If that is so, it would be insanity to invoke Article 50 in any shape or form, if it places us entirely in the hands of the other EU members, who can impose less favourable conditions of membership if they see fit, even if the UK subsequently tries to remain a member ... and in any case we can't withdraw it, even if the conditions of its completion will be unacceptable. That's not a very good position to be in.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
Again - no. We've already decided that we're going to leave and to start that process and begin negotiations we have to invoke Article 50.
All that remains once Article 50 is invoked is to negotiate the best possible deal that will be in place at the moment we do leave the EU.
Of course, after we've left, the terms of any trade deal (if there is one) could still be renegotiated at any time that both sides agree to do that. That applies to any other deals not to do with trade as well.
I've already posted earlier in the thread that I don't think the EU is really capable of negotiating anything meaningful in a two-year time frame. I think we should just accept the default world trade term conditions to begin with and walk away from further time-wasting 'negotiation'. That way we might be able to exit the EU even faster than the suggested two years. I think only when the reality of actual trading conditions confronts the French and Germans will they begin to attempt to negotiate something better.
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
Is there no, as yet unrevealed, consequence of leaving that would cause you to change your mind? No arising, unforeseen circumstance which would make you think a rethink might be warranted?
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Thats some wild speculation based on zero evidence.
The rabid little englander xenophobe leave voters didnt even take winning very well let alone losing because of the porridge wogs.
No. I think leaving was the best thing to do and I still think that.
If there's some terrible, as-yet-unknown consequence of leaving then it will be too late to do anything about it by then. That's the whole basis of decision making - you make your decision and then you live (or die) with the consequences.
It seems unlikely to me, but if life really is terrible outside the EU, then we could always apply to rejoin. Of course the EU may not want us back - and who could blame them.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,211
So there's nothing at all that, if revealed before article 50 were triggered, would make you think that the whole enterprise is a colossal error? No economic, social or political consequences whatsoever - prior to the invocation of the article, that would make you change your mind?
Actually, no.
Both sides agreed for the purpose of the case that Article 50 was irrevocable, which lead to the judgement.
However, it is arguable (with lawyers everything is
) that Article 50 is not irrevocable, although this would be finally judged by the ECJ. If Article 50 is not irrevocable, then a second referendum becomes a serious option as the British government could stop the Brexit process at the 11th hour.
I would change my mind, of course, if something catastrophic is revealed before Article 50 is triggered. Nothing like that has appeared on the horizon at the moment. Whatever it may be it has to happen in the next fifteen weeks or thereabouts: Prime Minister May has committed to an article 50 deadline of the end of March.
Sweden has had two noticeable referendums (all referendums are non-binding) where parliament and government acted contrary to winning choice during the referendums:
In 1955 82.9% of votes cast, with a turnout of 53.2%, was for the option of continuing to drive on the left-side of the road. 1963 parliament voted for a bill that would change to right-handed driving by 3 September 1967. Of course people didn't vote to drive on the left-side for all eternity but considering the broad support of the electorate it's telling that they acted against said voters wishes.
In 1980 and after the Three Mile Island accident in the US there was referendum on the discontinuing the use of nuclear power, with no options for continuing to use nuclear power. There were three alternatives:
- Nuclear power would be phased out over a period that would not impact too severely on employment and welfare. The twelve nuclear power stations operating or under construction would continue to be used until renewable sources became available, in order to reduce dependence on oil. There would also be no further expansion of nuclear power and the order in which the existing nuclear power stations would close down would be dependent on security.
- As with proposal 1, but efforts would also be made to reduce energy consumption whilst protecting low income groups, including phasing out electric heating and increased R&D of renewable energy led by the government. In addition, a security committee with local membership would be put in place at each nuclear power plant and the public sector would take responsibility for generating and distributing electricity. Nuclear power plants would be owned by central and local government and any surplus profits from hydroelectric generation would be subject to a 100% tax rate.
- The expansion of nuclear power would cease immediately and the six operational stations would be subject to stricter conditions and closed within ten years. Efforts would be made to reduce energy consumption and to increase renewable energy capacity. Uranium mining would be banned and efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons would be enhanced.
Option two won with 39.1% of the vote while option three got a close 38.7%. Turnout was roughly 75.6%. Despite the clear and overwhelming position to nuclear power plants at the time Sweden has not closed down all it's NPP and the political consensus among the major parties allowed phase-out policy to be abandoned by 2009. By then much of the fear of nuclear power had lessened and far more importance was placed on reducing Sweden's carbon output.
In both of the cases there was a decent time between when the referendums were held and when politicians acted against the wishes of those voters so it's easy to argue that said referendums were no longer valid. Ultimately, especially in the case of nuclear power, the smart thing was not to simply to cave into public pressure but to act pragmatically.
Last edited:
That is if you believe that the only issues that will be covered in the negotiations are trade and immigration. It is estimated that the negotiations will cover at least 200 separate issues.
Thank you Arcade22. I didn't know about those referendums.
Actually, no.
Both sides agreed for the purpose of the case that Article 50 was irrevocable, which lead to the judgement.
However, it is arguable (with lawyers everything is
If Article 50 is not irrevocable, then a second referendum becomes a serious option as the British government could stop the Brexit process at the 11th hour.
I was looking at this today and it looks like the advice from the EU is that it is irrevocable and certainly there appears to be no terms in the treaty that allows it to be revoked by the country putting down article 50 although it may be possible if both the EU parliament and the other 27 member states agreed. But certainly there is no stated power to revoke by the state leaving the EU. This of course would be a point not for the UK Supreme Court but for the EU court to rule on.
Perhaps our best tactic then, would be to refuse to engage in any discussion about trade and immigration and attempt to concentrate on the other 198+ issues.
But I don't think the EU negotiators would allow that - they'd most often say that they couldn't discuss some matter in isolation as it is inextricably linked with the trade and immigration issues.
Remember that every EU country has a veto on these negotiations and lots of countries have their own agenda. Just as one example, Spain wants to negotiate sovereignty of Gibraltar.
Trying to conclude negotiations with a rabble of competing EU-member countries in a two-year time frame will be farcical.
Last edited:
From what you've already posted, I can see you're one of these chaps who knows how to deal with Johnnie Foreigner. But one foreigner had the presumption to talk back cheekily when BoJo stated exactly what you have just explained, as reported in the Indy.
Italy’s economic development minister said Mr Johnson told him during a recent meeting that Italy would grant Britain access to the EU’s single market “because you don’t want to lose prosecco exports”.
Mr Calenda said: "He basically said, ‘I don’t want free movement of people but I want the single market’. I said, ‘no way’. He said, ‘you’ll sell less prosecco.’ I said, ‘OK, you’ll sell less fish and chips, but I’ll sell less prosecco to one country and you’ll sell less to 27 countries.’”
So there may yet be a few hesitations before the reality of English Imperial economic dominance impresses these lesser folk with its invincible might. Or whatever.Mr Calenda said: "He basically said, ‘I don’t want free movement of people but I want the single market’. I said, ‘no way’. He said, ‘you’ll sell less prosecco.’ I said, ‘OK, you’ll sell less fish and chips, but I’ll sell less prosecco to one country and you’ll sell less to 27 countries.’”
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Did a Brexiteer really just use the expression 'reality of actual trading conditions' with a straight face?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Still stuck in the airport getting increasingly fractious with each other. There'll be tears before bedtime, mark my words.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
This seems eminently reasonable to me. The electorate will have something concrete to consider, which was not the case in the June referendum.
This will be beyond the poiint of guessing what attitude the EU negotiators will take, and what the "best possible deal" actually is. There it will be in all its glory. Very hard to lie about.
One can see why Leavers hate the prospect of that. They must also hate the thought that today's 16- and 17-year olds will have joined the electoral roll, while a large number of Leavers will have shuffled off it.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Estimated by whom? There'll be technical matters to resolve, no doubt, but the number will depend on, for instance, whether we remain part of the customs union.
The substantial issues all revolve around the movement of goods, people, services and capital. Some or all of that movement will be less than free or there's no point in the exercise, so that's where the deals will be agreed. Everything else will fall into place around them.
You're not reading. Once Article 50 is invoked (and that is the only way to start negotiations) then there is no going back to the status quo unless the EU and all member countries agree that we can. There's no chance of that happening.
So there may be only the one negotiated Brexit deal on the table after any negotiations - and therefore nothing to vote about. The EU might decide to offer some other second deal but you can be sure that will be worse than what we have right now.
- Status