Did the Queen speak publicly on the issue one way or the other?
I would have to think if she voiced the preference to stay in, the country would have voted that way.
Probably too late for her say anything now

Anonymous wrote:The other thing to keep in mind is that the EU is still made up of 27 other countries. What the leadership of the EU says in Brussels doesn't necessarily reflect what the feelings are in the individual capitals across Europe. Merkel for example, has made statements urging patience and she is nowhere as rash as the leadership in Brussels, and Merkel is the most powerful figure in Europe.

We are in uncharted waters. Moods, opinions and beliefs will likely fluctuate widely from day to day over the next few weeks. I do think it's possible the UK will still not fully leave the EU. During the referendum David Cameron promised that if the country voted to Leave he would immediately invoke Article 50, but he's backtracked and refused to do that, which is rather telling. Even Johnson and Gove have said Article 50 doesn't need to be invoked right away. It's still possible that Merkel and a few other supporters will force Brussels to backtrack and offer substantial concessions and further opt outs to the UK as a compromise, giving it some sort of special status as a non full EU member but an affiliate of some type. It'll have some access to the single market, but will also have restrictions on unpopular policies such as the freedom of movement that so strongly drove the Leave vote. The question comes down to how much the EU really wants Britain in the EU and how much the EU is willing to become more flexible. I don't doubt that if the EU came back with substantial concessions that directly addressed UK Leave voters, enough would be convinced to switch to remaining in the EU.

What the British vote underscored is that there is dissent all across Europe towards the EU, not just in the UK. The one size fits all model of the EU has left many people unhappy and resentful. The EU itself has behaved badly towards a number of countries including Greece, Italy and Spain. There are a couple important elections coming up in the next year with results that could further challenge the authority of the EU. The EU has a choice: adopt a scorched earth policy towards its member countries, inflexible with no further compromises, or tack to a new direction that allows for much greater flexibility of arrangements between individual countries and the EU, more democratic input and curbs on EU policies that were once seen as sacrosanct, such as the freedom of population movement.

We will see, of course. Get your popcorn ready. It will be an entertaining year.

I don't think your analysis is correct. You seem to describe a EU leadership separated and out of touch with the national government, and this is incorrect. the EU commission is an expression of the national governments. In this case Junker invited the UK to act on the art 50 notification quickly, and soon after the six foreign ministers of the founding countries (Italy, France, Germany, The Netherland, Belgium and Luxembourg) met and issued a joint declaration pressing the UK to start the withdrawal process promptly. these people are not yahoos from nowhere, they were speaking as the representatives of their governments, which are among the most important in the EU, including the German government. The German foreign minister is in the same party as Ms. Merkel, so her position does not appear that strong. and Merkel herself simply stated that there is no reason to be nasty and that separation can be negotiated in a business like manner and that she would not fight now to impose an immediate notification.

if you think that the EU, and even Germany, would be ready to beg the UK back and give concessions, you are highly dreaming. the UK already got tons of concessions in the past. the UK has been rowing against the flow for 40 years, negotiating hard every single agreement to obtain as little integration as possible while at the same time getting all the benefits of being in the EU. Back in February 2016 the UK got a bunch of concessions (protection for its financial services and the sterling, preventing them from being shipped to other countries with the euro, limitation to intra-EU legal immigration, assurance that the UK would not have to participate in further political integration- even with respect to the Syrian refugee crisis, they basically got not to shoulder their share), and these concessions were made so Cameron could have additional arguments to win the referendum (which he had called basically for political reasons internal to the Tory party and the right). Well, he still lost. Clearly I do not have the crystal ball and the next few weeks and months will be interesting to watch (and, as an European, very worrisome) but I really think there is no chance in hell the EU is going to beg the UK back with huge concessions. the UK already had gotten them, now put itself in a weak position by voting to leave. if the EU did what you say it will do, it would break up in three seconds because other countries would wonder why they have to pay into the EU, let other EU nationals in to be in the single market and the UK does not have to.

I do not think that UK voters need concessions to change their minds. they were lied to, they started realizing it also because the liars started backing off from what they said before the referendum and I am pretty sure if there was a new vote today, without concessions, the UK would vote to stay. But now it is too late.

your idea that the EU can exist with a single market but no freedom of relocation within the EU and with single EU countries hammering their own agreements with the EU is a total nonsense. it simply means that the EU would cease to exist. I am not sure about your classification of the EU's attitude as "scorched earth". here we have a sovereign country with a century old history of democracy and free press, whose population was called to vote on a referendum on very clear terms: staying inside the European Union (with its pros and cons) or leaving the European Union (with all the pros and cons, which have been explained really well to whoever was willing to listen). 16.1 million of adults voted to stay and 17.4 million of adults voted to leave, so the decision was to leave. asking them to start promptly what will be a several year long process of separation does not look like scorched earth to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The majority of Brits voted to leave the EU, in a record turnout election.

Elections have consequences.

And they don't even know what the EU is!

You're not still peddling that silly story?

This should explain how google search works:

http://www.geektime.com/2016/06/25/no-brits-are-not-googling-what-is-the-eu-because-they-dont-know-what-the-eu-is/

If you are relying on a 20 year old saying she had buyer's remorse as did "the rest of" her multi-generational family, then I've got some ocean front property to sell you in California. That was the worst bit of reporting I've seen. You can't report hearsay and that's exactly what that was.

Anonymous wrote:The majority of Brits voted to leave the EU, in a record turnout election.

Elections have consequences.

And they don't even know what the EU is!

How a do over could work.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-revote-stop-brexit-081452041.html

The other thing to keep in mind is that the EU is still made up of 27 other countries. What the leadership of the EU says in Brussels doesn't necessarily reflect what the feelings are in the individual capitals across Europe. Merkel for example, has made statements urging patience and she is nowhere as rash as the leadership in Brussels, and Merkel is the most powerful figure in Europe.

We are in uncharted waters. Moods, opinions and beliefs will likely fluctuate widely from day to day over the next few weeks. I do think it's possible the UK will still not fully leave the EU. During the referendum David Cameron promised that if the country voted to Leave he would immediately invoke Article 50, but he's backtracked and refused to do that, which is rather telling. Even Johnson and Gove have said Article 50 doesn't need to be invoked right away. It's still possible that Merkel and a few other supporters will force Brussels to backtrack and offer substantial concessions and further opt outs to the UK as a compromise, giving it some sort of special status as a non full EU member but an affiliate of some type. It'll have some access to the single market, but will also have restrictions on unpopular policies such as the freedom of movement that so strongly drove the Leave vote. The question comes down to how much the EU really wants Britain in the EU and how much the EU is willing to become more flexible. I don't doubt that if the EU came back with substantial concessions that directly addressed UK Leave voters, enough would be convinced to switch to remaining in the EU.

What the British vote underscored is that there is dissent all across Europe towards the EU, not just in the UK. The one size fits all model of the EU has left many people unhappy and resentful. The EU itself has behaved badly towards a number of countries including Greece, Italy and Spain. There are a couple important elections coming up in the next year with results that could further challenge the authority of the EU. The EU has a choice: adopt a scorched earth policy towards its member countries, inflexible with no further compromises, or tack to a new direction that allows for much greater flexibility of arrangements between individual countries and the EU, more democratic input and curbs on EU policies that were once seen as sacrosanct, such as the freedom of population movement.

We will see, of course. Get your popcorn ready. It will be an entertaining year.

Just to be clear not everyone in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't like how "the people" voted, so you have a re-vote?

Can we do that to?

Not op, but the people seem to be having second thoughts. The already apparent consequence (Scotland and Ireland possibly leaving UK, pound losing value) are more than they anticipated. Of course the worse is yet to come.

Just to be clear, I hope the above poster is aware that Scotland and *Northern* Ireland voted to remain.The Republic of Ireland is not within the United Kingdom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't like how "the people" voted, so you have a re-vote?

Can we do that to?

Yup we do it every four years.

This was not an election, this was a referendum to leave the EU and people voted yes. I cant's see how the Brit's government can ignore the vote and fail to claim art 50. Once they do that, in two years they are out, they like it or not. The voters cannot simply vote to go back in, they need to reapply to the EU and the EU countries needs to vote to let them in. If some voters did not realize that a referendum like this was not exactly the place for a protest vote, too bad for them.

The vote is not binding,

Anonymous wrote:
By reading art. 50 it is not clear to me that they can simply do another referendum and be done. the EU is not pressing for the art. 50 notification to be done as quickly as possible (both Juncker and the foreign ministers of the 6 founding countries did that yesterday), they do not even want to wait for October. Once the process is started, the treaties stop being effective after 2 years (UK is out) or the Council can give an extension but this is just for the negotiations. not to keep the country in endlessly. art. 50 expressly states that if a country decides to come back, it needs to reapply under art. 49 (so just a normal application, that will be evaluated in time). The UK government could in theory ignore the referendum, but I can't see how this is feasible. once the notification under art. 50 is given, it seems to me that there is only the way out and a country cannot just unilaterally take it back.

From what I understand, the EU can scream and holler all that it wants, but until the UK invokes Article 50, the country is still an EU member in good standing and nothing has changed. Cameron has explicitly said it will be up to the next PM to handled Article 50 notification. That would delay it until at least October. The PM could well ask for a parliamentary vote. What if that vote failed to agree to invoke Article 50? Somewhere along the way there could be a call for new elections, delaying things even further. The French and Germans could be stamping their feet the entire time, but what difference does that make?

The Parliament could even vote not to invoke Article 50, then the PM could call for new elections, and the election would be a de facto referendum. If enough pro-Brexit MPs were returned, Parliament could vote to invoke Article 50. If not, they would say they have a mandate not to.

Again it depends in how things look down the road. The remain advocates said this would be a mess for everyone. If they are right, there will be second thoughts all around. Not saying it will happen, but it could be done if everyone agrees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't like how "the people" voted, so you have a re-vote?

Can we do that to?

Yup we do it every four years.

This was not an election, this was a referendum to leave the EU and people voted yes. I cant's see how the Brit's government can ignore the vote and fail to claim art 50. Once they do that, in two years they are out, they like it or not. The voters cannot simply vote to go back in, they need to reapply to the EU and the EU countries needs to vote to let them in. If some voters did not realize that a referendum like this was not exactly the place for a protest vote, too bad for them.

I was being facetious. But more seriously, nothing stops them from having a new referendum any time in the next two years. Also, the two years is not an absolute. It only starts when formal notification is given and even then the European Council can agree to extend the two-year period. So I can well imagine that if the UK economy tanks in the next two years, they can ask for and would receive a do-over.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

By reading art. 50 it is not clear to me that they can simply do another referendum and be done. the EU is not pressing for the art. 50 notification to be done as quickly as possible (both Juncker and the foreign ministers of the 6 founding countries did that yesterday), they do not even want to wait for October. Once the process is started, the treaties stop being effective after 2 years (UK is out) or the Council can give an extension but this is just for the negotiations. not to keep the country in endlessly. art. 50 expressly states that if a country decides to come back, it needs to reapply under art. 49 (so just a normal application, that will be evaluated in time). The UK government could in theory ignore the referendum, but I can't see how this is feasible. once the notification under art. 50 is given, it seems to me that there is only the way out and a country cannot just unilaterally take it back.

The EU on the timing of Brexit. Doesn't seem they are open to a delay or revote.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/top-eu-leader-we-want-britain-out-as-soon-as-possible

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't like how "the people" voted, so you have a re-vote?

Can we do that to?

Yup we do it every four years.

This was not an election, this was a referendum to leave the EU and people voted yes. I cant's see how the Brit's government can ignore the vote and fail to claim art 50. Once they do that, in two years they are out, they like it or not. The voters cannot simply vote to go back in, they need to reapply to the EU and the EU countries needs to vote to let them in. If some voters did not realize that a referendum like this was not exactly the place for a protest vote, too bad for them.

I was being facetious. But more seriously, nothing stops them from having a new referendum any time in the next two years. Also, the two years is not an absolute. It only starts when formal notification is given and even then the European Council can agree to extend the two-year period. So I can well imagine that if the UK economy tanks in the next two years, they can ask for and would receive a do-over.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html