And when I say nothing has happened yet, I mean apart from the massive drop in the value of sterling and inflation massively outstripping wage increases.

I assume you're based in London, which means you're fairly isolated from the social changes that have happened across the UK in recent years. London is very pro-EU and immigration friendly. The statistics do show a massive increase in race related hate crimes in the UK since the referendum, so even if the vote wasn't racist, it has given racists a confidence boost.

The "massive increase in race related crime" is also far more complex than newspaper headlines give credit to. The big headlines came from the immediate aftermath 4 days where crimes reported to a website went from 54 to to 85 - i.e. 57%. The police statement on this made the point that it was only a single source that they weren't seeing an increase in community tension - guess what the press went with? The police statistics do bear out an overall increase since the previous year, but by a much lower margin - and in line with year on year increases.

The key point though is that in the UK hate crimes are defined as when the victim, or any other person, perceives a crime to be a hate crime - thanks to the legacy of Macpherson. Reported hate crimes have been trending up for years, partly because there has been a massive cultural shift in the police to record them and on people to report them. So, as with all statistics, it is complicated - did more people perceive an increase in hate crimes because they were being told that they were spiking? Has Britain become a more intolerant place or are we just recording better how intolerant we've been for a while? The Civitas report on this makes for interesting reading http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/hatecrimethefactsbeh...

As a matter of fact, I do remember the "punishment budget", the one which was mocked up for 2019-20 [1], around the time that the UK would actually leave the EU.

No one expected the UK economy to crash the day of the referendum. The projections are all projections for AFTER we have left the EU, not before. The reason exports get that title is because they know enough to at least make their projections from when the changes actually happen.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/15/revolt-of-6...

Saying "no one expected the UK economy to crash the day of" is a little odd - the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee certainly seemed to think they needed to act in the immediate aftermath of the vote with the interest rate cut which is now looking not such a great idea.

All the predictions were based on a bunch of promises by certain people to make rash, idiotic changes immediatly after the vote. Promises that were thankfully broken.

Most of the conditions that these kind of predictions were made under changed the moment Cameron resigned.

That said there is a large opportunity for change post EU if we go after it. Unfortunately that would require strong unified leadership from the left / non-tories.

[1] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16168.pdf#pag...

Except for the "massive drop in the value of sterling" which is due to market and media hysteria, which will correct itself.

There is nothing indicating that the market will correct itself.

Also note that by "nothing happens" I mean nothing that negative as the hysteria implies. Not that "nothing at all" happens.

"Having to wait" not as in actually waiting (e.g. as if Brussels would somehow slow down the pace of law-making in the UK) but in the sense UK will have to be handed down to adopt and enforce EU laws. So, wanting to make a law about X, in the sense that UK citizens see it and to their interests? Tough luck, unless it matches the EU law on the subject.

So the answer to your question is, in any and all cases where the UK law doesn't agree with EU laws.

EU laws goes above national laws. This is based on "The primacy of EU law" doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law#...

Here's one particular example upon many:

The latest battle is over Brussels’ impending ban on the weedkiller glyphosate, the U.K.’s most widely used pesticide, largely due to political pressure from green groups on the Continent already skeptical of pesticides and certain other new technologies in agriculture. But pulling glyphosate, better known as Roundup, from the market, would be devastating to British farmers who rely on the herbicide to treat weeds.

http://www.politico.eu/article/glyphosate-weedkiller-decisio...

You really did not know that there has been frequent tension between national laws (in the UK and elsewhere) and EU laws in all kinds of aspects (from labor laws to agriculture and shipping), or were you trolling?

(If not from EU or UK I can understand it, because you wouldn't be familiar with the subject matter -- but it's a very common occurence, and a very common theme in the news in EU countries).

Pulling glyphosate would be devastating. But keeping it if it's causing widespread cancer would be continuing to ruin lives too. The Tories controlling the UK would IMO be more likely to let the proles die and support the farmers (who historically have a Tory preference). I prefer the EU's scientific and cautionary stance to the "will it cause loss of profit for shareholders" stance that we're going to be seeing much more of.

I might too, but the question is if they are free to make their own laws or bound to EU law. Not whether EU law might be better (it obviously will be better in some cases, and worse in others).

There is no definition or synonym of "wait" that matches your attempt to salvage your initial argument.

I wrote: "you can make your own laws and not wait for some committee of 20+ countries and some Brussels bureaucrats to decide their "one size fits all solution".

This means that (with the exit) the British people can make their own laws and don't have to wait for EU bureaucrats to make (one size fits all) laws for them.

I'm not a native english speaker but I don't think that makes any difference in this case, as the meaning from the above first comment is quite clear (and can hardly be read in another way).

What exactly do you find difficult to parse, or think that could be read in another way? Care to give us a plausible interpretation of my initial comment that is in a different spirit to my subsequent rephrasing?

is self-contradicting or is a redefinition of a commonly used, rather straightforward word to suit your purposes.

I don't have any nefarious "purposes". If anything, I clarified what I mean in 2 follow-up comments to help anyone stuck up with the phrasing discuss the actual points.

If you don't like my use of "having to wait" you can always refer to the other 2 comments, and tell me any counter-arguments you have with my actual point as paraphrased there. Unless you want to stick to criticizing my use of english and avoid any more difficult subjects.

I still consider the initial phrasing perfectly valid for what I meant, which is: "UK people don't have to wait for EU bureaucrats to make laws for them anymore, they can now make their own laws" -- without being forced to automatically comply with any law or directive the EU puts out.

The UK not being able to make its own laws (as your original comment implied), seems to me to be a quite different thing to having to adopt EU directives (as you are now talking about), and I feel like it's exactly this kind of confusion (deliberate or otherwise) over the years that has contributed to the atmosphere that lead to Brexit.

I gave you a specific example. From this point on, I consider you a troll, but for the record:

The play of words "directives vs laws" doesn't change the fact that UK law is trumped by EU law (sorry, "directives").

The fact that the UK can "make its own laws" is insignificant if those laws have to comply with EU directives (and if new EU directives invalidate UK laws).

Nobody doubts that UK government can draft laws -- the nominal process of putting words to legal documents and enforcing them.

That's not what anybody means when they contest that the UK can't draft its OWN laws. Make one's own law obviously means: "as they see fit", not "but only in accordance to EU law".

>and I feel like it's exactly this kind of confusion (deliberate or otherwise) over the years that has contributed to the atmosphere that lead to Brexit.

The only confusion is between a sovereign state that can make any law its people want (in accordance to any international treaties they've signed) and one that has to consider the law of EU above its own. And you perpetuate it purposefully.

For the record, I'm really not trolling, but my position on the sovereignty argument is that for me as a UK citizen, it just doesn't matter since I have such a minuscule say in how things are run either way. And I tend to find legislation that comes from the EU (like the abolition of mobile roaming charges, or the working time directive) far less objectionable than the laws that UK politicians draw up by themselves.

It's not something that's dependent on being acknowledged though. If your national laws have to comply with the laws (or directives if you prefer) passed by a third body, you concede your sovereignty. That's explicit in the very notion of sovereignty -- no matter how politicians might spin it.

>but my position on the sovereignty argument is that for me as a UK citizen, it just doesn't matter since I have such a minuscule say in how things are run either way.

That's a justifiable position one can legitimately hold.

But others can also legitimately feel that it very much matters. And historically and morally, the issue of sovereignty of a national state was never a light one to be set aside with "who cares, we don't very much affect our national policy anyway".

At best it's a stance that's ok for times of plenty or favorable laws, but that starts to matter more when the decisions that are taken go against a countries interests -- and there is no way to overrule them in the national level because even though e.g. 90% of the British are against, 60% of EU policy makers want them.

And despite the talk now being of right wingers being in favor of Brexit, we can very much imagine the opposite: a right wing EU (with e.g. Marie Lepen, the Netherlands guy, some German equivalent etc) that imposes right wing directives and laws upon a progressive Britain. (In fact we don't have to look that far for that: the EU has long impose right leaning labour laws upon more left leaning states).

Data protection laws, anti-trust laws, labour protections, a concerted effort to combat cross-border tax evasion (that the UK ruined by opting not to take part, due to it's enjoyment of being a fucking tax haven) just to name a few.

Seriously, when it comes to laws that protect the average schmuck, the EU is far from perfect but it has been a hell of a lot better than what our own politicians when it comes to looking out for us.

I'd rather be closer to Europe than closer to the US. No question, especially now with that batshit lunatic they have in charge.

Demanding special treatment and not getting it is not a failing of the EU, but of the UK.

And I gave an example. The EU prevents the UK from making this law. And if the UK wants to pass this law (which it does!!!), then it needs to leave the EU.

This is a perfectly valid reason for leaving the EU. Because the EU doesn't let you do this thing that you want to do.

As I recall, EU directives were behind the ban on traditional units of measure in the UK, although that may be incorrect.

You can apply that same logic to counties: Greater London is very different than Leicestershire. Why should Leicestershire apply laws that are designed to fit London workers? Why can't they make their own laws?

Forget counties, why not neighbourhoods? And so on.

I'm obviously not serious about this, but the logic doesn't hold just because your nationality is different. The average briton has far more in common with the average french, than the average londoner has in common with the average belfaster.

Britain is trapped with a forked strategy: it can go the Singapore route or the supplicant route. The two are incompatible and neither of them is realistically feasible. The Singapore route is what hard Brexiteers want but there's no mandate for it, and nor is there plurality of votes in it. The supplicant route is what Brexiteers will attack, and there probably isn't a majority of votes in the Tory party for it.

The UK's political landscape are in the wrong shape for the negotiation to come. Parties would need to be configured into those that are split according to negotiating strategy. Since they aren't, the fork will weaken Britain's negotiation throughout; every attempt to go down one road will face extreme resistance from those who prefer the other path.

Britain is screwed, AFAICT. Myself, I'm aiming at November or so to get out.

Which is a symptom among many of how grossly dysfunctional and fragile the EU is. It's also compounded by the TARGET-2 mess and Germany's obligations to the South through rescue packages. Commenters above talking about the EU being a "voluntary alliance" conveniently obfuscate this.

I don't understand why this wasn't a centerpiece of the Remain campaign.

It will be interesting to watch, nothing has been negotiated, that's the irony, nobody even knows what they voted for. I can't imagine Europe making it easy though.

I'm from Canada and our economy (and defence) depends heavily on the US, we both strongly benefit from an economic relationship. It's mutually beneficial, as all pacts should be. Yet we don't have to worry about policy being dictated out of NAFTA or worry about the economy of Mexico - which is totally different than Canada - dragging down our own.

Once you look beyond short term economic risks I really don't see thee problem.

It seems to me that smaller countries have the healthiest democracies - one of the reason government functions so well in Scandinavia and here in Canada. The problems with US politics is largely the result of the disparate views of regional communities. Just look at the vast cultural/economic/educational gaps between California, the 'south', or the midwest.

Those gaps are even greater across Europe, so I'm hardly surprised that various countries in the EU, not only people in the UK as we've seen recently, is feeling uncomfortable with the idea. You're just lucky you don't have the Euro to further lock you into the relationship.

Edit: Also the idea the EU stops wars seems ridiculous to me in 2017 given we have NATO and the UN... and that the west only really cares about economics. Sanctions like that were done to Russia or Iran would not last long in a western country, they'd cave in so fast. Pretty much eliminating any risk of internal EU conflict without assuming total economic destruction.

> I'm from Canada

Er, didn't Canada just sign a trade pact with the EU which does sacrifice some of the independence of their borders, laws and courts? CETA will:

* Create a new 'investment court system', where investors from the EU can challenge and block Canadian state decisions.

* Require Canada to legally protect various EU products.

* Require Canada to make it easier for staff to move between the EU and Canada.

* Require Canada to strengthen its copyright protection and IP laws, and the border systems required to enforce those.

(Plus a bunch of similar things in the other direction too).

Fairly readable summary here: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-explaine...

Many people would argue that NAFTA had similar effects on Canada too: http://prudentpress.com/trade/free-trade-costs-canada-sovere...

This is all a good thing nonetheless. Trade deals generally bring a lot of wealth and other benefits to both sides. Still, it's definitely not historically the case that you can get the benefits of free trade without sacrificing some independence.

Yes, if anything this supports what I'm talking about, this is why I'm critical of the EU, dealing with EU bureaucrats always goes beyond strictly economic interests... but still CETA is hardly comparable to the ever expanding scope of being part of the EU.

Nor would I assume that agreements between the UK + US or Asian countries would necessarily include EU style requirements... especially considering the UK leaving EU for such reasons.

That plus TPP failed for similar reasons... it was far too complex and include thousands of pages of policy that go beyond simple mutually beneficial trade pacts.

Regardless, just because other trade agreements are bad and include baggage doesn't mean the UK should just bend over and take it from the EU. We should strive for better policies. TPP was a disaster and the recent reconsideration of NAFTA should make us rethink how we approach trade pacts. It's an opportunity to evolve.

But to evolve it needs to be part of the public forum. CETA passed very quietly in Canada. I hardly remember any talk of it until it was already well beyond debate. Much like they tried to keep TPP in secret backroom meetings. If it became a political issue earlier I'm not 100% sure CETA would have passed in it's current state.

> Nor would I assume that agreements between the UK + US or Asian countries would necessarily include EU style requirements

Sadly, they will. As an example, the UK trade deal with India has hit problems already (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-brit...) because 'we cannot separate free movement of people from the free flow of goods, services and investments'. It's not the EU: trade deals necessitate much more than just agreeing to both remove your tariffs.

Some of these extra restrictions are pretty clearly necessary I think. You need to ensure matching certifications and quality standards and IP rules for the entire area covered by a free trade deal, and enshrine that in law on both ends. If you don't, you have no penalties (by definition, for a 'free' trade deal) for companies that move from the EU to Canada (or vice versa) to avoid some IP rules, or to sell products that wouldn't be up to scratch in the EU. I don't think there's any way you can solve that other than having the same rules for the whole area.

The arbitration courts are more contentious. I'm not sure exactly why they're necessary, or what alternatives there might be there.

I think there's a good argument for why the tie to free movement and more open borders is necessary too. The LSE has an article with the general argument, and some concrete examples: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/14/free-movement-f.... Essentially: if businesses can move around freely, people have to too, or you can screw your whole labour market.

I'm fairly convinced that this isn't ideological (or the vast majority isn't, certainly). It's not that the EU is pushing this beyond what's necessary for the economics, it's that the economic interests necessitate a lot of these rules, and trying to build a trade deal without them can blow up in your face.

Are there parts of these trade deals that could be removed without consequence? Genuine question, I really don't know.

Definitely agree though that more transparency and better explanations of all this to the public are important, that part is certainly an enormous mess right now.

If you agree there should be rules, you must also agree there should be a court for arbitration. Of course the countries could use their local courts, but courts are hierarchial for a reason. Unless one country decides to subject itself to the other countries supreme court, it seems that an independent court is needed for the deal?

Immigration and travel are both affected. The ability to travel and work in any country in the EU is a massive benefit which will likely be much more difficult. Visiting family in friends outside of the UK could become much more difficult.

Our laws are affected - there will be nothing to stop the UK Government from bringing in even more draconian and invasive spying laws [1] or scrapping the Human Rights Act as they have desired to do for so long.

The wonderful thing about the EU is that it has for the most part done nothing but protect people, and I worry what will happen when we leave.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snoopers-chart...

I agree the EU was a lock on this but it's a bit more complex than just changing the legislation.

[1] which is distinct from ECJ, and not an EU organisation.

Comparing NAFTA to the EU shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how far reaching the EU is. We are only at the beginning of the economic integration. Take for example the recent progress on the digital market. One advantage US startups have is 350m consumers immediately, something the EU is only just starting to bring in.

As for peace you might dismiss it but Western Europe has experienced the longest period of peace in its entire history by a massive margin. To put that on NATO and the UN but not the EU seems odd considering conflicts outside that involve NATO and UN member countries.

Your analysis of democracies seems very limited. Why did you exclude Germany from that list? Why don't you include Greece on you list of small democracies?

another good example is research and research funding.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-fundi...

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-fundi...

It's against the EU's best interests to give the UK a good deal in Article 50 negotiations. This has been said over and over again and the arguments are still just as valid as they were right after the vote: giving the UK a good deal sets a precedent.

Likewise it was obvious that the UK would trigger Article 50 and wouldn't hold another referendum because it would have been against their best interests to do anything else.

Cameron played an international game of chicken, risking the UK's special privileges in the EU and the 51% called his bluff. Not following through would have meant losing the only trump card the UK had available in EU negotiations: threatening to leave if the UK can't have it "their way".

It's basically a scenario of Mutually Assured Destruction but the UK actually pulled the trigger. The UK had no other choice than to follow through and file for Article 50. The EU has no other choice than to give the UK the worst deal both sides can agree on. The incentives are simply stacked against a mutually beneficial agreement because either side backing off would lose their face.

Of course there are still open questions: will the UK accept a shoddy deal or just let the negotiations default to a complete exit, will Scotland force a Scottish referendum (and what happens if Britain tries to prevent it, what happens if the referendum succeeds, will the EU accept an independent Scotland back into the EU or will they punish it to appease EU members fearing similar fragmentation), will UK-based international companies pivot to adjust to the new situation or will they relocate to stay in the EU, etc etc.

These are all detailed questions with answers that are very difficult to predict. But the two predictions that have been evident from the start are: 1. Brexit will happen and 2. it's in the EU's best interests to make the experience as unpleasant as possible.

You are lucky then as you always have the choice to leave the UK and enjoy the protections of the EU.

A lot of the coverage is focussed on trade/immigration etc. but there are lots of wonderful human rights protections and consumer protections that are provided by the EU which the British government will be excited to get rid of. It's that that worries me.

Take the surveillance overreach for example. Thanks to it violating EU law there now has to be a rethink. Or the Human Rights Act that the tory's have wanted rid of since Cameron was in office - because they don't like some of the rights if guarantees.

There are things more serious than the economy.

I agree, there's been some awful rhetoric out of the Tories about dismantling those, but as yet they aren't under threat AFAICT

Membership in the EU requires membership in the ECHR, that’s why Britain can only after Brexit go back to the human rights of the 1600s that the elected government wants.

But leaving the EU does noy (yet) mean leaving ECHR.

The worst prediction I've seen by reputable economists (though that was before it became clear that May was going to push for a hard Brexit) was a loss of 9% of GDP growth by 2030.

The bigger problem is that Britain is already facing significant structural challenges that are going to be compounded by Brexit. Too much of the economy is centered in the area around London [1], leaving the rest of the country relatively poor, and British productivity has consistently been low [2], compared to the US, Germany, and France. As Piketty discussed [3] (I'm greatly simplifying his more detailed analysis here), this leads to Americans working a lot and earning a lot, France and Germany trading income for more free time, and Brits working like Americans to have the economic per capita output of France and Germany.

This is not a good situation to be in to face additional economic challenges. This does not mean that the economy will implode (which would be rather unlikely), but it does create unnecessary stress.

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

[2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity...

[3] http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2017/01/09/of-productivity-in...

One note on productivity in UK:

My observation of UK business culture can be summed up as low-energy and stagnant, and that's compared to US business culture, which I don't like. An example of this is how low developer salaries are in the UK compared to other nations, relative to managers and bosses. I was blown away by how overpaid the managers are in the UK, and how underpaid the "doers" are.

My company's UK office reflects this. They are a notably low-energy group compared to our other offices. There are bright lights who seem to be cowed into submission by a cultural norm of never showing excitement or passion in the workplace. I'm sure there are benefits to removing emotion from interactions to an extent, but wow does that feel suffocating.

What's even worse is that the UK leaving the EU can destabilize the Euro, which is already on a knife's edge. If the Euro collapses we'll get a worldwide recession, with a staggering human cost.

It's too easy to dismiss concerns as doomsaying. We know from history that civilization doesn't progress in a linear manner. It's entirely possible for societies to make mistakes that take a century to recovery from, and the EU and the US are not invulnerable.

1. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-al...

Even if a Euro breakup is inevitable (it isn't; it can muddle along indefinitely if all countries adhere to a gold-standard-like fiscal policy) then a carefully premeditated breakup 8 years from now is much better than taking out the support beams now and watch it all fall apart.

The Eurozone hasn't even recovered from the 2008 crisis. The banks haven't been reformed, unemployment is still high, millennials are still struggling financially. Even if the countries agreed the Euro has to break up (and they don't) it would still take years of negotiations for a plan to materialize. There is nothing that can be done short term that wouldn't be a total disaster. So kicking the can down the road is likely the best option.

I don't think it will be "doomsday" either, but I think believing that things won't go downwards is an exercise in self-fooling.

What you're saying is as disingenuous as me saying that since all the horrible things people are afraid Trump didn't happy after the election before he came to power there was nothing to worry about.

This is my view point:

Reputable well known economists and analysts: "If the UK votes to leave then the UK will suffer great economic consequences. As soon as in the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2016 the UK will see a recession which will continue into 2017, 2018, ..."

A few months later the same people: "OK, 2016 was actually quite solid, but 2017 the shit will hit the fan"

A few months later the same reputable people: "OK, it seems like we need to make some corrections to our prognosis. There will be no recession, not even in 2017, but the economy will definitely not grow as fast as it would otherwise."

Me: "Why is still everyone hysteric. Seems like nobody knows what is really going on. Nothing bad happened yet. Let's chill and watch"

People from before: "Of course nothing has happened yet!!! Why did you think something should have happened by now? Who did tell you that, ey?"

Me: -.-

The decline is not going to be sudden it'll be a gradual thing as companies move staff out and new investment fails to happen.

I'm guessing that your let's chill and watch comes from a secure position. There are people who 10% increases in prices makes a massive difference and they can't afford to just 'chill and watch.' This is going to have very big consequences.

Anyway, the U.K. is a fairly large advanced economy, and as a bystander outside the U.K., US and Europe, I find it pretty far fetched that what you say will occur, and that the U.K. will have problems long term outside the EU. There might be some short term pain but it's probably for the best long term.

I'm struggling to see why being outside of a large trading bloc is better than being inside a large trading bloc. You've said it is better off long term so there must be advantages to being outside.

EDIT

Just to clarify the UK exports much more in services to the EU than it imports from the EU. Services are exactly the type of thing that the EU is different from other trade deals. The UK loses what it has a surplus on and has to pay more for all the goods that it has to import.

As to work and the economy, I guess we'll see. My company is expanding at a good rate, and if worst came to worst then I could up sticks and bring my family home.

This isn't the end of history. It's one country leaving a political block, one that has it's pros and many cons. The majority decided they want out. That's the way it is.

My access to the EU faces being curtailed (not just travel inconvenience, but the permanent movement of my family). If you're ok with that, good for you. I'm not.

I could go on. You say: "maybe I'm just chilled". How about, maybe you're forgetting to put yourself in other peoples shoes, or grasping why it matters to them. If you're ok with that, good for you. I'm not.

You would sell your home in sterling. Sterling has been devalued. If you then wanted to act internationally, you would be curtailed to the tune of 20%

Might not matter to you, but matters to me. I'm partially hedged but the vast asset base of the UK, and the salaries of all its workers, has been devalued by this move.

And don't get me wrong, economics is the least of my concerns.

I hope we'll get your ongoing rights in the UK sorted quickly. I'm fairly certain we will. Some stuff may be worse, some better.

The hysteria is doing nobody any favours - I've friends in London who seem convinced we're on our way to ethnic cleansing and probably war. They're scared, over very little.

What do you mean by "Europe" here? I guess you don't mean the Union nor the geographical continent (since the UK is obviously leaving one and staying in the other), so you must mean something else, but I'm not sure what.

The "Countries of the European Continent" have exactly the same international clout that any random group of world countries: without structures, without organization, without agreements, a bunch is just a bunch.

I'm looking forward to this all being behind us.

So I'm not saying that it is the end of the world. But look at Spain. If you look at the raw economic numbers, Spain has barely changed from before 2007, yet everybody I know (and that's a bunch of people) has been affected negatively.

It does not take the end of the world to make big trouble for a lot of people.

I mean, seriously, £68 billion for stuff we're not going to be able to use? Grow up and rework your budget. No trade negotiations until we leave?

It makes them look like utter fools, one dose of actual democracy deciding they've had enough of backdoor federalisation and they're threatening every punishment they can think of.

I know others now express regret at voting leave, but I now start to have the opposite, I voted remain and the way Junker et al. are acting is a stark reminder at how undemocratic, bureaucratic and unrepresentative of its citizens the EU is.

How would you describe the EU's actions right now? Rather than firing Junker and reforming, they're going to try and punish the UK to try and frighten their own citizens into staying EU members.

That's not rational or a considered response, that's an emotional one at odds with what is best for all of Europe's citizens.

From my perspective (as a Brit) it's us that have been the petulant ones, demanding special treatment and opt-outs from this directive or that, then throwing a temper tantrum when we couldn't have our own way.

All of that, combined with a relentless decades-long campaign of lies and vitriol from the Murdoch press, resulting in such gems as "the EU demands we have straight bananas!" among various myths, falsehoods and outright lies about the EU;

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

The entire leave campaign has been fuelled by an outrageous sense of entitlement on the part of a huge swathe of the population that cannot accept that we are no longer a world power to be reckoned with, and the hilariously inaccurate perceptions people have of the various EU bodies and how they work.

The EU is far from perfect, but by comparison the UK is a fucking catastrophe of systemic classism, crony capitalism and unelected hereditary privilege.

Taking in mind the recent past we can expect that Juncker will represent the interests of Juncker. Maybe also the interests of a small fraction of Europeans. No more, not less.

No trade negotiations until we official notify the EU that we are leaving, which makes nothing but sense from the EUs perspective.