I find nothing satisfying in this by the way. The UK just burned billions without a valid reason for it. It's really parallel to Trump's campaign. He promises he'll make America great again, but has never bothered discussing HOW he proposes to achieve that. Similarly, the Brexit folk are in limbo at the moment, backtracking from some of the promises they made to the people - which of course they can't sustain. Guess what, UK was not in the Schengen to begin with, so they always were in control of their border. Oh wait, those immigrants we have are from former colonies, can't really blame that on Europe, can we? The money it costs to be part of the EU, guess what, is not a much as we stated before - and we'll need to pay a fee if we want to trade with the EU. The UK will never get a better trade with the EU - that would be delusional. I could ramble on...
This is just markets responding to temporary uncertainty. Far more was wiped off European stocks than the FTSE, reflecting the fact that investors are more worried about the future of the EU than they are the UK.
> He promises he'll make America great again, but has never bothered discussing HOW he proposes to achieve that.
The argument for a better future upon leaving the EU was clear and realistic. Leaving the EU puts power back in the hands of the British people to decide their own destiny, for better or worse.
> Guess what, UK was not in the Schengen to begin with, so they always were in control of their border.
Although the UK was not in the Schengen Area, it had absolutely no control over migration from other EU countries.
As a member of the EU, every single citizen of the EU has a right to live and work in the UK indefinitely. 700 million people could turn up on the UK's doorstop tomorrow and there's nothing the UK could do about it.
That's what is meant by the term 'uncontrolled immigration'
> The money it costs to be part of the EU, guess what, is not a much as we stated before - and we'll need to pay a fee if we want to trade with the EU. The UK will never get a better trade with the EU - that would be delusional. I could ramble on...
The UK was a net contributor to the EU. That is undeniable. For all the funding the EU provided to projects in the UK, we were getting back pennies on the pound.
Who says we will need to pay a fee to retain access to the single market? Norway does, but it is a net exporter to the EU. The UK is a net importer. If anything, the EU should be paying the UK to join the single market.
And of the 11 net contributors during the years 2007-2013, only Austria and Finland payed less than the UK if measured relative to GNI [1] (eg Austria and Finland 0.24%, UK 0.25%, France 0.29%, Belgium and Germany 0.35%).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#E...
The FTSE losses seem smaller because they are denominated in Pounds, which tanked the day after against the Dollar ... and the Euro.
If 5 million people decide to move from Finland to Ireland in the next month there's nothing anyone in either country can do to stop them. One is schengen country one is not. Both are in the EU.
This does mean the UK will have to continue allowing free movement.
That said, members of the EEA have the power (under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement) to place an "emergency brake" on free movement if "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties" liable to persist are arising.
Although much of the leave vote was driven by opposition to uncontrolled migration, and continued participation in the single market will be seen by many as backtracking on this, this power (which the UK does not currently have as an EU member state) should be a sufficient degree of control for most.
Do you know off the top of your head: what is the difference between the European council and the council of the European union? Which states are part of the European council on human rights? When the EC has or has not authority over the ECB? When or when not the MEPs have authority over the ECB? The EC?
I reject your premise for the following reasons:
- The citizens never deal directly with the rules governing the formation of the institutions of the EU.
- The rules are not inconsistently applied.
- The latest overhaul of the EU composition rules was performed in 2009. Which parts of it are arcane?
- The rules are all written down, there is no need for anyone to keep them in their head.
what is the difference between the European council and the council of the European union?
The European Council is composed of the heads of state of all EU members. The Council of the EU is a topical assembly, and consists of the respective ministers of all member states (e.g. when discussing finance, the Council consists of ministers of finance).
Which states are part of the European council on human rights?
That does not exist. The acronym ECHR can refer to either the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty that predates the EU, or the European Court of Human Rights, the agency entrusted with arbitrating disputes concerning the former. Its signatories are all states of Europe, including Russia and Turkey. Together they are called the Council of Europe.
The only relation between the EU and the ECHR is that the EU has made court decisions binding. For members of the Council of Europe that are not EU members, the ECHR has no enforcement mechanism.
When the EC has or has not authority over the ECB?
EC customarily stands for European Commission, which never has authority over the European Central Bank.
When or when not the MEPs have authority over the ECB?
They never have. The ECB is informed and directed by the European Council, but not dictated.
The EC?
The European Parliament has the power to reject members of the European Commission when they are nominated.
By the way, this is a moot point, since the UK was not a member of Schengen, European council on human rights, Eurozone. However, UK will want to stay in the EEA, meaning it will have to comply with basically all the things the Brexit people wanted to avoid - like regulations, the free movement of Europeans & membership fees - but with significantly worse terms, and losing the ability to vote. This is a real head scratcher IMHO.
If you mean the European Convention of Human Rights, yes the UK has signed it as all EU members have to. The current government's election manifesto explicity wants to exit and replace it with a "British Bill of Rights" with fewer protections on labour or on humane treatment of convicts or foreigners.