• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Brexit: Now What? Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
It clearly states the negotiation is for withdrawal. Withdrawal has nothing to do with future trading arrangements. The uk government insists it does not want a future framework in place but wants to be a third party nation. That being the case there is no future framework to take account of particularly. The UK will have the same status in the EU as Uganda.

It is the UK that has refused to discuss a future framework as they will not accept the rights and freedoms that this would entail extending to EU citizens
Click to expand...

So withdrawal has nothing to do with future [trading arrangements] but does have something to do with future [framework]?


(Obviously, the withdrawal process encompasses both.)
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
It clearly states the negotiation is for withdrawal. Withdrawal has nothing to do with future trading arrangements. The uk government insists it does not want a future framework in place but wants to be a third party nation. That being the case there is no future framework to take account of particularly. The UK will have the same status in the EU as Uganda.

It is the UK that has refused to discuss a future framework as they will not accept the rights and freedoms that this would entail extending to EU citizens
Click to expand...

It quite clearly states that the EU will "negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union"

If no account is being taken of the UK's future relationship with the Union, which must include trade (as trade is an integral if not defining and indeed founding aspect of the EU) then you could legitimately argue that the EU is negotiating in bad faith.
 
I know 2 Leave supporters well. One is an outlier, wound way too tight and not representative of anything that doesn't have a blue touchpaper. The other used to be my team lead in a major bank and sets world standards in some IT technologies for the bank, good degree etc. He ranted at me for ages before the referendum about how bad the EU was, how we paid too much, EU was undemocratic and so forth. I'd counter each issue he raised with actual facts but too many talking points before he voted Leave. 2 weeks later he told me he'd made a mistake.
 
Wudang said:
I know 2 Leave supporters well. One is an outlier, wound way too tight and not representative of anything that doesn't have a blue touchpaper. The other used to be my team lead in a major bank and sets world standards in some IT technologies for the bank, good degree etc. He ranted at me for ages before the referendum about how bad the EU was, how we paid too much, EU was undemocratic and so forth. I'd counter each issue he raised with actual facts but too many talking points before he voted Leave. 2 weeks later he told me he'd made a mistake.
Click to expand...

I know three leave voters (A, B, C) who work for a company that spun off from my parent company before we also spun off from them.

A and B are evangelical Christians
A and C don't believe in evolution or global warming (I don't know about B)
A thinks that Trump is wonderful, and dismisses any negative story about Trump or Brexit as fake news. B is certainly highly intelligent, but then I know several highly intelligent people who consistently fall over in performing analyses, because of personality traits - being intelligent, but compartmentalised thinkers, for example.

My father says that most of his friends voted leave, which surprised him because he thought it was obviously a bad idea. They are generally prosperous and retired and with an emotional attachment to "how things used to be". My godfather recently told me he still thinks "it'll turn out for the best" but wasn't able to explain how.
 
Meanwhile John Crace's sketch of May's Florence speech

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/22/florence-machine-maybot-theresa-may-brexit-speech

The Machine looked pleasantly surprised. She was used to losing her audiences inside 10 minutes; now she had surpassed herself with the first heads going down after just five. Exactly the reaction she had been hoping for. It took a lot of practice to talk for so long and say nothing that people didn’t already know. She pressed on, unwittingly making a compelling case for Britain remaining in the EU as she explained why we were so keen to leave. Irony has never been her strong point.
Click to expand...

After another 10 minutes of management away-day filler, the Machine eventually got to some substance. Probably by mistake. First, Ireland. Ireland was very tricky, wasn’t it? she muttered to herself in a stream of unconsciousness. She’d given it a lot of thought and she just couldn’t come up with any way of maintaining a soft border while staying out of the customs union. Sorry and all that. Maybe someone in the EU could have a think about it? It was beginning to look as if all the creativity she had asked for would have to come from Brussels.
Click to expand...

Now she appeared to start thinking on her feet. Never a good idea for the Maybot. How about instead of either Britain or the European court of justice deciding on the legal status of EU citizens, we got a third party court to arbitrate instead. We would be taking back control by handing over control to someone else. She was happy to recommend either the Strictly Come Dancing judges or North Korea. She didn’t mind which.
Click to expand...

the other paragraphs are somewhat critical of the delivery and content of the speech.
 
Giz said:
So withdrawal has nothing to do with future [trading arrangements] but does have something to do with future [framework]?


(Obviously, the withdrawal process encompasses both.)
Click to expand...

The withdrawal arrangements must obviously take into account what is and isn't being withdrawn from and what financial or other commitments that entails. Negotiating a trade deal does not impact on the withdrawal arrangements beyond deciding whether the UK will be in or out of the free trade zone. The UK has said it doesn't want to be in. So the withdrawal process continues, taking into account that future arrangement.
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
It quite clearly states that the EU will "negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union"

If no account is being taken of the UK's future relationship with the Union, which must include trade (as trade is an integral if not defining and indeed founding aspect of the EU) then you could legitimately argue that the EU is negotiating in bad faith.
Click to expand...

Taking into account a future arrangement does not mean negotiating the details of a deal based on that arrangement.

Article 50 deals with withdrawal.

Article 218 deals with how the EU negotiates with third countries.

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/article-50-teu-uses-and-abuses-of.html

Secondly, as to the content of the negotiations, Article 50 provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal arrangement, not a deal on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This is obvious from the wording of Article 50(2), which refers only to taking account of that ‘future relationship’ in the withdrawal arrangement. In practice, the details of the withdrawal arrangement and the treaty establishing that future relationship would be closely linked. Probably the withdrawal treaty would, among other things, aim to regulate a transition period before the treaty on the future relationship entered into force.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Taking into account a future arrangement does not mean negotiating the details of a deal based on that arrangement.

Article 50 deals with withdrawal.

Article 218 deals with how the EU negotiates with third countries.

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/article-50-teu-uses-and-abuses-of.html

Secondly, as to the content of the negotiations, Article 50 provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal arrangement, not a deal on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This is obvious from the wording of Article 50(2), which refers only to taking account of that ‘future relationship’ in the withdrawal arrangement. In practice, the details of the withdrawal arrangement and the treaty establishing that future relationship would be closely linked. Probably the withdrawal treaty would, among other things, aim to regulate a transition period before the treaty on the future relationship entered into force.
Click to expand...

But Article 218 cannot apply to a country that has triggered Article 50 as that country is not a third country until the Article 50 negotiations have been agreed.

By definition, Article 218 is not applicable to the UK in this scenario until March 2019 at the earliest.

As before any ‘future relationship’ must include a trade relationship since that is the raison d'etre of the entire European project.
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
But Article 218 cannot apply to a country that has triggered Article 50 as that country is not a third country until the Article 50 negotiations have been agreed.

By definition, Article 218 is not applicable to the UK in this scenario until March 2019 at the earliest.

As before any ‘future relationship’ must include a trade relationship since that is the raison d'etre of the entire European project.
Click to expand...

Article 50 explicitly stated that Article 218 does apply. Hence some lawyers argue that trade negotiation can't take place until the withdrawal is complete.

Trade may be the raison detre of the EU but the UK will be out of that club. It will become like any other third country. So while the withdrawal must take into account the future relationship nothing dictates what that future relationship must include.
 
Henri McPhee said:
What does it matter?
Click to expand...

It's just telling that pretty much every Leaver canard does not bear scrutiny when confronted by facts.

It's the same old story of dishonestly blaming the EU for every ill of the UK and denying reality.

So they are either being dishonest to promote their own agenda of xenophobia and racism or simply too ignorant of facts to know any better. Either way it doesn't exactly suggest that we should trust their judgement on such an important matter.
 
3point14 said:
The tory party is surely playing a long game now:

Wreck the economy

Lose the election (whenever that might be)

Spend four to eight years blaming the incumbent labour party and the EU for all the ills created by the tories.

Return to power in triumph at some unspecified date.
Click to expand...

They tried that back in 92 and disaster struck, they got re-elected. ;)
 
Garrison said:
They tried that back in 92 and disaster struck, they got re-elected. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, but, and this is a phrase that the 1990's me would have been surprised to write, the current* Tory leader lacks the charisma of Major.

*I suppose she's continuing in the tradition of Howard and IDS.
 
Apparently our relationship with Europe will be 'Deep and meaningful' whatever that means.
 
ceptimus said:
I'm sick of the childishness displayed by many leave supporters in this thread:

* Leave supporters are racists.
Click to expand...
Enough to make a difference on a <52% / >48% split.
* Leave supporters are stupid.
Click to expand...
Enough to make a difference on a <52% / >48% split.
* Leave supporters would vote remain if the referendum were held again.
Click to expand...
Enough to make a difference on a <52% / >48% split.
 
Information Analyst said:
Enough to make a difference on a <52% / >48% split.

Enough to make a difference on a <52% / >48% split.

Enough to make a difference on a <52% / >48% split.
Click to expand...

The obvious solution is a new Democracy 2 (TM) where any election or referendum that doesn't give a clear margin of victory ≥ 5% is declared a tie, and then Information Analyst gets the casting vote.
 
Wudang said:
The obvious solution is to do what every other referendum on major constitutional issues has done and require a super-majority.
Click to expand...

They could at least have set some rules about the veracity of claims campaigners for each side were allowed to make. Between 350 million per week for the NHS, Turkey about to join the EU and hordes of immigrants flocking to Britain, the leave campaign was surely dishonest enough to be disqualified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom