For the Brits: When will BREXIT referendum happen ?

[Stavros]

If one of the consequences of Brexit is a closer 'relationship' between the UK and the USA, or as some see it a growing dependency by the UK on US trade (how this fits with 'Buy American, Hire American I don't know), the Telegraph today opens up a whole new perspective with the proposal by the Royal Commonwealth Society to open a branch in the USA -apparently one of Nigel Farage's 'bright ideas' (an oxymoron if ever there was one)- a move that could presage the USA becoming a full member of the Commonwealth of Nations, formerly know as the British Commonwealth.

The way I see it, if Donald Trump discredits the office of President, you could scrap it, and as a full member of the Commonwealth of Nations -and you were at one time fully integrated into the Empire- re-establish the monarch as your head of state -currently Her Most Noble and Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, next in line King Charles III-, and appoint a Prime Minister from Congress. And we won't even make you pay taxes to do it.
Just give us a fat wedge of your market opportunities...oh, and the flag will have to go. Embrace the change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-commonwealth/

[filghy2]

Note I'm going on memory and haven't checked my facts, but I believe that Trump claims Scottish ancestry somewhere in his linage. Of course, we all know that what Trump claims and the actual facts are often two very different things.

However, after his spat with Alex Salmond, a few years ago, over plans to build an offshore windfarm, "spoiling" the views from his golf course in Aberdeenshire, I'm half expecting a US Navy warship to be permanently stationed in the North Sea as a deterent to developments...

I've been reading about this. Trump's mother was born in Scotland. He made a big deal of this when he was seeking approval for the golf course development, although he did undermine himself a bit by referring to her as Scotch rather than Scottish.

Ironically, Trump's ancestors were probably poor farmers forced off their lands during the clearances in the 19th century. When some small landowners refused to sell land he wanted for his project, Trump pushed for the local council to use compulsory acquisition powers. He didn't get his way, but they were subjected to a full-on Trump bullying campaign.

[Stavros]

Two by-elections were held in the UK yesterday, and in the case of one of them, Stoke-on-Trent, the dominating factor was the potential for UKIP to defeat Labour, to register the so-called 'Populist' surge against established parties, and because the party leader Paul Nuttall was contesting the seat. Stoke has returned a Labour MP since 1950 and last night there was no change, with Labour winning the seat and Nuttall coming second but on a low voter turn-out of 36.7%.

The inquest will no doubt focus on the lies told by Nuttall, hardly surprising as UKIP is a party of liars and freaks unfit for public office. Nuttall registered an address in Stoke in which he did not live; he claimed on LinkedIn to have a PhD, but he doesn't. He claimed to be on the Board of the North-West Training Council -a lie, and he claimed to have played football for Tranmere Rovers, which was news to the club. Most damaging of all for this lad from Bootle in Liverpool is the claim he made only recently that as a 12 year old he was at the Hillsborough football ground in 1989 where 96 people died. He may be telling the truth about this, but it is either odd that at no point in the last 20 odd years did Nuttall campaign for justice for the victims of Hillsborough, or it could be that in UKIP's case the party regarded, and still regards Liverpool as a lost cause.

The question thus remains -what is UKIP for? It's major issue, indeed it's only issue was leaving the EU, but as both Labour and the Conservative Parties are working for Brexit, voters did not need to vote for UKIP. One hopes his wretched group of losers will get the message and disappear into the sunset.

In the other by-election, Labour lost the seat of Copeland -created in 1983 it succeeded Whitehaven, both returning Labour MPs since 1935, until last night, when they chose the Conservative candidate on a voter turn-out of 51.27%. 10,000 people in the constituency work at the nuclear energy plant nearby at Sellafield, and with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn opposed to nuclear weapons, and unable to control his own party, this defeat will deepen the wounds and emphasize the extent to which the Conservative Party is the dominant force in English politics.

Thus for Brexit, no change; but for the 'populist' agenda a defeat, and one hopes the sign of defeats to come.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39064149

[martin48]

Demise of UKIP - as you say no purpose left. The Tories are bashing immigrants and rushing for a hard Brexit. The Conservative Party has become the new UKIP. Copland - even sadder result for Labour. Wha was Corbyn's response "people feel let down by the political establishment." So let down they voted for them instead of Labour.

[Stavros]

Michel Barnier, the chief Brexit negotiator for the EU has laid out a clear plan and timetable for the first round of talks which are expected to hold their first meeting in June. The three key issues concern
1) the status of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU;
2) the UK's binding commitments to the EU budget throughout the period of negotiations and beyond, depending on any transitional arrangements that are made; and
3) the opening of discussion on the future of trade.
Barnier expects this round of negotiations to be concluded by October 2018.

A key element, on trade, underlines the extent to which the EU believes that leaving by one door will not enable the UK to re-enter by another on the same terms:

The main principle that will underpin this negotiation is that whatever deal is granted to the U.K, it will be worse than being a member state.
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/bar...-negotiations/

[Stavros]

Further to my post above, The Guardian reports today that Michel Barnier has pencilled in June 19th 2017 for the start of negotiations between the EU and the UK on the implementation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. It is believed he wants to hold four one-week sessions of negotiations:

The EU wants negotiations to be divided into four-week cycles, each focused on a key issue. Week one would involve political preparation, followed by a week where documents would be disclosed by both sides.

The third week would see Barnier and the Brexit secretary sitting down to talk, mainly in Brussels but also, potentially, in London. In the final week, Barnier would report on the results of the negotiations to the 27 member states and the European parliament.
The EU’s negotiator wants to reach agreement on citizens’ rights, the UK’s divorce bill and on the border of Ireland in a first phase of talks he hopes will be concluded by the end of 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-start-19-june

[peejaye]

Personally I find all this euphoria about Br-exit a bit overwhelming! All I can say is we can't get a "good" deal as it's in the EU's interest to keep that institution from falling apart, basically giving the UK a good deal would send the wrong message out to the other EU states who would maybe contemplate having their own referendum?

[Stavros]

The buzz today is that the opening of negotiations with the EU may be delayed, that they may not begin precisely on the 19th of June.
As a short guide, below is a general view of the difference between a Soft Brexit and a Hard Brexit. If the distinction is important now more than ever, it is because the outcome of the election has forced the Conservative party to seek a 'confidence and supply' arrangement in which the Democratic Unionist Party [DUP] of Northern Ireland will vote on confidence and budget issues to maintain the Conservative government in power. The DUP voted to Leave the EU but the majority of voters in Northern Ireland voted Remain, and the key here is the relationship with the Republic of Ireland, and the view of Arlene Foster, leader of the DUP:

No-one wants to see a ‘hard’ Brexit, what we want to see is a workable plan to leave the European Union, and that’s what the national vote was about – therefore we need to get on with that. “However, we need to do it in a way that respects the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, and, of course, our shared history and geography with the Republic of Ireland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/Wh...thern-ireland/

A Soft Brexit seeks an accommodation with the EU which will allow the UK tariff-free access to the Single Market without being a full member, similar to the arrangement the EU has with Norway and Switzerland. If this version of a Soft Brexit is currently off the table it is because Norway and Switzerland pay a substantial amount of money to be part of the single market and accept the Four Fundamental Freedoms of the Single Market Act: freedom of movement for people, capital, goods and services; and this was rejected by the British people in the 2016 Referendum.
Another version of a Soft Brexit would see the UK be part of the EU Customs Union. This membership must cover all aspects of trade between the two and be governed by the European Court of Justice whose rulings the UK Government would be obliged to honour. It would raise tariffs on all goods traded between the two, create a whole new layer of paperwork, and require customs officers to inspect and monitor all goods passing between the two parties. It is also a rule that members of the EU Customs Union may not enter into third party trade agreements with countries outside the Union.
Thus, the plus side offers the UK continued access to a market of 500 million albeit with tariffs added and 'sovereignty' diminished, with the negative prospect of being less competitive with higher costs on transport threatening jobs and profits.

A Hard Brexit detaches the UK from the EU so that all of its trade with the EU will be subject to the same rules as apply to countries like the USA, it means trade subjected to tariffs, but frees the UK from legal ties to the EU and allows the UK to trade with all those economies in the world that are not part of the EU as either full members or members of the Customs Union.

I suspect the reality of both positions is that a phased withdrawal will be agreed which means that the UK in some form or another will be linked to the EU for between 5-10 years, possibly longer. The problem for both parties is that they do not want to suddenly lose trading relations, while for the EU the fear is that a soft accommodation of the UK will encourage other members to seek the same, weakening the EU as a whole, while the EU also does not want to be seen to be 'punishing' the UK for its decision to leave.

Although a year old and an article I don't wholly agree with, an argument that the UK will be fine outside the EU is here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a7118736.html

[flabbybody]

Here's John Oliver's take on soft vs hard, as well as his proposal to put Lord Buckethead in charge of negotiations for the UK

[Stavros]

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country"...sign of things to come?
But thanks for the effort!