[lmm]

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?

[gonvaled]

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.

[sievebrain]

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.

[gonvaled]

> In other words you do not want the EU to respect the terms of the treaty.

What part of the treaty spells the exact details? None. You have the right to leave, but not to drag your feet while you clarify your internal petty politics, hurting the rest of the EU.

So, please leave. Now. Otherwise we'll make sure the interests of the EU are respected, above the interests of the UK.

It is time to stop talking about UK interests and rights, and start talking about EU'interests and rights. You are defending your interests, and we'll defend ours.

If this sounds harsh, it is because today you didn't make a lot of friends in the EU. But mind you, you made some: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-36606184

And I say all this while fully respecting your decission to go. Just don't expect us to care about what your interests are, except when they happen to agree with ours. Having you on board of the EU now is absolutely not in our interest. Invoke article 50, and we get two years to part ways, which is more than enough.

Leave, or be marginalized. Once you leave, we can renegotiate treaties, one by one.

[sievebrain]

In fact the treaty allows for exactly that. There is nothing in the treaty about automatic invocation of the exit clause following a referendum. By "reinterpreting" the treaty to pretend there is, the EU would simply be violating it.

[gonvaled]

So, let me understand what you are saying: you are saying that, while the markets are in turmoil, the policical functioning of the EU is blocked, and the very existence of the EU is in question, the EU is politely going to wait until the british politians sort their internal affairs?

We can not legally trigger article 50, but we can LEGALLY do lots of things, including putting huge amount of political and economic pressure on the UK to STAND for your decissions.

You have voted leave, so please leave. You have two years to negotiate a deal, so start now.

[dragonwriter]

> We can not legally trigger article 50, but we can LEGALLY do lots of things, including putting huge amount of political and economic pressure on the UK to STAND for your decissions.

The UK government -- the entity that would leave the EU -- has not made a decision to stand by (except a decision to hold a legal nonbinding referendum.) The only thing that was absolutely contingent on the referendum was the package of new arrangements for Britain the EU had approved.

No doubt, Britain will have a government soon that will invoke Article 50, but it is in the interest of Britain, the rest of the EU, and the long-term health of the markets for that to be a government with a clear policy and vision for an exit that can work with the EU on a minimally disruptive exit agreement, and the Cameron government absolutely is not that government.

[sievebrain]

Maybe the EU should have thought of that when writing the exit clause? I guess that's the problem with thinking it'll never be used.