[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.

[gonvaled]

> There is nothing in the treaty about automatic invocation of the exit clause following a referendum

Sure there is not. The details are necessarily vague, since it is not possible to know the exact situation in which a withdrawal from the union is done. It can be a referndum or any other process. But the vote is clear: you have chosen to leave.

> 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.)

Up to now I have not heard a single politian (british, EU or otherwise) which puts into question whether the UK is going to leave or not.

But it seems that instead of accepting the consequences of your decissions, you have started to play internal politics (actually the same petty politics which brought about this disaster). But frankly, the EU is not interested in your petty internal quarrels anymore. All EU politicians seem to agree too: they want to start negotiations asap.

> that can work with the EU on a minimally disruptive exit agreement

Let me quote here Mr. Juncker (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683042/EU-referendum-Brexit...):

> Talking from Brussels after an emergency meeting with EU leaders, Mr Juncker told Britain the other 27 member states wanted to negotiate its exit plan “as soon as possible, however painful this process will be”

We do not care if it suits you or not. Just go.

[dragonwriter]

> Up to now I have not heard a single politian which puts into question whether the UK is going to leave or not.

There is a difference between a consensus among politicians and a decision of the government; the UK is almost certain to leave, and to invoke Article 50 in the near future, but no British government has actually made a decision to do that.

But it doesn't benefit anyone -- the EU as much as the UK -- for there not to be a consistent hand at the wheel for the exit negotiations.

> But it seems that instead of accepting the consequences of your decissions

As an American who thinks the Brexit is a ill-considered idea, they aren't my decisions.

> But frankly, the EU is not interested in your petty internal quarrels anymore. All EU politicians seem to agree too: they want to start negotiations asap.

With whom? The present government of the UK doesn't represent the will of the people who voted to leave. That seems to be a big part of why Cameron is leaving -- the referendum was, in clear message if not in the formal, parliamentary sense, a vote of no confidence in both the present government and even the institutional party system in the UK, as much as it was a vote against the UK's future in the EU.

[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.

[gonvaled]

They haven't though of that, and lots of other things. As the UK politicians are lacking a plan too.

- Cameron organizing a referendum without a plan in case he loses, and stepping down? Check!

- Boris disappearing in moments of crisis? Check!

- Power vacuum in all political parties? Check!

- UKIP and Vote Leave backpedaling in some claims? Check!

So yes, lots of things were unclear. But we in the EU not want any of this. You have spoken, now please let's negotiate a deal. Two years! You have two years to do it!

Your internal politics are none of our business.

[lmm]

Exactly - our internal politics are none of your business. So why are you getting so worked up over our non-binding internal referendum?

When (and if) we send you notice as per Article 50, we can all follow that process. In the meantime, talking about "enemies" and kicking us out is utterly counterproductive.

[sievebrain]

The UK's internal politics are absolutely your business, that's why Article 50 exists.