Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
It has been nearly two years since the United Kingdom narrowly voted in favor of leaving the European Union.Apparently, none of the politicians and newspaper editors who plotted for years to get the U.K. out of the EU thought much about what would happen if their machinations succeeded. They have been unable to agree even on whether the U.K. should pursue a "soft" Brexit, with the U.K. remaining closely connected to European markets, or a "hard" Brexit that severs ties without regard for the economic impact.Even with a clear and realistic strategy, the two-year time period allotted for negotiating the U.K.'s departure – which began in March 2017, when the U.K. invoked Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon – would hardly be sufficient to cover the plethora of issues that demand attention.To believe that the U.K. can do better on its own than it can as part of the world's richest single market is nothing short of delusional.Not only will that take a lot of time; the U.K. is unlikely to secure terms as favorable as the EU has.
Is Britain becoming a failed state?
Great countries, bad leaders
What Carrie Lam should do next
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE