Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Hobbit]

You said "The ONLY reason this was refused by the EU and accepted by may and her team was that they didnt want us to leave." in terms of not negotiating a FTA either before or as part of the talks.

Negotiating this partnership cannot be done under Article 50, which is confined to the withdrawal itself. I already pasted the pertinent text from A50, but here it is again. I have highlighted the key sentences

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
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. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

Other Treaty provisions will provide the basis of a future trade agreement – or agreements as the deal might comprise one or more Treaties. In essence, trade agreements with third countries (that, is, non EU member states), can either be agreed under Article 207 or Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). And we cannot conclude the future trade agreement until we have left the EU and become a third country.

All this is fairly moot though as it doesn't really matter any more, but you're making out the EU were putting up blockers to prevent us from leaving, when it is nothing of the sort.

Technically, you're spot on the number.

But a rhetorical question; why couldn't a trade deal negotiation be at least started and, potentially, signed off the day after Brexit Day? Cynically, someone might say the EU have deliberately dragged their heels... but only if they were a cynic.

 

[SocketRocket]

You said "The ONLY reason this was refused by the EU and accepted by may and her team was that they didnt want us to leave." in terms of not negotiating a FTA either before or as part of the talks.

Negotiating this partnership cannot be done under Article 50, which is confined to the withdrawal itself. I already pasted the pertinent text from A50, but here it is again. I have highlighted the key sentences

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its
intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall
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. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the
Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

Other Treaty provisions will provide the basis of a future trade agreement – or agreements as the deal might comprise one or more Treaties. In essence, trade agreements with third countries (that, is, non EU member states), can either be agreed under Article 207 or Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). And we cannot conclude the future trade agreement until we have left the EU and become a third country.

All this is fairly moot though as it doesn't really matter any more, but you're making out the EU were putting up blockers to prevent us from leaving, when it is nothing of the sort.

I still disagree with what you suggest. Why can't a Free Trade agreement or the framework for it be part of the arrangements for its withdrawl, nothing in art 50 prevents it.

 

[Foxholer]

I still disagree with what you suggest. Why can't a Free Trade agreement or the framework for it be part of the arrangements for its withdrawl, nothing in art 50 prevents it.

Nothing in A50 prevents pretty much anything, including peace in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean it's likely to happen or even be considered!

My view is that 'A50 and the withdrawal negotiations' were 'sold' by the Leave campaign as a 'Future Arrangements/Whole Deal' arrangements, when it/they was/were never likely to be about anything but the withdrawal! EU was never going to get into any discussions about 'future arrangements' until the withdrawal issue had been settled. It's part of their 'negotiating armoury' to work that way after all! And, from memory, they even actually said so!

 

[Mudball]

So our leading Brexiteer Dyson has f*ed off.. First moved HQ to Singapore but always said that his car will create more jobs. And now he has cleaned up. He makes the best suckers..


This was Dyson in Oct 2018..
* No deal is fine; car manufacturers are talking rubbish
* I'm creating 2000 jobs for people building my new car in Wiltshire

If Dyson can scrap his electric car because it's not viable, can we face reality and do the same with Brexit please?

 

[Deleted member 1418]

Nothing to do with Brexit. Said it wasn't commercially viable and couldn't find a buyer for the project.

 

[SocketRocket]

Nothing in A50 prevents pretty much anything, including peace in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean it's likely to happen or even be considered!

My view is that 'A50 and the withdrawal negotiations' were 'sold' by the Leave campaign as a 'Future Arrangements/Whole Deal' arrangements, when it/they was/were never likely to be about anything but the withdrawal! EU was never going to get into any discussions about 'future arrangements' until the withdrawal issue had been settled. It's part of their 'negotiating armoury' to work that way after all! And, from memory, they even actually said so!

Why stop at peace on the middle east but that's nothing to do with it. My point which I keep repeating without someone making a reasonable case against is that if a trade agreement or the framework for it was agreed the current turmoil could have been negated. The ONLY reason I can see why this wasn't done was to frustrate the negotiations. If you or anyone disagrees with this proposition then explain why it would be technically unfeasable and would not have been a much better way of creating a deal that would work.

 

[drdel]

Apparently the meeting between Varadkar and Johnson has led to their believing in a pathway to a deal.

I wonder if Ireland is waking up the the fact that the EU's route to Federalism would likely see them marginalised. The EU certainly kicked them in 2008 when they left them high and dry with the banks.

 

[SocketRocket]

So our leading Brexiteer Dyson has f*ed off.. First moved HQ to Singapore but always said that his car will create more jobs. And now he has cleaned up. He makes the best suckers..


This was Dyson in Oct 2018..
* No deal is fine; car manufacturers are talking rubbish
* I'm creating 2000 jobs for people building my new car in Wiltshire

If Dyson can scrap his electric car because it's not viable, can we face reality and do the same with Brexit please?

What kind of twisted logic is that !

 

[Old Skier]

There are 101 UN resolutions it is pointless trying to implement them in an uncoordinated fashion.
Acting as patsies and putting our own shipping at risk for the current occupant of the White House who treats allies with disdain is a mugs game.

So do I take it you are suggesting we ignor the UN and its resolutions or we just implement the ones that suit your political leanings.

 

[Backache]

So do I take it you are suggesting we ignor the UN and its resolutions or we just implement the ones that suit your political leanings.

There have been over 40 resolutions this year alone we do not intervene in all of them. Acting on our own rather than in concert is daft . Trusting Trump is dafter still.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Apparently the meeting between Varadkar and Johnson has led to their believing in a pathway to a deal.

I wonder if Ireland is waking up the the fact that the EU's route to Federalism would likely see them marginalised. The EU certainly kicked them in 2008 when they left them high and dry with the banks.

Well it's all over twitter from the Irish Times that

'So am hearing that there has been very significant movement from British side on the customs issue in the Johnson-Varadkar talks. Not clear on detail and not clear what concessions expected in return. But if what I hear is correct, it changes the picture substantially '

Or Laura Kuenssberg reporting that

'There's some speculation tonight that No 10 did signal a big move on their position on customs, stepping towards the Irish position - but remember if they have, it gets harder to get any deal through Parliament because the DUP would be very unhappy '

Irish backstop anybody??

 

[Doon frae Troon]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brex...-group-report-says/ar-AAIB4iY?ocid=spartandhp

Excellent news, now if only we could persuade the nice half of the Labour party to do the same.
Both parties have been hijacked by extremists, leaving people confused who to vote for.

 

[Grant85]

Well it's all over twitter from the Irish Times that

'So am hearing that there has been very significant movement from British side on the customs issue in the Johnson-Varadkar talks. Not clear on detail and not clear what concessions expected in return. But if what I hear is correct, it changes the picture substantially '

Or Laura Kuenssberg reporting that

'There's some speculation tonight that No 10 did signal a big move on their position on customs, stepping towards the Irish position - but remember if they have, it gets harder to get any deal through Parliament because the DUP would be very unhappy '

Irish backstop anybody??

This is my take as well.

Johnson can probably get his own version of a deal through parliament but if consent is given to NI in the form of a double lock - i.e. 2 largest parties must agree then I don't see the DUP giving that kind of power to Sinn Feinn.

I've said all of this before but there are only 3 realistic options;
* GB exits and NI stays within SM / CU
* Entire UK stays within some kind of SM / CU
* Entire UK remains

No Deal is not an option and still creates issues on the island of Ireland.

As things stand, I don't see how Boris can agree something with the EU that Parliament will consent to. HOWEVER, there are a lot of Labour MPs in Leave voting areas that would now be keen to back something and would probably have backed May's deal if they thought it had a chance of getting through.

Boris obviously wants to roll the dice with an election as he is trapped with the current parliamentary arithmetic. BUT there is absolutely no guarantee an election solves anything. You could end up with similar numbers and MPs even more resolute that they have to support only the position they argued during the campaign.

Also as has been said before, an election potentially muddies the waters on Brexit. Lets say the result of the 4 largest parties;
Con 35%
Lab 30%
LD 20%
Brexit 10%

In normal times, this would probably lead to a workable Tory majority. But it's not a mandate for a harsh No Deal Brexit, which likely Boris would go for if he no longer needed the DUP. Plus people would not vote in a GENERAL election solely on one issue. The clue is in the name, General. People will prioritise local issues, domestic policy, leadership - as well as tactical voting that might inflate some parties votes.

A legally binding referendum would solve the issue as the waters would not be muddied by other issues.

Of course we had a referendum in 2016, but ultimately the electorate will now be far more informed about what Brexit means. In 2016 it was all things to all men i.e. people who wanted a British Empire style withdrawal and to park the Navy in the Channel from day 1. To those who just weren't all that enamoured with the EU or the way David Cameron had negotiated with them. And crucially this 'carte blanche Brexit' has led to a period of impasse with a majority for nothing.

So go back to the people with whatever deal Boris can get the EU to agree to and an option to remain. Legally binding so that MPs can't 'get in the way' of the result and we can have a far more informed debate than we had in 2016.

 

[Grant85]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brex...-group-report-says/ar-AAIB4iY?ocid=spartandhp

Excellent news, now if only we could persuade the nice half of the Labour party to do the same.
Both parties have been hijacked by extremists, leaving people confused who to vote for.

Yes - one of the main benefits of the FPTP is that it forces parties to appeal to the wider public. Leading to majorities being won by moderates - Cameron and Blair the last two to do this. Now it might be a bit boring and lead to personality politics, but lets be honest - politics should be boring. Setting taxes and spending this money is as sensible way as possible should be something that is largely uncontentious and more of a managerial job.

As soon as you dash to the left or right, you turn it into a 'who is the least worst' for a huge number of people.

Which ultimately is going to be what happens in a Boris v Corbyn campaign.

 

[jp5]

So Dyson seems to be a fan of changing his mind on his electric cars a few years later when the information available has changed - hmm...

 

[jp5]

Looking forward to the good old British red tape to come

https://twitter.com/x/status/1181948079467053056

 

[Grant85]

Looking forward to the good old British red tape to come

https://twitter.com/x/status/1181948079467053056

I get physically angry when I see 'Get Ready for Brexit' ads on TV.

What a total waste of money. Millions, likely billions spent on this abomination trying to appease the right and the far right of British politics.

This country is going to soon be running one of the largest fiscal deficits of any mature economy that has ever been run up.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Looking forward to the good old British red tape to come

https://twitter.com/x/status/1181948079467053056

I went to a Brexit talk given by the DTI on Wednesday. There is a lot of money being pumped into this. Govt can find / waste money by the 10's of millions, make that 100's of millions, when they want to. The amount poured down the drain in the name of training, that is pointless, is horrifying (it is a real bugbear of mine as I see it so often).

The talk was quite useful to be fair, clarifying the steps business will have to take in terms of exporting and importing if a no deal scenario happens. If the govt did not do this it would be accused of complacency and neglect.

What I would add however is that the red tape that is going to kick in is EU driven not UK. If we do leave without a deal it will be more cumbersome to ship to France than to the US, Bolivia, India, Australia etc. The EU do love red tape, forms, id numbers etc. If the red tape was UK alone it would consistent with all of these other countries, it certainly is not.

 

[Foxholer]

Why stop at peace on the middle east but that's nothing to do with it. My point which I keep repeating without someone making a reasonable case against is that if a trade agreement or the framework for it was agreed the current turmoil could have been negated. The ONLY reason I can see why this wasn't done was to frustrate the negotiations. If you or anyone disagrees with this proposition then explain why it would be technically unfeasable and would not have been a much better way of creating a deal that would work.

Check out how long it took to agree the Canada FTA and you will see why!
The 'History' section of the following document provides the info you need!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement

I believe the EU quashed (very early) any suggestion of negotiating any 'post-Brexit' relationship until after WA! I'm pretty certain that was announced, but 'conveniently forgotten' by those who declared an FTA etc would be 'the easiest deal ever' (or something similar). And while it's quite possible that there was a malicious intent in doing so, I believe the logistics of negotiating both Withdrawl and 'Future Relationship' simultaneously was never realistic!

 

[Mudball]

I went to a Brexit talk given by the DTI on Wednesday. There is a lot of money being pumped into this. Govt can find / waste money by the 10's of millions, make that 100's of millions, when they want to. The amount poured down the drain in the name of training, that is pointless, is horrifying (it is a real bugbear of mine as I see it so often).

The talk was quite useful to be fair, clarifying the steps business will have to take in terms of exporting and importing if a no deal scenario happens. If the govt did not do this it would be accused of complacency and neglect.

What I would add however is that the red tape that is going to kick in is EU driven not UK. If we do leave without a deal it will be more cumbersome to ship to France than to the US, Bolivia, India, Australia etc. The EU do love red tape, forms, id numbers etc. If the red tape was UK alone it would consistent with all of these other countries, it certainly is not.

every country Has red tape incl those you mentioned above. The big diff is that pre Brexit we did not have to worry about it when dealing with EU/France, now we have brought it onto ourself.

I/My company/My sector (IT) does a LOT of work in the EU. We are net exporters and don’t have to worry about visas, qualification, social security payments when I send John to go and do some work in France, Germany, Spain. we close the deal on Friday, and John will be there on Monday morning. Very different for (say) an Indian IT firm which will need to apply for visas. This is also the reason why Indian IT firms open offices and centers in the UK. They invest/recruit/bring in folks who live here and pay taxes here but can then go to Spain on Monday morning (assuming that they have a Brit passport).. the colour of a passport is irrelevant to anyone it’s the power of it that matters - can you travel, work, holiday without having to worry about visas, social security/NI, medical emergencies/EHIC, qualification/accreditations. In an age when India and China are on a warpath to make visa or visa on arrival deals with as many countries as possible, The UK may be the first country that is bent on imposing sanctions on itself.
I will get off my soap box and let the will of the people take over

https://twitter.com/x/status/1182297394475671552