BREXIT......How do you feel Brits? Excited??

[jevs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36299682

I have relatives who returned from Australia and a friend's daughter and family recently so found this article interesting after listening to a radio piece about returning Brits.

lol. Some of it's accurate but not all, as is the case with mainstream media.

 

[Tink2Day]

To be fair, what he says only matters for another 5 months. Or maybe 8 months (not so clear on the US system so not sure if Election Day or Inauguration Day is the real handover of power.

His term ends 1/20/2017 at 11:59 pm. Trade agreements are complicated, the President is a piece in the puzzle.

 

[MariMama]

To be fair, what he says only matters for another 5 months. Or maybe 8 months (not so clear on the US system so not sure if Election Day or Inauguration Day is the real handover of power.

Inauguration Day is when the handover occurs, in January of the following year after the election.

 

[DopeyDame]

To be fair, what he says only matters for another 5 months. Or maybe 8 months (not so clear on the US system so not sure if Election Day or Inauguration Day is the real handover of power.

Inauguration Day is the handover of the presidency, but "power" doesn't stem purely from the individual holding the office. Treaties and laws are what govern inter-country relations. So no matter who is in the white house on January 21, the same treaties will hold until something happens to make them no longer valid (expiration or renegotiation). I have no idea if any US-UK bilateral treaties are dependent on the UK being in the EU. (I would guess not, as that would have been a weird stipulation to include, but I can't say for sure) So bilateral treaties and agreements will stay in place just as they are until they are renegotiated or expire, which certainly doesn't line up with a presidential transition.
Now any treaty that was between the US and the EU will no longer apply to the UK once it leaves, so those topics will need to be renegotiated, but again, the timing of that will depend on the Article 50 and details of individual treaties.

The President has a massive bully-pulpit, but he's not a monarch.

 

[gwynne]

Inauguration Day is the handover of the presidency, but "power" doesn't stem purely from the individual holding the office. Treaties and laws are what govern inter-country relations. So no matter who is in the white house on January 21, the same treaties will hold until something happens to make them no longer valid (expiration or renegotiation). I have no idea if any US-UK bilateral treaties are dependent on the UK being in the EU. (I would guess not, as that would have been a weird stipulation to include, but I can't say for sure) So bilateral treaties and agreements will stay in place just as they are until they are renegotiated or expire, which certainly doesn't line up with a presidential transition.
Now any treaty that was between the US and the EU will no longer apply to the UK once it leaves, so those topics will need to be renegotiated, but again, the timing of that will depend on the Article 50 and details of individual treaties.

The President has a massive bully-pulpit, but he's not a monarch.

Thank you for pointing this out.
There is more at the link, but I put some of the information from the article below.

http://www.bbc.com/news/36622711

How Brexit will affect US-UK relations

"The vote is the beginning of a lengthy transition as Britain reconstructs its regional and global role.

Notwithstanding admonitions by the Leave campaign that the vote was none of the Yanks' business, America has a significant stake in what happens now, given the important alliance between the two countries.

So how will Brexit affect the special relationship?

The US and UK are bound by history, culture, trade, democratic values and shared interests. There is every reason to believe Washington and London will work through all bilateral issues that arise, including new trade arrangements.

New deal?

Wading into the controversy in April, President Barack Obama warned that in the event of a Leave victory, Great Britain would be at the "back of the queue" regarding a new trade agreement. The Obama administration will be devoting its energy to ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Since Prime Minister David Cameron signalled it will be some time before Article 50 is triggered, a new deal will fall to new governments on both sides.

 

[pat fan]

The President has a massive bully-pulpit, but he's not a monarch.

I assume they were referencing this quote

Wading into the controversy in April, President Barack Obama warned that in the event of a Leave victory, Great Britain would be at the "back of the queue" regarding a new trade agreement.

Any opinion I have regarding that remark, I shall refrain from adding, per the rules.

 

[gwynne]

I assume they were referencing this quote

Any opinion I have regarding that remark, I shall refrain from adding, per the rules.

Appreciate the update.
The link and partial quote are there as they may offer some answers to questions that were posed.
JMO- Nothing has happened yet. Still, the threat of Article 50 happening "sometime" has had economic effects.
It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out over the next 2-5+ years. I'm sure there will lots to read and think about, look closer at.

 

[suebeelin]

Every article I've read from well respected analytical sources is saying brexit will only hurt England in both the long and short run.

I'm sure there will be attempts to minimize any damage, but I'm inclined to agree.

heres a New Yorker article I found enlightening:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-...id=gnep&intcid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

 

[PlutoPony]

PM race has become quite interesting to watch. Don't want to get into specific parties/candidates but the twists and turns are fascinating..... Hope a strong leader with solid support comes out of it given the task at hand.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

Every article I've read from well respected analytical sources is saying brexit will only hurt England in both the long and short run.

I'm sure there will be attempts to minimize any damage, but I'm inclined to agree.

heres a New Yorker article I found enlightening:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-...id=gnep&intcid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

PM race has become quite interesting to watch. Don't want to get into specific parties/candidates but the twists and turns are fascinating..... Hope a strong leader with solid support comes out of it given the task at hand.

Lots of twists and turns that's for sure. I hope a strong leader emerges too!

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I'm just excited for the possibility of a unified Ireland and independent Scotland.

 

[Shanti]

For those who might not know

As an EU citizen
1. Under the E11 Heath insurance scheme, if I need emergency medical treatment while in an EU I dont have to pay.

So who does?

Americans

 

[Shanti]

It's surprising to me that so many Americans are unhappy about this outcome.

I think few people actually understand it, but are repeating what they hear from the economic talking heads on the tv news: that this is a bad thing for the global economy. A lot of scare talks from economists about how terrible this will be.

I remember those same economists talking about how important it was for us to bail out the big banks (that had stolen their investors' money) in 2008, how we'd have to bail them out, like it or not, or there'd be a worldwide recession...

Well, we bailed out the big banks with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardworking taxpayers' money, and then we were rewarded with a massive and long-lasting worldwide recession anyway, the effects of which are still being felt today. But at least the big banks got what they wanted...

So no, I don't give the economic talking-heads much credence. Call me cynical...

 

[larissawbb]

I think few people actually understand it, but are repeating what they hear from the economic talking heads on the tv news: that this is a bad thing for the global economy. A lot of scare talks from economists about how terrible this will be.

I remember those same economists talking about how important it was for us to bail out the big banks (that had stolen people's money) in 2008, how we'd have to bail them out, like it or not, or there'd be a worldwide recession...

Well, we bailed out the big banks, and then we were rewarded with a massive and long-lasting worldwide recession anyway, the effects of which are still being felt today. But at least the big banks got what they wanted...

So no, I don't give the economic talking-heads much credence. Call me cynical...

This exactly!!!

 

[CPanther95]

I think few people actually understand it, but are repeating what they hear from the economic talking heads on the tv news: that this is a bad thing for the global economy. A lot of scare talks from economists about how terrible this will be.

I remember those same economists talking about how important it was for us to bail out the big banks (that had stolen their investors' money) in 2008, how we'd have to bail them out, like it or not, or there'd be a worldwide recession...

Well, we bailed out the big banks, and then we were rewarded with a massive and long-lasting worldwide recession anyway, the effects of which are still being felt today. But at least the big banks got what they wanted...

So no, I don't give the economic talking-heads much credence. Call me cynical...

Well, the Dow is up 150 points from its pre-Brexit level, so the doom and gloom predicted for the US stock markets certainly appears to have been grossly mistaken.

 

[gwynne]

Well, the Dow is up 150 points from its pre-Brexit level, so the doom and gloom predicted for the US stock markets certainly appears to have been grossly mistaken.

Certainly true.
Now the more difficult question: Does it matter that they haven't submitted the Article 50 paperwork, and don't appear to be particularly eager to "credited" with initiating it?
I think it matters a lot. Up market days (weeks?) are wonderful, don't get me wrong. But, no real plan forward for how when where to submit and get the 2 year plus started may only invite extended volatility. Will it be three steps forward, two steps back?
We will have to watch and see what the number show. Is dithering a viable plan?

 

[Oreo Cookie]

Certainly true.
Now the more difficult question: Does it matter that they haven't submitted the Article 50 paperwork, and don't appear to be particularly eager to "credited" with initiating it?
I think it matters a lot. Up market days (weeks?) are wonderful, don't get me wrong. But, no real plan forward for how, when where to submit and get the 2 year plus started...only invites extended volatility. Will it be three steps forward, two steps back?
Well have to watch and see what the number show. Is dithering a viable plan?

I don't think they have triggered the Article 50 paperwork because the government didn't think it would happen so there was no contingency plan, and the "leave" party didn't have a plan either. So the UK is in uncharted waters and trying to come up with an implementation plan.

The EU has said that no negotiations will begin until the Article 50 is submitted, so the UK needs to have a good plan as to what they will be negotiating. They will not be able to be part of the EU single market without agreeing to the other principles (such as free movement). Trade deals and immigration are the two big issues that need to be worked out.

This is going to be an extended process, and I agree with the volatility (it's going to be a roller coaster ride), some days will be up and some days will be down. I"m glad we're seeing the market rebound, but that's not the only indicator of a healthy economy.

I hope things work out for the UK and for the EU.

 

[Minniesgal]

I'm still not actually convinced Brexit will actually happen. The people didn't vote it in a referendum is non binding it is advise to the government. For I article 50 to be triggered it needs to be voted through parliament and I'm not sure that vote will go that way

Also Cameron isn't going to trigger it before he resigns he is going to leave that for his successor. I'm not convinced his successor will want to take that risk and damage to reputation

We will see I'm really not convinced this is a done deal

 

[CPanther95]

I'm still not actually convinced Brexit will actually happen. The people didn't vote it in a referendum is non binding it is advise to the government. For I article 50 to be triggered it needs to be voted through parliament and I'm not sure that vote will go that way

Also Cameron isn't going to trigger it before he resigns he is going to leave that for his successor. I'm not convinced his successor will want to take that risk and damage to reputation

We will see I'm really not convinced this is a done deal

If Parliament goes against the will of the people, this will get really interesting.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

I'm still not actually convinced Brexit will actually happen. The people didn't vote it in a referendum is non binding it is advise to the government. For I article 50 to be triggered it needs to be voted through parliament and I'm not sure that vote will go that way

Also Cameron isn't going to trigger it before he resigns he is going to leave that for his successor. I'm not convinced his successor will want to take that risk and damage to reputation

We will see I'm really not convinced this is a done deal

I've been reading that too, and it is necessary for parliament to vote for it. On the flip side, how do you deny the 52% that voted to leave? How do you answer to your constituents that you voted against the will of the people? I think they only way Brexit could be stopped is if the EU reforms some of their rules they have in place. I do think this vote is a wake-up call to the EU that some things need to change.