The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

1…2930323435…81

Comments

  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    Yeoldhammer said:

    FYI Australia had a petition going after Brexit to get out of the Commonwealth. Not sure many countries actually want to be in the commonwealth.

    ;nonono
  • Colchester_IronColchester_Iron
    What has the EU ever done for us?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    ;hmm

    Viaducts?
  • Colchester_IronColchester_Iron
    edited July 2016
    ;hmm
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    edited July 2016
    And yet another interesting read:

    http://europe.newsweek.com/little-englander-triumph-leaves-no-one-better-474247?rm=eu

    I've yet to find an impartial article/comment/analysis anywhere that sees anything positive that can come out of this (discounting UK newspapers).
    I have not seen a single post by a Leaver on this thread referencing such. All the links to impartial articles/comments/analyses that have been posted have been by Remainers. Why is that? ;hmm

    This will go down as the biggest instance of self-harming ever. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Because it is the remainers who are desperate to find everything they possibly can to try to prove they should have won.
  • SwissironSwissiron
    TheMadcapLaughs said:

    "Should such a momentous decision really be simply made on first past the post?"

    How else we gonna do it?

    Seems fair to me, a referendum took us in, a referendum has taken us out.

    We didnt go in as a result of a referendum. The referendum of 75 kept us in, we entered the EU in 73
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    edited July 2016
    "desperate to find everything they possibly can to try to prove they should have won"

    Don't quite understand what that means in the context of a reply to my post.

    Ok Thorn, as I said, I've tried to find a positive impartial article/comment/analysis anywhere.
    Why don't you have a go and find one and prove all us Remainers desperately wrong.

    Or is it you who's coming to realise that you're in denial of the fact that the Leave vote will lead to the dismantling and disempowerment of the UK, one of those inconvenient truths and unintended consequences.

    There's none so blind as those who will not see ;whistle
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I voted out but if the result had gone the other way I'd have accepted it without the tantrums. I used to send my kids to their rooms when they kicked off because they didn't get what they wanted.
    The EU doesn't exist for the benefit of Europe but for the benefit of Germany who are aiming for a federal state of Europe governed by them.
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    To take this in a slightly different direction, the EU wants us to invoke Article 50 asap, some want us to take our time. I would love us to invoke the article, then totally ignore any negotiation with the EU until we had closed multiple negotiations with other countries - such as USA, India, Australia, China, New Zealand, ..., Tierra del Fuego.

    I wonder how long it would take the German Industrialists to kick off?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    thornburyiron said:



    I voted out but if the result had gone the other way I'd have accepted it without the tantrums. I used to send my kids to their rooms when they kicked off because they didn't get what they wanted.

    Patronising, much?

    Also, you might have accepted it, but it doesn't say much for the courage of your convictions. Perhaps those who believe the UK is better off in Europe aren't just shrugging their shoulders and saying ' meh, you win some, you lose some'.
    thornburyiron said:

    The EU doesn't exist for the benefit of Europe but for the benefit of Germany who are aiming for a federal state of Europe governed by them.

    In your opinion.

    And even if it does - so what?

    Voting out to give Germany a bloody nose is a pretty poor motive imo.

    If the UK benefits overall, who cares if Germany also benefits.

    Sounds a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    Maybe we can all unite on this:

    Make it illegal for any UK political figure to knowingly lie or mislead.
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/119416
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    thornburyiron

    The EU doesn't exist for the benefit of Europe but for the benefit of Germany who are aiming for a federal state of Europe governed by them.
    Well, in your opinion.

    It isn't about whingeing because the result didn't go the way I wanted, it is about such a tainted process being used to make such a momentous decision.

    When you get a guy who piled in £11m pounds to the Leave campaign admitting that they focused their pitch away from facts where it was felt Leave was losing, and on to immigration, which they felt was a winner, you have to doubt how honest or democratic the process was.

    At least, I do.

    Perhaps, if you got the 'right' result, you don't have to care how we got there?

    I used to take away privileges from my kid when he lied like a hairy egg.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited July 2016
    Dodger58 said:

    To take this in a slightly different direction, the EU wants us to invoke Article 50 asap, some want us to take our time. I would love us to invoke the article, then totally ignore any negotiation with the EU until we had closed multiple negotiations with other countries - such as USA, India, Australia, China, New Zealand, ..., Tierra del Fuego.

    I wonder how long it would take the German Industrialists to kick off?

    That would be utter utter irresponsibility on behalf of the govt.

    It's more than just trade, you know.

    Many peoples lives, family, health, income and livelihoods depend on what will be negotiated.

    To ignore all that for petty nose-thumbing at Germany would be ridiculous.

    After 2 years, the Uk would no longer be part of the EU. WTO trade tariffs would immediately apply to all existing imports and exports. People's residency status would be in limbo. Companies that employed EU nationals wouldn't know whether they were coming or going. All the vital NHS workers from EU countries would be limbo.

    Would you love that?
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    To ignore all that for petty nose-thumbing at Germany would be ridiculous.
    At no point was this said. But there is no reason we have to negotiate with the EU first, that is just part of their continued arrogance - in my opinion of course.

    Why are the EU only referring to trade then?

    Many peoples lives will benefit from improved trade Globally as well. There is a larger trading block outside the EU than in it.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    edited July 2016
    Dodger

    What makes you think the UK doesn't need to negotiate with the EU?

    What happens to all the issues covered by current EU agreements? They are just nullified? So, for example, all EU nationals are forced to leave the UK, and UK nationals resident in the EU to return to the UK?

    Without any agreement with the EU, the UK will, at best, achieve WTO status in terms of trade.

    It doesn't matter how large alternative trading blocks might be if

    a) your current major trading partners are within the EU

    b) you can't guarantee that any trading lost from the EU will be made up for outside it, and that you can get as good or better a trade deal than the UK currently enjoys under EU membership.

  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Dodger58 said:

    To ignore all that for petty nose-thumbing at Germany would be ridiculous.
    At no point was this said. But there is no reason we have to negotiate with the EU first, that is just part of their continued arrogance - in my opinion of course.

    Why are the EU only referring to trade then?

    Many peoples lives will benefit from improved trade Globally as well. There is a larger trading block outside the EU than in it.
    From the little I know I'm pretty sure we can't break EU rules by negotiating external trade agreements while still members of the EU.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited July 2016
    Dodger, you referred to German industrialists. Fair enough if you weren't implying an anti-German direction ;ok

    I agree that many people MAY benefit from global trade. I never said otherwise. But others may suffer as aresult of voiding or changing existing contracts.

    re. not negotiating with the EU first - I think it is vitally important that ALL the aspects of our membership of the EU (not just trade, but also the situation of UK and EU citizens who live and work in each others countries and in many cases have mixed families, of businesses that have branches and employ staff in other countries, of residents and tourists who have access to various levels of health care abroad, of fishing quotas, of farming subsidies, of scientific R+D grants, of air quality and water quality standards.... I could go on.)

    My point is, after 40 years, so many aspects are intertwined. This has to be sorted out. and just saying 'yeah, yeah, we'll get round to it' as away of putting 2 fingers up to the EU would be petty and irresponsible in the extreme. This is no time or playing games, the consequences are too important. in my considered opinion.
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    Most of the aspects you refer to are currently woven into the British Legal system,
    IronHerb said:

    Dodger58 said:

    To ignore all that for petty nose-thumbing at Germany would be ridiculous.
    At no point was this said. But there is no reason we have to negotiate with the EU first, that is just part of their continued arrogance - in my opinion of course.

    Why are the EU only referring to trade then?

    Many peoples lives will benefit from improved trade Globally as well. There is a larger trading block outside the EU than in it.
    From the little I know I'm pretty sure we can't break EU rules by negotiating external trade agreements while still members of the EU.
    IronHerb, you are correct. But there is also no reason why once we are no-longer members of the EU we have to negotiate with them first. They don't want to entertain any form of negotiation until we have left, fine, they can take their turn in the queue.
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    Dodger

    What makes you think the UK doesn't need to negotiate with the EU?

    What happens to all the issues covered by current EU agreements? They are just nullified? So, for example, all EU nationals are forced to leave the UK, and UK nationals resident in the EU to return to the UK?

    Without any agreement with the EU, the UK will, at best, achieve WTO status in terms of trade.

    It doesn't matter how large alternative trading blocks might be if

    a) your current major trading partners are within the EU

    b) you can't guarantee that any trading lost from the EU will be made up for outside it, and that you can get as good or better a trade deal than the UK currently enjoys under EU membership.

    Grey,

    Of course we will have to negotiate with the EU if we want any form of deal other than one controlled by WTO - but that goes both ways. My comment does not say we don't want/need to negotiate, what I have said is why should we negotiate when they want to. We have plenty of other deals that need addressing to keep us busy ...

    Our current major trading partners are the EU today, but they weren't before the original Common Market. They are also a declining trading block who appear to be trying to make a deal difficult (to show others who may be tempted to leave that it won' be made easy). Business is often more readily closed by those who want to come to a deal, so let's get started with those then come around to the 'awkward squad'.

    No I can't guarantee that any trade lost from the EU will be made up from outside, but we can make a good try to ensure we make a success of it.
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    MrsGrey said:

    Dodger, you referred to German industrialists. Fair enough if you weren't implying an anti-German direction ;ok

    I agree that many people MAY benefit from global trade. I never said otherwise. But others may suffer as aresult of voiding or changing existing contracts.

    re. not negotiating with the EU first - I think it is vitally important that ALL the aspects of our membership of the EU (not just trade, but also the situation of UK and EU citizens who live and work in each others countries and in many cases have mixed families, of businesses that have branches and employ staff in other countries, of residents and tourists who have access to various levels of health care abroad, of fishing quotas, of farming subsidies, of scientific R+D grants, of air quality and water quality standards.... I could go on.)

    My point is, after 40 years, so many aspects are intertwined. This has to be sorted out. and just saying 'yeah, yeah, we'll get round to it' as away of putting 2 fingers up to the EU would be petty and irresponsible in the extreme. This is no time or playing games, the consequences are too important. in my considered opinion.

    Mrs Grey,

    See above. Once we are outside the EU, it isn't just the UK that no-longer gets privileged treatment ...

    As regards the 40 odd years of intertwining, you are 100% correct. That is the reason many voted to leave. The un-entwining is clearly not a 5 minute job. But to a large extend the speed at which we do it, once the EU have 'cut us adrift' is up to us.
  • IronHerbIronHerb

    IronHerb, you are correct. But there is also no reason why once we are no-longer members of the EU we have to negotiate with them first. They don't want to entertain any form of negotiation until we have left, fine, they can take their turn in the queue.
    We are not out of the EU until the Article 50 negotiations are signed off
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    edited July 2016
    As for negotiations:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/03/government-faces-worldwide-hunt-for-trade-negotiators-experts-wa/

    On another note, I get the distinct impression that very few on here actually follow these links. ;hmm
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    Iron Herb:

    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.


    Despite coming close (Clause 2 above), there is nothing here that actually says a new International Trade deal has to be agreed before we can leave. It does refer to a "framework for its future relationship", but that is not a Trade Deal.

    Clause 3 attempts to cap the negotiations at 2 years unless the EU AND the UK unanimously agree to extend the period of time - I'd be surprised if both parties would agree to this (let alone the 27 individual EU states.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Dodger,

    Until Clause 3 is signed off we are still members of the EU, as I understand it, and as such cannot negotiate unilateral agreements.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Dodger58 said:

    Most of the aspects you refer to are currently woven into the British Legal system,

    But not all of it in primary legislation.

    Which means that a good deal of 'law' can be changed very quickly, and with little fanfare, as it requires only amendment of secondary legislation.
  • Dodger58Dodger58
    IronHerb, I 100% agree with you, but it doesn't mean we have to negotiate with EU first. Just we can't negotiate with others. Now, if we want to get picky, we could claim "restraint of trade" ...
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    Reasons to be cheerful:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-what-next-reasons-to-be-positive-eu-referendum-jeremy-corbyn-a7104016.html

  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    Reasons not to...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36708774
  • mikemike
    Madcap ;ok

    The comments below that article just show how we are split on this.

    In my lifetime(and that's a few years ;whistle)I don't think i have ever known anything else which has split the country so much.
This discussion has been closed.