate changes before the UK actually leaves the EU, such as curbing the power of EU judges and limiting the free movement of workers, potentially in breach of the UK's treaty obligations.
You are not suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will be done on UK terms only, do you? Like "we get that funding chunk and then we leave" or "we attend that EU parliament session and then we leave" or "we don't say how or when, we'll just leave, whenever it suits us, and please don't disturb because I am too busy doing important things which you can not hope to comprehend". How long do you think the EU will wait for the princess to make up her mind?
I do not know the exact mechanisms by which the EU can force the UK out, but one thing I know: we can not allow us the luxury of keeping the enemy inside the gates.
I for one hope this is done with asap. Out is out.
The UK gets to decide when they trigger the process but the 'official' process can't start until the UK triggers it.
The referendum isn't actually legally binding so in theory article 50 may never get triggered, though as the vote is a reaction against politicians, that would be political suicide.
The final terms will be the result of negotiation and I don't think the UK actually has a good position.
The referendum was always a trap, if UK votes out we're probably screwed, if we voted in it becomes a signal for the political elites for even more political integration (and there seems limited support for that amongst the actual people of Europe)
Got to remember the politicians of the EU don't work for the people - witness how they shafted the people of Greece to save German and French banks, how TTIP is being negotiated in secret and hands more power to corporations etc.
Actually, Greece's problem was that the politicians of the EU do work for the people - namely, their own. It would have been electoral suicide for the leaders of Germany, the Netherlands, Finland etc. to be seen as too lenient for the Greeks.
Regarding the activation of article 50, sure the UK could delay it indefinitely, but there also would not be any requirement for the other states to start negotiating before it gets invoked. So I'm not sure if the "delay" strategy is going to work out very well for Britain.
> The UK gets to decide when they trigger the process but the 'official' process can't start until the UK triggers it.
If the UK spends the next 15 years making trouble in the EU, blocking a Brexit agreement, not taking decisions, and basically torpedoing the functioning of the EU, I hope the EU is going to do something about it.
The UK was bad enough for the EU while it was in, let's not allow it to destroy the rest of the EU while it is leaving.
There are mechanism to force the UK out now. One would be to marginalize them from any decision taking, any negotiation, and meeting that the EU participates in, internally or with partners. I do not know the exact mechanisms that the EU can use for this, but I know how I would deal with this in my partnerships: "sorry, I forgot to call you!" "Oh, I thought you were in holidays!" "Did you really not receive that memo? So sorry!" and the like. If the UK starts playing dirty, we should too.
Out is out: we do not want the UK in the EU anymore. Please pack and leave.
> If the UK spends the next 15 years making trouble in the EU, blocking a Brexit agreement
If they don't trigger Article 50, they have exactly the same role in the EU as if they never chose to leave (except that they lose the special concessions that they just got approved which were contingent on a "Remain" result in the referendum, which, AFAICT, is the only actual legal effect of referendum.)
Once they trigger Article 50, they are out in 2 years (barring an agreement to extend the process.) The only purpose of an exit agreement is to provide an alternative to the default exit terms, which would, e.g., leave trade relations between Britain and the EU reverting to WTO rules.
> You are not suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will be done on UK terms only, do you?
The UK has to trigger Article 50, but the Article 50 process sets the terms (or, at least, the process by which the terms will be set), and it doesn't favor the country leaving.
We signed a treaty, as did the rest of the EU; we will comply with that treaty and they should too. And according to the treaty it's us who kick off the article 50 process. If the EU doesn't believe in following its own treaties then what is it even for?
We will respect that treaty. But, as all treaties, there is room for interpretation, which requires good will. Good will towards the UK has run out, and EU should be looking at its interests and nothing more.
During the negotiations process, the UK should be treated as what it is, a soon to be ex-member. For example:
> Meanwhile, Elmar Brok, a German MEP, CDU member, and chairman of the European parliament committee on foreign affairs, told the Guardian that the European parliament would call on Jean-Claude Juncker to strip the British commissioner Jonathan Hill of his financial services brief with immediate effect and turn him into a “commissioner without portfolio”.
Dozens of measures like this should be taken. Whatever is legal according to the signed treaties should be done in order to hasten the exit of the UK from the EU.
We will respect that treaty. But, as all treaties, there is room for interpretation
In other words you do not want the EU to respect the terms of the treaty.
I guess you approve of Juncker. When asked why the Commission was not punishing France for failing to meet the fiscal discipline targets, his answer was "because it's France". Sharp rebuke from the Dutch swiftly followed.
I think dragging it out and muddling through probably suits the EU's interests very well - after all that's very much what they've been doing when dealing with Greece.
I wonder if he is hoping for more EU concessions and another referendum. About the only thing that would do it is some restriction on free movement, I don't know how likely that is.
Cameron promised to trigger article 50 immediately: if he does not, we should force him to.