UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

>> I may not like the way it cuts sometimes, but no way in hell I'll ever put it down.

Why not? It's not a perfect process and blindly accepting it because 'democracy is good' is dangerous.

Personally I'm against Brexit and don't think we should go through with it. BUT the reason I don't think we should go through with it is that most voters were woefully uninformed or completely misinformed. Both sides were lied to and manipulated. Having a referendum on an issue that experts fail to understand is just plain idiotic. If there was a way to have a well informed vote and it didn't go my way I would accept it without complaint.

To echo the other poster - because it looks like the actions of an empire-building bully. It looks like spite.

> Also I seriously don't think of the Brexit that the UK leaves Europe. I think the UK and the EU will strive for the closest relationship possible. The only thing that I see changing is that the UK withdraws from a formal contract with the EU with the hope to negotiate a better deal.

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.

> Why are EU countries allowed to have borders but the USA cannot?

The USA has always had borders, and absolutely is allowed to have them.

> On this side of the pond its double plus ungood badthink to support borders of any sort

No, it's not. It's just one set of extremists as to what the rules should be at the border portrays any disagreement with them as being opposed to borders (the same group does the same kind of generalization on other issues as well) to avoid engaging in debate about the substance of their proposals on the rules. There's a very small minority of actual open borders supporters, and except for the one group that rhetoricallt conflates that small group with their larger opponents, they basically are irrelevant in policy debate.

Look at Cyprus. Bit more expensive in setting up. Stupidly cost effective at running and taxation, especially when not tax resident.