4 ms·

No, it just points to a. Having a reasonable exit process (the default of two years makes no sense) and b. The public having the patience to understand 40+ year

No, it just points to a. Having a reasonable exit process (the default of two years makes no sense) and b. The public having the patience to understand 40+ years of cooperation can't be rolled back in a matter of months.

throwaway122379 7y ago
The 2 year window and article 50 was an addition from UK ironically Also they did not have to lodge the article 50 letter when they did, they could have spent years preparing and figuring out what it is exactly they want to accomplish. Finally the EU gave an extension twice now for them to figure out what they want, instead of doing that UK govt doubled down on stupid.
- Asooka 7y ago
  > UK govt doubled down on stupid Seeing all that happen, I'm convinced we should abolish voting. Instead of voting for prime minister, etc. they should be chosen at random from the general population the same way we do jury duty. Monte Carlo government. It can't be any worse than the current government and since it's random selection you can't have the process corrupted.
  - martin8412 7y ago
    The UK does not vote on the PM.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  If the UK wants more time, they should just revoke article 50 and then activate it again later on. I don't understand this whole "will the EU grant an extension?" business.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The Brexiteers are very aware that their win was narrow and they will never be given another chance. If it's revoked it will stay dead.
  - martin8412 7y ago
    They can't just revoke article 50 to only reenact it later on. A retraction of article 50 would have to be in good faith. A European court came to that conclusion.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>"a. Having a reasonable exit process (the default of two years makes no sense)" For comedy reasons, Article 50 was actually written for the EU, by Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a cross bench peer in the UK's House of Lords. This was after the UK insisted the EU adopt something draconian, to dissuade new members from screwing the EU around.

throwaway122379 7y ago

The 2 year window and article 50 was an addition from UK ironically Also they did not have to lodge the article 50 letter when they did, they could have spent years preparing and figuring out what it is exactly they want to accomplish. Finally the EU gave an extension twice now for them to figure out what they want, instead of doing that UK govt doubled down on stupid.

Asooka 7y ago
> UK govt doubled down on stupid Seeing all that happen, I'm convinced we should abolish voting. Instead of voting for prime minister, etc. they should be chosen at random from the general population the same way we do jury duty. Monte Carlo government. It can't be any worse than the current government and since it's random selection you can't have the process corrupted.
- martin8412 7y ago
  The UK does not vote on the PM.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
If the UK wants more time, they should just revoke article 50 and then activate it again later on. I don't understand this whole "will the EU grant an extension?" business.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The Brexiteers are very aware that their win was narrow and they will never be given another chance. If it's revoked it will stay dead.
- martin8412 7y ago
  They can't just revoke article 50 to only reenact it later on. A retraction of article 50 would have to be in good faith. A European court came to that conclusion.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

>"a. Having a reasonable exit process (the default of two years makes no sense)" For comedy reasons, Article 50 was actually written for the EU, by Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a cross bench peer in the UK's House of Lords. This was after the UK insisted the EU adopt something draconian, to dissuade new members from screwing the EU around.