Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Aepervius]

That went well last time!

That was ERM I which was changed to ERM II to prevent such problem in the future.

Also : "the unfavourable position at which the United Kingdom joined the ERM, believing the rate at which the UK was brought into the Exchange Rate Mechanism was too high, their inflation was also much too high (triple the German rate), and British interest rates were hurting their asset prices"

The black Wednesday came in because mostly Sorros short selled the pound.

That situation is not comparable to what you have today.

IMO If UK had no pound but an euro, it would not have happened btw.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A number of legal opinions disagree with this.
1) Article 50 is poorly written and it is not clear that once notice to withdraw is made it is irrevocable - it is ambiguous
2) A general principle in contract and international treaty law is that entering into negotiations does not commit one to an outcome.

There is a legitimate legal view that if negotiations are not agreed by both parties the withdrawal is not inevitable. There is no mechanism for the EU to eject a member; the EU cannot sack the UK.

There are contrary opinions, politically it is of course difficult for a UK government not to withdraw given the referendum. A UK government could certainly decline to withdraw from EU if the EU has not agreed a deal by the 2 year limit. The EU may find it difficult to come to an agreement. In the event of the UK declining to withdraw I suspect there may be a court case; If the EU fails to come to an agreement, and the UK tries to withdraw there may be a court case since withdrawal may be argued to be dependant on an agreement being reached.

I regard Article 50 as handing in your notice not as entering negotiations.

Legally there may be opinions that it could be done but regardless I see staying in the EU after a failed negotiation as an untenable position.

The article may be badly written legally but the intent is fairly clear. You get 2 years to work out terms of withdrawal and then you are out unless it is agreed to extend that.

The idea that we would right an expensive legal case to force a club to allow us to stay while we try to leave is ridiculous on its face.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It works regardless. If EU doesn't want a deal with UK, it can simply stall until the deadline passes, and UK will be unceremoniously dumped out of EU. It's the UK that must convince enough member states that the deal UK wants will be better for them than UK going by WTO rules.

If, however, EU wants a deal, having the ability to fall back to Parliament gives UK negotiators an extra tool to extract a little bit of extra from EU.

UK is no worse off in either case. The only reason one would be against it is because the amendment leaves the possibility of backtracking on Brexit at a later date, because the elected parliament has judged the result would be too disastrous for UK. How is that a bad thing for UK is beyond me.



It's not going to happen with the current Parliament, that's for sure.

McHrozni

The bad element for me is that it just opens up the potential for chaos with parliament not approving the deal we negotiate when it is too late to go back. So there is more likelihood that we end up on WTO terms. Given the makeup of Parliament it's surely as likely the deal is scuppered by Tories who think it hasn't screwed the EU hard enough than by Bremainers who think we didn't get a good enough deal.

Nobody in their right mind would decide at the end of divorce negotiations to stay married because they didn't get to keep the house.

 

[Amazer]

A number of legal opinions disagree with this.
1) Article 50 is poorly written and it is not clear that once notice to withdraw is made it is irrevocable - it is ambiguous
2) A general principle in contract and international treaty law is that entering into negotiations does not commit one to an outcome.

There is a legitimate legal view that if negotiations are not agreed by both parties the withdrawal is not inevitable. There is no mechanism for the EU to eject a member; the EU cannot sack the UK.

There are contrary opinions, politically it is of course difficult for a UK government not to withdraw given the referendum. A UK government could certainly decline to withdraw from EU if the EU has not agreed a deal by the 2 year limit. The EU may find it difficult to come to an agreement. In the event of the UK declining to withdraw I suspect there may be a court case; If the EU fails to come to an agreement, and the UK tries to withdraw there may be a court case since withdrawal may be argued to be dependant on an agreement being reached.

So it's going to depend on how the court is going to decide on the intepretation of article 50 then... provided one party does bring it to court.

 

[McHrozni]

Legally there may be opinions that it could be done but regardless I see staying in the EU after a failed negotiation as an untenable position.

Realistically PM would be struck between a rock and a hard place.

She belongs there, I think.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The bad element for me is that it just opens up the potential for chaos with parliament not approving the deal we negotiate when it is too late to go back. So there is more likelihood that we end up on WTO terms. Given the makeup of Parliament it's surely as likely the deal is scuppered by Tories who think it hasn't screwed the EU hard enough than by Bremainers who think we didn't get a good enough deal.

And?

Nobody in their right mind would decide at the end of divorce negotiations to stay married because they didn't get to keep the house.

Nobody in their right mind would decide to overturn 40 years of peaceful cooperation with their neighbors and completely change the way the country worked based on a slight plurality of votes in as single referendum based on lies either.

Therefore I find this argument unconvincing. Worse things have happened in UK already, so this should remain as an option.

McHrozni

 

[Planigale]

So it's going to depend on how the court is going to decide on the intepretation of article 50 then... provided one party does bring it to court.

There may be parties interested in going to court.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38737964

 

[Planigale]

I regard Article 50 as handing in your notice not as entering negotiations.

Legally there may be opinions that it could be done but regardless I see staying in the EU after a failed negotiation as an untenable position.

The article may be badly written legally but the intent is fairly clear. You get 2 years to work out terms of withdrawal and then you are out unless it is agreed to extend that.

The idea that we would right an expensive legal case to force a club to allow us to stay while we try to leave is ridiculous on its face.

A real situation may be that the EU negotiators and the UK agree a deal. This is not ratified by one member of the EU (as for recent CETA trade deal), what is the situation? The EU cannot bump the UK out to WTO; the UK has to leave. The UK declines to leave because the agreed terms have not been ratified. The EU cannot get unity on prolonging the negotiations. This will likely end up in court from some interested party.

 

[Planigale]

The bad element for me is that it just opens up the potential for chaos with parliament not approving the deal we negotiate when it is too late to go back. So there is more likelihood that we end up on WTO terms. Given the makeup of Parliament it's surely as likely the deal is scuppered by Tories who think it hasn't screwed the EU hard enough than by Bremainers who think we didn't get a good enough deal.

Nobody in their right mind would decide at the end of divorce negotiations to stay married because they didn't get to keep the house.

I think it more likely the EU fails to ratify an agreed deal.

 

[Tolls]

The decision that we are leaving has already been made. It's shameful that the unelected lords can't accept that.

Why are you so concerned.
It is the Commons that will ultimately have to make the decision, should this amendment go through. Surely that's a good thing for our parliamentary democracy? Anything else would be blindly going forth with leaving no matter the consequences...and only a madman would consider that a Good Thing.

 

[McHrozni]

A real situation may be that the EU negotiators and the UK agree a deal. This is not ratified by one member of the EU (as for recent CETA trade deal), what is the situation?

The deal goes through, because it only requires a majority of EU states (55% of population and 60% of states IIRC) for it to be valid. The holdouts can object, but are ultimately forced to abide to the terms.

A real scenario is that EU and UK agree to a deal, but the deal is not ratified by Westminster. This means that UK must leave enough time at the end to ensure it can go back and renegotiate the deal post haste. What happens if it is ultimately unsuccessful is anyones' guess.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And?



Nobody in their right mind would decide to overturn 40 years of peaceful cooperation with their neighbors and completely change the way the country worked based on a slight plurality of votes in as single referendum based on lies either.

Therefore I find this argument unconvincing. Worse things have happened in UK already, so this should remain as an option.

McHrozni

That was kind of my point. Nobody in their right mind would do, it's a situation that's probably the worst of all worlds but we might end up there thanks to people who are not in their right mind driving the bus.

Leaving the EU at all costs is a stupid policy, but staying in the EU at all costs might well be equally stupid.

The most likely outcome is that the deal gets waved through so it this won't make any difference but the danger is that we may have increased the likelihood of no deal and WTO terms.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A real situation may be that the EU negotiators and the UK agree a deal. This is not ratified by one member of the EU (as for recent CETA trade deal), what is the situation? The EU cannot bump the UK out to WTO; the UK has to leave. The UK declines to leave because the agreed terms have not been ratified. The EU cannot get unity on prolonging the negotiations. This will likely end up in court from some interested party.

No the article seems fairly clear to me in its intent. If no deal is agreed (on either side) then the UK exits to WTO terms.

Further negotiations could then continue but with the UK as a non-member of the EU.

The UK leaves by triggering Article 50. It merely has a maximum two year notice period to negotiate the exit terms.

 

[McHrozni]

That was kind of my point. Nobody in their right mind would do, it's a situation that's probably the worst of all worlds but we might end up there thanks to people who are not in their right mind driving the bus.

Leaving the EU at all costs is a stupid policy, but staying in the EU at all costs might well be equally stupid.

The costs to the UK aren't that high: Shengen and eventually Euro, plus ever-closer union if that ever becomes relevant again. Those aren't bad, but Brits refuse to sign up to them due to national pride. The only thing that is actually a loss is the rebate, which is most likely a smaller and more bearable loss than any scenario in which UK leaves the EU.

The costs to the Tories ... well, it would be nothing they don't deserve. But political parties don't have an inherent right to exist, and given what we've seen in the past year, to keep them is no gain, to destroy them is no loss.

The most likely outcome is that the deal gets waved through so it this won't make any difference but the danger is that we may have increased the likelihood of no deal and WTO terms.

You also increase the chances of Bremain by at least as much, plus you hand over the negotiators something to work with. Their current arsenal amounts to "give us what we want or else we'll hold our breath until we turn blue". The loss-benefit analysis shows the article is beneficial to UK.

McHrozni

 

[Worm]

But never, ever to a PM spot. She was appointed there by her party.

McHrozni

That's how our system works. Now, it is certainly true that she was not the party leader at the time of a general election, but that has been true many times before, and no doubt will be again.

We do not elect our Prime Minister. You can complain about it, but if you want to imply that May is some kind of special case, then that is being rather obtuse in my opinion. It was also true of Chamberlain, Churchill, Callaghan, Major and Brown, among others.

 

[McHrozni]

That's how our system works.

And there is nothing wrong with it as far as I'm concerned.

Ceptimus however thinks it's a big deal when it comes to the House of Lords and is mysteriously silent when PM is mentioned. He thinks the unelected House of Lords shouldn't be given a say on the matter of Brexit, because it is unelected, but rather that all decisions should be done by decree of the similarly unelected Prime Minister, because that's more democratic.

Or something like that anyway. Feel free to correct me ceptimus

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

I already did correct you. May has been elected and could potentially lose her seat at the next election. The lords are unelected and once appointed remain till they die.

 

[McHrozni]

I already did correct you. May has been elected and could potentially lose her seat at the next election. The lords are unelected and once appointed remain till they die.

Theresa May wasn't elected to the post of Prime Minister. If you wish to dispute this please point out who she ran against for the post.

The difference is in the length of term, then.

Doesn't that mean Theresa May is more likely to prioritize actions that will keep her the vaunted seat, whereas the Lords are more likely to prioritize what is good for their country?

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

Can't you read? May can lose her seat, lords cannot. Yes she wasn't elected PM. It's already been made clear to you that this is normal in Britain.

 

[McHrozni]

May can lose her seat, lords cannot.

Yes. This means Lords aren't playing politics to keep their seats, while Theresa May could be doing just that, correct?

McHrozni