Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hobbit said:
A question; with all this can leave without a deal by running the clock down, can the Cabinet decide not to run the clock down and just decide to leave tomorrow? As there looks like there's going to be some watershed discussions at the G7 meeting at the end of the month, and some political journo's saying if there's no movement by then its a definite out, why not mid Sept?

Equally, providing there is a clear intent to create an agreement, WTO has the the mechanism to allow an agreement in principle/transition if both parties agree in good faith. Leave can happen at the end of Oct without an agreed deal but at least the principle in place... a gentler let down than an abrupt No Deal leave.
Click to expand...

Sounds plausible and would be very desirable. Though I think that if this is in respect of falling back on GATT Article 24 (not too much heard about that these days from it's previous proponents) the fly in your ointment may be that there has to be more than intent in respect of reaching an agreement for Article 24 to apply - there actually has to be a framework agreement, plus a plan and a timescale agreed with the EU for reaching any such agreement.

Para 7(b) of the Article quoted below (which refers to that paragraph so beloved of Johnson, Rees-Mogg and co) explains why that is necessary. Note also that this states that the UK and the EU must take on board what the rest of the WTO recommend - the UK and the EU are bound by the WTO rules in respect of what they can do.

If, after having studied the plan and schedule included in an interim agreement referred to in paragraph 5 in consultation with the parties to that agreement and taking due account of the information made available in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (a), the CONTRACTING PARTIES find that such agreement is not likely to result in the formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area within the period contemplated by the parties to the agreement or that such period is not a reasonable one, the CONTRACTING PARTIES shall make recommendations to the parties to the agreement. The parties shall not maintain or put into force, as the case may be, such agreement if they are not prepared to modify it in accordance with these recommendations.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/region_art24_e.htm

But hey - who knows what will happen on 1st November. It won't be Armageddon as the EU won't allow it to be - to protect their member countries and businesses - but whatever they do to mitigate risks and issues on 1st Nov, and the weeks and months following, it will be under their control.
 
Last edited:
Hobbit said:
A question; with all this can leave without a deal by running the clock down, can the Cabinet decide not to run the clock down and just decide to leave tomorrow? As there looks like there's going to be some watershed discussions at the G7 meeting at the end of the month, and some political journo's saying if there's no movement by then its a definite out, why not mid Sept?
...
Click to expand...
No they cannot!

The effect of the ruling(s) from the Gina Miller case(s) mean that Parliament must approve changs to laws that Parliament has made! That principle is now part of UK's constitution!
Hobbit said:
...
Equally, providing there is a clear intent to create an agreement, WTO has the the mechanism to allow an agreement in principle/transition if both parties agree in good faith. Leave can happen at the end of Oct without an agreed deal but at least the principle in place... a gentler let down than an abrupt No Deal leave.
Click to expand...
As far as I understand, it's only if the agreement is virtually signed (i.e. agreed, but awaiting signatures ot the like) that that WTO clause can apply.

I can't see that being the case as there is even an impasse about negotiations!

To me, a 'no deal' withdrawal is the most likely result.

And the EU Commission is likely to stall on any subsequent negotiations, irrespective of any action, such as setting tarrifs on EU sources product to zero, the UK Government takes.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Sounds plausible and would be very desirable. Though I think that if this is in respect of falling back on GATT Article 24 (not too much heard about that these days from it's previous proponents) the fly in your ointment may be that there has to be more than intent in respect of reaching an agreement for Article 24 to apply - there actually has to be a framework agreement, plus a plan and a timescale agreed with the EU for reaching any such agreement.

Para 7(b) of the Article quoted below (which refers to that paragraph so beloved of Johnson, Rees-Mogg and co) explains why that is necessary. Note also that this states that the UK and the EU must take on board what the rest of the WTO recommend - the UK and the EU are bound by the WTO rules in respect of what they can do.

If, after having studied the plan and schedule included in an interim agreement referred to in paragraph 5 in consultation with the parties to that agreement and taking due account of the information made available in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (a), the CONTRACTING PARTIES find that such agreement is not likely to result in the formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area within the period contemplated by the parties to the agreement or that such period is not a reasonable one, the CONTRACTING PARTIES shall make recommendations to the parties to the agreement. The parties shall not maintain or put into force, as the case may be, such agreement if they are not prepared to modify it in accordance with these recommendations.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/region_art24_e.htm

But hey - who knows what will happen on 1st November. It won't be Armageddon as the EU won't allow it to be - to protect their member countries and businesses - but whatever they do to mitigate risks and issues on 1st Nov, and the weeks and months following, it will be under their control.
Click to expand...

How will it be under their control? Are you party to their planning? Bear in mind trade will be going both ways, do you think the EU will be controlling U.K. Customs?

You really are totally blinkered and deluded aren’t you, and talking utter tosh! The EU will be in control of their side of things, and if they were in control of things in the U.K. May’s deal would have gone through. Pray tell why hasn’t it gone through if they are in control? Ah yes, they’re not in control of what goes on in the U.K.

You talk utter rollox when you shift from the facts, for example Gatt24, onto opinion.
 
Foxholer said:
No they cannot!

The effect of the ruling(s) from the Gina Miller case(s) mean that Parliament must approve changs to laws that Parliament has made! That principle is now part of UK's constitution!

As far as I understand, it's only if the agreement is virtually signed (i.e. agreed, but awaiting signatures ot the like) that that WTO clause can apply.

I can't see that being the case as there is even an impasse about negotiations!

To me, a 'no deal' withdrawal is the most likely result.

And the EU Commission is likely to stall on any subsequent negotiations, irrespective of any action, such as setting tarrifs on EU sources product to zero, the UK Government takes.
Click to expand...

Correct (I believe) on the agreement as I posted referencing para 7(b) of GATT Article 24. This makes it clear that there has to plan, timescales and sufficient detail of an agreement in place for the Contracting Parties of the WTO to review to see if they are OK with it. If the detail isn't there they will request that detail or come up with what the UK and the EU would have to include in it.
 
Hobbit said:
How will it be under their control? Are you party to their planning? Bear in mind trade will be going both ways, do you think the EU will be controlling U.K. Customs?

You really are totally blinkered and deluded aren’t you, and talking utter tosh! The EU will be in control of their side of things, and if they were in control of things in the U.K. May’s deal would have gone through. Pray tell why hasn’t it gone through if they are in control? Ah yes, they’re not in control of what goes on in the U.K.

You talk utter rollox when you shift from the facts, for example Gatt24, onto opinion.
Click to expand...

On the control - in accordance with the higlighted text of para 7(b) I am saying that what is in the EU/UK agreement could be under control of the WTO Contracting parties (I am not saying under the control of the EU)

And on things under control of the EU - I am simply saying that anything that the EU puts in place unilaterally to ease flow of trade and business between the EU and the UK, and to minimise any impact of a No Deal on the EU - they can unilaterally take away when they have sorted things out to their own satisfaction.

I hear some talking up what the EU are currently doing unilaterally as if they are entering into deals with the UK. Now there well may be areas where micro-deals are put in place. But I also understand that some of the measures that the EU are putting in place are measures for the benefit of EU business and trade - and therefore they are measures that the EU can unilaterally change or remove without recourse to the UK or need to consider the impact on UK business.

From a 25th March Press release in advance of 29/03.

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1813_en.htm

Contingency and preparedness legislative measures

To date, the Commission has tabled 19 legislative proposals. 17 proposals have been adopted or agreed by the European Parliament and the Council. Formal adoption of all those files by the European Parliament and Council is currently taking place. Two proposals are to be finalised by the two co-legislators in due course.

As outlined in the Commission's Brexit Preparedness Communications, the EU's contingency measures will not – and cannot – mitigate the overall impact of a "no-deal" scenario, nor do they in any way compensate for the lack of preparedness or replicate the full benefits of EU membership or the favourable terms of any transition period, as provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement. These proposals are temporary in nature, limited in scope and will be adopted unilaterally by the EU. They are not “mini-deals” and have not been negotiated with the UK.
 
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
No - I am simply saying that anything that the EU puts in place unilaterally to ease flow of trade and business between the EU and the UK, and to minimise any impact of a No Deal on the EU - they can unilaterally take away when they have sorted things out to their own satisfaction.

I hear some talking up what the EU are currently doing unilaterally as if they are entering into deals with the UK. Now there well may be areas where micro-deals are put in place. But I also understand that some of the measures that the EU are putting in place are measures for the benefit of EU business and trade - and therefore they are measures that the EU can unilaterally change or remove without recourse to the UK or need to consider the impact on UK business.

From a 25th March Press release in advance of 29/03.

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1813_en.htm

Contingency and preparedness legislative measures

To date, the Commission has tabled 19 legislative proposals. 17 proposals have been adopted or agreed by the European Parliament and the Council. Formal adoption of all those files by the European Parliament and Council is currently taking place. Two proposals are to be finalised by the two co-legislators in due course.

As outlined in the Commission's Brexit Preparedness Communications, the EU's contingency measures will not – and cannot – mitigate the overall impact of a "no-deal" scenario, nor do they in any way compensate for the lack of preparedness or replicate the full benefits of EU membership or the favourable terms of any transition period, as provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement. These proposals are temporary in nature, limited in scope and will be adopted unilaterally by the EU. They are not “mini-deals” and have not been negotiated with the UK.
Click to expand...

So they're not in control of the things the UK decides then, including what the UK unilaterally decides... point made, petard hoisted.

Last bit I saw from the EU side was a concern raised by several countries that the EU was lagging behind the UK in its preparedness for No Deal. One of my daily papers(electronic version) is an English (speaking) paper, very pro-Remain, printed out here in Spain. They report a lot of whats happening in Europe, obviously especially in Spain, and if you think the EU are in control of everything re No Deal, or are even close to satisfying the EU27, you're way off the mark.

But hey, crack on believing the EU is perfect...:rolleyes:
 
German economy tanking with worse than expected output. (especially to China and USA, twill be hit by the Chinese devaluation). I'm sure Juncker and Barnier will still increase their budget demands to balance the books!
 
Hobbit said:
So they're not in control of the things the UK decides then, including what the UK unilaterally decides... point made, petard hoisted.

Last bit I saw from the EU side was a concern raised by several countries that the EU was lagging behind the UK in its preparedness for No Deal. One of my daily papers(electronic version) is an English (speaking) paper, very pro-Remain, printed out here in Spain. They report a lot of whats happening in Europe, obviously especially in Spain, and if you think the EU are in control of everything re No Deal, or are even close to satisfying the EU27, you're way off the mark.

But hey, crack on believing the EU is perfect...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I do not believe for one moment that the EU is perfect - and I can well imagine that there are significant tensions within the EU27, but notwithstanding any uncertainty claimed over the future of the EU, I continue to believe that it madness to leave it for an immediate and near future about which we know very little, and about which there is huge uncertainty, with many promises and much expectation to be met.
 
drdel said:
German economy tanking with worse than expected output. (especially to China and USA, twill be hit by the Chinese devaluation). I'm sure Juncker and Barnier will still increase their budget demands to balance the books!
Click to expand...

When you look at th govt bonds in Germany and the UK its fairly easy to see which is performing better. German bonds at a minus number whereas the UK are still in the +.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I do not believe for one moment that the EU is perfect - and I can well imagine that there are significant tensions within the EU27, but notwithstanding any uncertainty claimed over the future of the EU, I continue to believe that it madness to leave it for an immediate and near future about which we know very little, and about which there is huge uncertainty, with many promises and much expectation to be met.
Click to expand...

For me, there are two significant threads to the EU. One is trade, and being part of that trading bloc is not to be walked away from lightly. The second is the politics. They are intertwined and you can't have one without the other. I wholeheartedly agree with being in the trading bloc but feel the political side of it is reaching disgustingly undemocratic proportions. I would prefer to stay in but feel it needs a radical change.

The method for choosing the incoming president is a prime example of what is wrong with the EU, and how they make things up on the fly to suit the Commission, not the EU28, without even recourse to the EU Parliament. The EU has a mechanism the recognises the largest parties/groups, and those groups used have a major say in direction and policy. The right won a significant number, if not an overall majority, in the recent European elections. Those mechanisms/protocols have been dropped like a hot potato, and the old guard is still running the EU. That is disgusting. Loathe or like the group that should hold sway, fine no problem with that, but ignore them even though they form a significant part of the EU Parliament, totally undemocratic and totally wrong.

Back to your post; we don't know what the UK will be like outside of the EU. But bearing in mind Juncker's, Merkel's and Macron's pronouncements for the future direction of the EU do you know what it will be like? You know the EU of yesterday and today but you haven't got a clue where it will be in 5 years time. An EU army is a given now. Merkel has said it in detail, as has Macron. New legislation, including EU authority on national budgets is being taken to the next level, i.e. a national budget will have to be agreed with the EU financial commissioner before it can go before a national Parliament.

The EU of 10-15 years ago I don't have a problem with. The EEC is my preferred option. The obvious, and in most cases the very open shift towards federalism, no, no and thrice no. I'd rather stay in and change it but if the crystal ball says total, or near enough, federalism its a no for me. I would vote Remain again as I hope that the disaffected and ignored MEP groups will stand up to the Commission, and I hope that the change to qualified majorities in so many new areas in the EU Parliament will bite the old guard in the bum.
 
Hobbit said:
For me, there are two significant threads to the EU. One is trade, and being part of that trading bloc is not to be walked away from lightly. The second is the politics. They are intertwined and you can't have one without the other. I wholeheartedly agree with being in the trading bloc but feel the political side of it is reaching disgustingly undemocratic proportions. I would prefer to stay in but feel it needs a radical change.

The method for choosing the incoming president is a prime example of what is wrong with the EU, and how they make things up on the fly to suit the Commission, not the EU28, without even recourse to the EU Parliament. The EU has a mechanism the recognises the largest parties/groups, and those groups used have a major say in direction and policy. The right won a significant number, if not an overall majority, in the recent European elections. Those mechanisms/protocols have been dropped like a hot potato, and the old guard is still running the EU. That is disgusting. Loathe or like the group that should hold sway, fine no problem with that, but ignore them even though they form a significant part of the EU Parliament, totally undemocratic and totally wrong.

Back to your post; we don't know what the UK will be like outside of the EU. But bearing in mind Juncker's, Merkel's and Macron's pronouncements for the future direction of the EU do you know what it will be like? You know the EU of yesterday and today but you haven't got a clue where it will be in 5 years time. An EU army is a given now. Merkel has said it in detail, as has Macron. New legislation, including EU authority on national budgets is being taken to the next level, i.e. a national budget will have to be agreed with the EU financial commissioner before it can go before a national Parliament.

The EU of 10-15 years ago I don't have a problem with. The EEC is my preferred option. The obvious, and in most cases the very open shift towards federalism, no, no and thrice no. I'd rather stay in and change it but if the crystal ball says total, or near enough, federalism its a no for me. I would vote Remain again as I hope that the disaffected and ignored MEP groups will stand up to the Commission, and I hope that the change to qualified majorities in so many new areas in the EU Parliament will bite the old guard in the bum.
Click to expand...

That may well be true, but then again in the UK we have a situation where we have a PM at a critical point in our political history chosen by a minute percentage of the population who is governing on at times with a different agenda to the leader of the party at the time of the last GE, who could not form a majority government at the time anyway. Yes them's the rules and I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but we have seemingly strange ways of chosing leaders as well that some may argue is just as undemocratic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp5
Hacker Khan said:
That may well be true, but then again in the UK we have a situation where we have a PM at a critical point in our political history chosen by a minute percentage of the population who is governing on at times with a different agenda to the leader of the party at the time of the last GE, who could not form a majority government at the time anyway. Yes them's the rules and I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but we have seemingly strange ways of chosing leaders as well that some may argue is just as undemocratic.
Click to expand...

I think you miss the point by a mile. A party chooses its own leader. A constituent in, say, Newcastle chooses their MP. No one votes in an election for a Prime Minister. Should the electorate have chosen Corbyn on the off chance/good chance he will become Prime Minister? Should that apply to every single political party? Its just plain daft. Why would I choose a Tory leader?

Isn't it amazing that this issue of who chooses the PM has reared its head now but never in the past? I wonder how many Tories, or even Leavers from across the board agree with your point? I'm inclined to think its almost only Remainers who've thought up that one.

Would there have been the same bally-ho if Dominic Greive or even Jeremy Hunt had been chosen as PM? No, thought so...
 
Last edited:
Hacker Khan said:
That may well be true, but then again in the UK we have a situation where we have a PM at a critical point in our political history chosen by a minute percentage of the population who is governing on at times with a different agenda to the leader of the party at the time of the last GE, who could not form a majority government at the time anyway. Yes them's the rules and I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but we have seemingly strange ways of chosing leaders as well that some may argue is just as undemocratic.
Click to expand...

But the UK can get shot of a PM, the EU member states can't remove Juncker, Barnier, Tusk, verhorfstadt etc. The UK's elected PM is negotiating with an unelected flunky not elected by any citizen.
 
Hobbit said:
I think you miss the point by a mile. A party chooses its own leader. A constituent in, say, Newcastle chooses their MP. No one votes in an election for a Prime Minister. Should the electorate have chosen Corbyn on the off chance/good chance he will become Prime Minister? Should that apply to every single political party? Its just plain daft. Why would I choose a Tory leader?

Isn't it amazing that this issue of who chooses the PM has reared its head now but never in the past? I wonder how many Tories, or even Leavers from across the board agree with your point? I'm inclined to think its almost only Remainers who've thought up that one.

Would there have been the same bally-ho if Dominic Greive or even Jeremy Hunt had been chosen as PM? No, thought so...
Click to expand...

Nope, someone has mentioned it before, can't quite remember their name though, it will come to me shortly, pretty sure he's not a remainer though....

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...how-boris-johnson-described-gordon-brown-2007

Whoever is making critical decisions for the country without getting a mandate from the public at a GE is wrong IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
Party holes at golf comps.
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pin-seeker
Pin-seeker
Don Barzini
Christmas 2025
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
8K
kp17
kp17
Lucifer MorningStar
Best clubs of all time (Probably)
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
srixon 1
srixon 1
B
Ping 7 wood head shortage.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
KenL
KenL
VVega
What age is your Seniors?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
Top