The United Kingdom is resistance to its strategy of slow exit from Europe

If the new British prime minister, Germany's position, as more and more dictated by economic reasons, that policy, had appeared very conciliatory on the timing and exit ways from the European Union, the French President has opposed a more rigid attitude, which complicates the intentions of London. The UK approach, in fact, is always to anticipate Union output formal procedures, with negotiations outside the protocols, to dilate the time of detachment from Brussels. This strategy is functional to agree with Europe the problems that London is the most sensitive, most notably access to the single market. The British attitude can not be accepted at European level, both for reasons of expediency, internal and external, that preventive, to other potential countries willing to exploit the weaknesses of European and even sanctions for understandable reasons, given the many financial damage caused to the countries Europe and worldwide by the outcome of the British referendum. The reasons of domestic politics, which are valid for Hollande, but also for every other European leader, who intends to keep his country to the Union, hence the Merkel, are those of non-food controversy of European anti movements and not to favor them in electoral sense, providing an alibi of caution with London. This possibility should be denied to those who want to embark on the English road, if you want to avoid a drift general European institution, which could have very dangerous developments on the continental balance. Thought can only go to the National Front in France and the Northern League in Italy. As for external reasons, it means outside the issues of domestic policy of individual states, but, anyway, inside the European Union: it is no mystery that the attitude of the Eastern European countries is characterized by feelings of skepticism towards Brussels and the membership of the Union is dictated only by pure economic convenience reasons, as it was, and apparently continues to be for the UK. The occasion of the British referendum result should be used to convince the recalcitrant states to divide the responsibilities laid down in Union, demonstrating a firm attitude with who contravenes these obligations. In this case you can not even cover a possible sanctioning action, certainly not moved by reasons of revenge, because of some sort of reimbursement for the significant financial losses that the will to get out of Europe has imposed on the whole world. This should not be directed so much towards the population, which has had a fundamental right, as the British political class, which has failed to govern the phenomenon, pointing to Europe as responsible for their own inability to govern. London to the French position, shared by other countries, is an obstacle to the intentions of limiting the losses that the UK will have to suffer for the output from Europe and in Berlin this seems to be in the minority. Of course there are also practical reasons: if in London's financial and credit institutions and banks, will no longer enjoy the privileges guaranteed by Brussels, will open a competition, which in fact has already started, to ensure the presence of these organizations in the countries Europeans, and those preferences are just as France and Germany, with Italy and Benelux right behind. What emerges, however, is that the negotiations will be fast only if Europe is able to be compact in the will to enforce quick times in the UK, even with lobbying, which will stiffen the mutual diplomatic relations. The perception is that, despite everything, the most difficult situation is that of London, which must make it clear to a people who chose a certain direction, albeit with a difference not too big, that their economic situation will be worse. Reconcile these conditions with government action will be anything but simple.