Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[bluewolf]

You mean we own it. The nation voted for it. The whole problem is you can’t deal with the fact that your side lost. So you have tried to frustrate it. Have another go. Claim it was advisory. Stand outside Parliament waving EU flags and doing shouty things. Try and fudge it, even to the point that the only deal in town is one even remainers would rather leave than sign.
Alternatively we trigger A50 and go on time. If the EU want a deal on trade let’s do a deal on trade. Do deals with the rest of the world. Do what we want. You know, like everyone else does. Like it or not, that is what we voted for
It’s not hard, unless you have a reason for wanting to make it hard.

I haven't done any of those things. I accepted the vote. I've mentioned it numerous times on here.
And I'm not making it hard. Our complete lack of clarity is. Even the ERG have shifted position numerous times.

 

[Foxholer]

the President of the European Commission, currently Jean Claude Juncker, is elected by the European Parliament....
The President of the European Council is elected by members of the European Council....

So definitely not 'unelected'!

It could be claimed these and other “top dogs” are elected, but at best the democratic process is so diluted as to be virtually non-existent. In reality the people of the EU, (the ones who really count and who are the ones most often forgotten) cannot remove the people at the top of this level of government, which renders it undemocratic...

I was most definitely not questioning whether the process was 'democratic' or not! I'm pretty certain that much of the EU's real power structure fails my (personal) interpretation of 'democratic' - for very similar reasons to your point above!

 

[Dando]

Then I don't spend all day accusing my colleagues of holding me against my will, holding back my career and generally sulking like a spoilt child. I do the necessary work, leave for the day with everything I need in place to get home in the quickest and safest way possible.

I guess remainers haven't been acting like spoilt children since they didn't get their own way

 

[Sweep]

The EU team were given a negotiating position by the 27 member states. They've stuck to it. They are representing the wishes of each State. Maybe they should have had a referendum?
And why wouldn't they protect their project? They believe in it!!

I get the feeling there will be quite a few referendums in EU countries over the next few years.
No reason why the EU shouldn’t protect their project. But they should be putting their people first as any government should. Negotiating as they have done to put others off from leaving is not putting their people first. If your job in the EU was at stake over this, would you rather the EU put federalism first or a deal so you keep your job?

 

[Deleted member 1418]

The EU doesn’t want a hard border with us, that’s our decision, so up to us to find a way to do it.

And the UK has consistently said that we don't want a hard border with them as well, so it should be up to both parties to find a solution to that. And we have presented to them a number of solutions which they have rejected.

 

[IanM]

Those states who are funded by the small number of net contributors have a vested interest in the status quo. IF the UK leaves, that leaves a hole in revenue that needs to be filled by increased contributions from the others....don't confuse that with a love of the EU

......that explains their postion on Brexit. Simple as that. Eeek, we'll have to pay more!!!

Merkel's refugee fetish is alienating many states regardless of the financial imperative. It's kicking off on several fronts.

Watch this space!

 

[Sweep]

The EU doesn’t want a hard border with us, that’s our decision, so up to us to find a way to do it.

The UK has said we don’t want a hard border either. We didn’t have one before the EU even during the troubles when terrorists were crossing.
No-one is going to erect a border no matter what happens. It’s a red herring.

 

[Foxholer]

I agree completely, but they weren't.

Then specify 'the Government' or similar, not 'the Tories'!

And I'm pretty sure 'the EU negotiating team' had a sizeable responsibility too!

 

[Blue in Munich]

But that isn't what's being negotiated. What they do once we leave is up to them. How they arrange their finances is up to them. The actual method for how we leave is up to us.

Surely the reason it is being “negotiated” (because negotiations require compromise which we have established doesn’t exist) is because the EU didn’t have a plan in place to accommodate countries leaving? Take out a mortgage or a loan and the settlement terms and penalty clauses are all there. Not with the EU, who can then move the goalposts as it suits them. If it were any net beneficiaries leaving there wouldn’t be half the fuss from them.

 

[Sweep]

I haven't done any of those things. I accepted the vote. I've mentioned it numerous times on here.
And I'm not making it hard. Our complete lack of clarity is. Even the ERG have shifted position numerous times.

I use the term you as in remainers. The ERG are shifting position as the Brexit landscape shifts. Their preferred plan was to leave as I outlined.

 

[bluewolf]

Then specify 'the Government' or similar, not 'the Tories'!

And I'm pretty sure 'the EU negotiating team' had a sizeable responsibility too!

Ridiculous statement. You're just posting for the sake of posting now.

 

[bluewolf]

I use the term you as in remainers. The ERG are shifting position as the Brexit landscape shifts. Their preferred plan was to leave as I outlined.

Their preferred outcome was to leave. They had no plan on how to make that happen.

 

[bluewolf]

Surely the reason it is being “negotiated” (because negotiations require compromise which we have established doesn’t exist) is because the EU didn’t have a plan in place to accommodate countries leaving? Take out a mortgage or a loan and the settlement terms and penalty clauses are all there. Not with the EU, who can then move the goalposts as it suits them. If it were any net beneficiaries leaving there wouldn’t be half the fuss from them.

That comparison doesn't work though. There have been many agencies and initiatives set up since we joined. How could the possibly set out settlement terms in an ever changing landscape. It would be impossible.

 

[bluewolf]

I get the feeling there will be quite a few referendums in EU countries over the next few years.
No reason why the EU shouldn’t protect their project. But they should be putting their people first as any government should. Negotiating as they have done to put others off from leaving is not putting their people first. If your job in the EU was at stake over this, would you rather the EU put federalism first or a deal so you keep your job?

That's your (entitled to) opinion of what is happening. I'm certain that they think they are putting their people first. I'm sure that they are trying to protect a project that they believe is best for the people of Europe.

 

[Foxholer]

Ridiculous statement. You're just posting for the sake of posting now.

 

[Old Skier]

Their preferred outcome was to leave. They had no plan on how to make that happen.

Or, they had a plan but it wasn't acceptable to the EU and now they have another plan which is still not acceptable to the EU. It was also agreed with the EU that the plans had to be ratified by the various Parliaments. The plans weren't ratified therefore it seems logical that the two teams need to come back with another plan. Note I said 2. The EU set the time lines so lets not go blaming the UK because the date is closing in.

 

[Blue in Munich]

That comparison doesn't work though. There have been many agencies and initiatives set up since we joined. How could the possibly set out settlement terms in an ever changing landscape. It would be impossible.

Not necessarily but we’ll never know because they didn’t try. Anyway I’m almost back at work so I’ll leave the rest of you to discuss. 👍

 

[bluewolf]

Or, they had a plan but it wasn't acceptable to the EU and now they have another plan which is still not acceptable to the EU. It was also agreed with the EU that the plans had to be ratified by the various Parliaments. The plans weren't ratified therefore it seems logical that the two teams need to come back with another plan. Note I said 2. The EU set the time lines so lets not go blaming the UK because the date is closing in.

But we all knew full well that the plan wasn't acceptable to the EU. They, like we, set Red Lines. Formulating plans that fundamentally cross those red lines is just time wasting (intentional).
Why did the EU set the timelines?

 

[Foxholer]

Surely the reason it is being “negotiated” (because negotiations require compromise which we have established doesn’t exist) is because the EU didn’t have a plan in place to accommodate countries leaving? Take out a mortgage or a loan and the settlement terms and penalty clauses are all there. Not with the EU, who can then move the goalposts as it suits them. If it were any net beneficiaries leaving there wouldn’t be half the fuss from them.

Sorry, but that's wrong!

Article 50 IS that plan! Clause 2 or Article 50 requires 'the Union shall negotiate...'

See here https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012M050

 

[bluewolf]

Anyway, I hope no one minds if I take my leave for a few days. It's quite tiring in front of the firing squad 😉 I've said my piece and genuinely enjoyed the debate, but, like a one legged monkey, we're just going round in circles now.
Catch you in a few days 👍