Brexit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Cameron made it clear - voting to leave is voting to leave the single market and customs union. There was no confusion, no matter how much those who wish to remain try to sell the idea. I read my leaflet - you remember the one that dropped through everyone's door? The one that said it was a once in a generation vote and would be implemented!
    No deal certainly is a vital negotiation tool. Otherwise you are walking into a car showroom saying "I am going to buy that car no matter what price you offer to sell it to me for"...try doing that and then coming out with a good deal from the sharp suited sales person.
    As for the view that "they have no reason to try and deal with the UK if the UK is intent on self harm" - that only works if you think Brexit would harm the UK. Milliions of us do not think that. We think it would be the best thing for our economy and our people.
    Once again opposing viewpoints but nice to see them so politely expressed! This is a very enjoyable thread - everyone's viewpoint is valid and respected, even if we totally disagree. Long may it continue.
    Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

    Comment


      Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
      No deal certainly is a vital negotiation tool. Otherwise you are walking into a car showroom saying "I am going to buy that car no matter what price you offer to sell it to me for"...try doing that and then coming out with a good deal ...
      I don't agree at all with that analogy.

      If you want to use a car anaogy then we have already had the car for a while, and we are now looking to trade it in for a different one.

      'No deal' is just scrapping our current car and then going without until we can, maybe, get another one.

      As for delaying the date of brexit, there was nothing on the ballot paper about timescales.
      The vote was to leave the EU, nothing about when we should leave.

      Here is the full text of Article 50, for those who haven't read it.
      I've bolded paragraph 3, which gives 2 years after invocation for negotiations, or longer if that is required and agreed.
      The 2 years is not set in stone as some would have you believe.

      CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

      TITLE VI

      FINAL PROVISIONS


      Article 50

      1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

      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.

      3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

      4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

      A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

      5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
      https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...EX%3A12012M050

      Comment


        That would be correct if Parliament had not enshrined in law the date we leave. From Full Fact: "If the UK requested an extension of this process, the Article 50 deadline could be extended for a specified period of time, but only if each and every one of the 27 other EU member states agreed. The UK would also need to pass legislation to change the date of Brexit currently in UK law."
        It is unfair to say that there was no timetable to leave. Would it be fair to just keep extending Article 50 so that we are trapped in Groundhog Day forever? Of course not. Article 50 says 2 years. If we extended another 2 it would make no difference other than the country will be full of argument division and doubt with no end result. The only way forward is to leave on 29th March, as far as this manatee is concerned,
        "'No deal' is just scrapping our current car and then going without until we can, maybe, get another one" Not quite. That scenario would assume that you did not go into the showroom to negotiate to buy another car and therefore did not have the means to purchase one at the time. Clearly we are in the market for a deal but if we have to have have one at any price and the salesman knows it (because we have told him up front that WE WILL be buying the car today, whatever price he asks) then the salesman rubs his hands, adds 10% to the price and makes us pay for all the extras which he would have thrown in free if we had threatened to walk away...
        Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

        Comment


          Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
          Cameron made it clear - voting to leave is voting to leave the single market and customs union. There was no confusion, no matter how much those who wish to remain try to sell the idea. I read my leaflet - you remember the one that dropped through everyone's door?
          The one headed "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK."?
          And says "No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:
          • follow EU rules over which they have no real say
          • pay into the EU
          • accept EU citizens living and working in their country"
          Which looks like a deal to me.

          Or the vote leave one, that said we could trade with the EU like the Swiss do (which means accepting freedom of movement)? Which is looks like some kind of deal was envisaged.

          The proposal by the government isn't a deal with the EU about our future trading relationships.
          It's a set of temporary interim measures designed to prevent a catastrophe happening after 11PM 29th of March, while we negotiate the long term deals that we need to operate the country.

          Leaving with no deal puts a hard border in Ireland and at UK harbours because WTO rules require it.
          We're not remotely ready for that to happen.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            Originally posted by nukecad View Post
            It's quite simple. Revoke article 50, for now, or extend the period before leaving, both of which are allowed under article 50. Have some more consultation and negotiation about just what the people of the UK actualy want from brexit. Not what the politicians want to advance their careers, what the people want. Then invoke article 50 again, this time with a clear view of what we want to acheive
            The UK can ask the EU to extend the Article 50 deadline.
            That has to be unanimous across all 27 countries.
            They'd agree once, for sure, but after that, I imagine they'd want compensating for being messed around (or someone will go rogue for some other reason).

            There's a legal view that an article 50 notification can only be revoked if there is no intention to invoke it again. Otherwise the revocation is actually a delay and should be approved by all 27 member states.
            Again, that would probably pass, but not neccessarily.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

            Comment


              Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
              I voted to leave, deal or not. I expect a no deal Brexit to cost me money but I still think it's a better option for the UK. Almost 3 years of negotiation and we are still part of the EU! And people want to extend Article 50? The vote will never be honoured at this rate.
              If you voted on that basis. What about people who voted on a different basis?

              There's a video somewhere of someone who voted leave to "get pa***s out".
              That would definitely need some kind of deal.
              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

              Comment


                Yes JP that leaflet :
                No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:
                • follow EU rules over which they have no real say
                • pay into the EU
                • accept EU citizens living and working in their country"
                Leavers do not want to do any of the above.
                The issue is, what is the definition of "significant access"? We recognize that there is no way to get all the benefits without being in the club. However a mutually beneficial deal is possible, it just takes the will on both sides which will never exist whilst the EU believe we will not walk away.
                Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                Comment


                  I would be happy to retain a trading only partnership with the EU but nothing else, we must be willing to just walk away if necessary and I'm happy for that option also. I definitely want to see the end of free movement but I don't expect or wish for an end to immigration. Immigration needs to be properly planned, not the free for all we have at the moment.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                    The issue is, what is the definition of "significant access"? We recognize that there is no way to get all the benefits without being in the club. However a mutually beneficial deal is possible, it just takes the will on both sides which will never exist whilst the EU believe we will not walk away.
                    In which case, you should support Mrs May's deal - because it simply sets up the interim period during which we can negotiate our access to the EU.
                    While we're in the EU, they can't agree the future deal, in the same way that we can't negotiate with other nations, because the EU treaties contain commitments that they will negotiate for all members, have no individual variation internally and no individual member can negotiate alone.
                    The EU has trapped itself and much as the UK (probably because it never comtemplated anyone wanting to leave).

                    Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
                    I would be happy to retain a trading only partnership with the EU but nothing else, we must be willing to just walk away if necessary and I'm happy for that option also. I definitely want to see the end of free movement but I don't expect or wish for an end to immigration. Immigration needs to be properly planned, not the free for all we have at the moment.
                    Immigration in the UK is only a free for all because successive governments have failed to take control of it - it's nothing to do with the EU.

                    Non EU immigration is reasonably well controlled, while EU immigration isn't.
                    The fundamental problem is that while EU nationals have a right to come and work and live here under EU regulations, their right to the benefits of residence isn't a right.
                    An EU resident only has a right "to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action" and the UK has a provision that after three months not working the right to reside goes away.

                    But has never enforced any kind of system to ensure it happens.
                    The UK government doesn't know how many EU nationals are living in the UK, because it has never put in place the simple steps to find out.

                    There was a big debate a few years ago about how many EU students stay in the UK after they graduate.
                    The Government (in the form of the Home Secretary, someone called Theresa May) had to acknowledge that they didn't know, so they just assumed that they all did for their figures.
                    Which meant that the number of EU migrants in the UK was (probably) massively overstated.

                    Other nations have ID cards or require people to report in periodically to a council office or a police station as a condition of residence just so they need to keep track of who lives where.

                    Once the government had some idea of numbers, they could establish who was working and who was entitled to benefits, and then who needed to go home.
                    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
                      I voted to leave, deal or not. I expect a no deal Brexit to cost me money but I still think it's a better option for the UK. Almost 3 years of negotiation and we are still part of the EU! And people want to extend Article 50? The vote will never be honoured at this rate.
                      The vote already has been honoured.
                      The government has taken into account the fact that a very slim majority of those who voted in the 2016 referendum expressed a preference to leave the EU.

                      Leaving the EU has been debated in parliament, Article 50 waa triggered to enable negotiations to begin (nearly 2 years ago, not 3) and an unknown number of civil servants have been woeking on Brexit.

                      Unless the Act of parliament that leads to a referendum states that a particular action will happen as a result of that referendum, all that a sitting UK government/parliament needs to do to honour the result of that referendum is to give serious consideration to the position expressed (and in the 2016 referendum the fact that the result was only very narrowly in favour of leave and the fact that all polls show that the younger age groups were in favour of 'remain' should be taken into account during that consideration).

                      UK referenda are advisory - 'honouring the vote', in this case, does not have to mean leaving the EU because a small majority of voters prefered a non specified version of leaving.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                        Cameron made it clear - voting to leave is voting to leave the single market and customs union. There was no confusion, no matter how much those who wish to remain try to sell the idea. I read my leaflet - you remember the one that dropped through everyone's door? The one that said it was a once in a generation vote and would be implemented!
                        As has already been said, what Cameron (or any body else) said, or even promised, is irrelevent.
                        No UK politician, even the Prime Minister, and no government, has the authority to promise anything that requires parliamentary consent.
                        Sovereignty of parliament - remember that? Supposedly most those who voted leave consider this to be important.

                        We do not have the same Prime Minister, the same government, or the same parliament that we had prior to the Brexit referendum so, if you feel that any promises made prior to the referendum are broken, it is only individual who will be breaking them.

                        Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                        No deal certainly is a vital negotiation tool. Otherwise you are walking into a car showroom saying "I am going to buy that car no matter what price you offer to sell it to me for"...try doing that and then coming out with a good deal from the sharp suited sales person.
                        We are long past the point where the threat of no deal would have carried any weight (if it ever had any in the first place - which is highly debatable).

                        Your car showroom analogy would only be appropriate if:
                        1. The salesman (EU) really needed to get a sale at any price.
                        2. The buyer (UK) had nothing at all to lose from walking out - i.e. they could easily get by without a car without any problems.
                        3. There was no 'bottom price' that the salesman couldn't drop below.

                        If you spend time negotiating with the salesman, perhaps get the price dropped and some extras thrown in, but still insist that you are going to walk away, there is a point where the salesman will have nothing to gain and will let you leave. For the salesman there is no reason to waste time on someone who is demanding a deal that leaves the showroom making a loss.


                        Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                        As for the view that "they have no reason to try and deal with the UK if the UK is intent on self harm" - that only works if you think Brexit would harm the UK. Milliions of us do not think that. We think it would be the best thing for our economy and our people..
                        What the people who say we should threaten to leave with no deal think isn't the important consideration here.
                        The important thing is what the EU think.If they think that they have already offered the best deal that they possibly can (or the best that they are prepared to offer), then threatening to leave without a deal won't help.
                        Adeal of some sort is in the EU's best interest, but almost all economic studies and other expert opinions seem to suggest that leaving without a deal with hurt the UK more than the EU.
                        They have no reason to agree a deal that gives us more consessions than they want to just to stop us leaving without a deal.

                        Comment


                          I agree the EU do not have to give us concessions to stop us leaving without a deal. However they may be minded to do so if it is in their interest. They will most certainly not give us anything if we have already said we will not walk away - any business person (or anyone who has made a major purchase) understands that and there can be no logical reason for taking No Deal off the table other than a rabid desire to remain within the EU.
                          In other news Nigel is back - he will fight a snap election, if one were to be called as The Brexit Party. Thoughts people?
                          Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                          Comment


                            Nigel Farage has failed to be elected as an MP every time he has tried (7 times).
                            He's planning to make more money shorting the pound and UK businesses if we leave with no deal or a bad deal.

                            He's made sure his family all have non-UK passports and will take his EU salary and (huge) pension regardless of the result.
                            History will not be kind to Mr Farage.
                            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                            Comment


                              You may or may not be correct JP but it will certainly focus the thinking of the Conservatives as The Brexit Party have the potential to take all their Eurosceptic votes (and indeed the votes of those who supported Leave in the Labour heartlands).After all it was fear of UKIP that created the Referendum in the first place. We live in interesting times....
                              Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                              Comment


                                The conservative party is going to have to finally split on this.
                                Probably just ahead of the Labour party.

                                The debate has got to the point where the disagreements are so entrenched and toxic there's no fixing it.
                                And, very soon, one side is going to win and everyone else is going to lose.
                                And the winning side (whichever it is) isn't going to like what they've "won" and everyone who loses will hate that.
                                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X