No they threatened. Obama threatened the UK of no trade deal. France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants. Germany threatened of no trade agreement. People, and Brits in particular, always respond to threats the same way: "fuck you!"
They don't have one, and they assumed they would get one. Why? Obama just clarified: you do not have it, and will not get it. Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because?
> Germany threatened of no trade agreement.
Same here
> France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants
France has a huge refugee camp in the border with the UK, which France is keeping out of the UK just because of the agreements that the UK has with the EU. Why should now France carry the cost of keeping those immigrants out of the UK? They obviously want to go to the UK, so let them.
Do you really think that the leaving the EU has no consequence? It is not punishment, it is just voluntarily deciding to renounce the benefits of a club.
When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything.
> When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
You'll keep your special relationship. You'll simply not get a new trade agreement. There is already one with the EU, which you are leaving. You are also getting out of all the rest of the EU agreements.
But don't worry: maybe you get a trade agreement with the US after all: you are more than welcome to start negotiating dupes (or improved versions) for the agreements than you consider interesting, but it does not follow that your potential partners must agree, not even that they have any interest whatsoever in negotiating with you, which is what you are implying. Maybe they have, maybe not. For starters, a new agreement is definitely extra work, which some may just not want, or maybe even not be in a position to dedicate resources to.
You are now free to fight for your interests. The rest too.
> Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
The analogy applies at the tennis club level or the galactic empire level: out of a club is out of a club. It is not "out of the bad things but keeping the good things". The club got you those good things. Now go fight for them on your own. Hey, maybe you get an even better deal!
> “We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if Britain is no longer in the European Union.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-borde...
The EU was more than a market for the UK. You'll eventually see that.
We are simply not in the same camp anymore.
The British people didn't say "fuck you", they said "we don't really know what we want". I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you.
The issues at hand are very complex and quite simply too much so for most voters to even get an idea of what's at stake. As with any such referendum, the overwhelming majority of the votes are cast emotionally. You cannot get such a massive amount of people to think through the implications rationally - they go with their gut.
So again, the message here is "we have no idea what we really want", not "fuck you".
And are you actually saying that such important decisions shouldn't be left up to voters? If so, then should choosing leaders be left up to voters?
It seems pretty clear that many (not all) of those who voted Leave were in fact telling the EU and the scaremongering demagogues for Remain, "Fuck you." And some other portion (the sets probably overlap) were saying something like, "This EU thing isn't working out like you said it would, so we want out." Not, "I don't know what I want."
I think the population has a right to vote. I just don't think most people are fit to vote on every particular issue. It's en emotional vote and it could have swung one way or the other. Interesting times!
Not entirely sure of your general opinions on voting, but for the most part, majority is majority when it comes to democracy. You can't now claim "oh but it isn't victory by a significant margin, therefore people didn't really know what they wanted to vote for." The message is: "52% of the voters at the time wanted X, therefore democracy-dictates we do X". If it's good-enough for electing our leaders, it's good enough for a referendum.
Because he's gone in five months. Assuming the UK doesn't leave Europe till the negotiations have been sorted out (so maybe a few months from now) then it's unlikely he'll be doing much negotiating in regards to a possible UK/US trade deal. Matters much more what Clinton or Trump thinks of the whole idea...