Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
eldar said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
People keep saying you have to follow a model - we don't.
We are a strong unique country and can negotiate whatever we want.
Indeed we can. Negotiating what we need might be trickier.We are a strong unique country and can negotiate whatever we want.
eldar said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
People keep saying you have to follow a model - we don't.
We are a strong unique country and can negotiate whatever we want.
Indeed we can. Negotiating what we need might be trickier.We are a strong unique country and can negotiate whatever we want.
Einion Yrth said:
The thing is; negotiation is an ongoing process. After invocation of article 50 we, and the EU, need to come up with an accomodation that will be acceptable to both parties within two years, but negotiation doesn't just stop at that point. We will continue to change the arrangement over time, hopefully to the betterment of both sides.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty...This says that the member country who wishes to leave does NOT take part in the negotiations as to the terms of leaving
Einion Yrth said:
The thing is; negotiation is an ongoing process. After invocation of article 50 we, and the EU, need to come up with an accomodation that will be acceptable to both parties within two years, but negotiation doesn't just stop at that point. We will continue to change the arrangement over time, hopefully to the betterment of both sides.
Once article 50 is invoked the rest of the EU negotiates what to do, without our involvement, and it only needs a majority agreement not unanimous. If they haven't reached an agreement in 2 years they presumably just tell us to p
s off Hugo a Gogo said:
Einion Yrth said:
The thing is; negotiation is an ongoing process. After invocation of article 50 we, and the EU, need to come up with an accomodation that will be acceptable to both parties within two years, but negotiation doesn't just stop at that point. We will continue to change the arrangement over time, hopefully to the betterment of both sides.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.htmlThis says that the member country who wishes to leave does NOT take part in the negotiations as to the terms of leaving
Article 50 said:
the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State,
How do you conclude an agreement with an entity that isn't party to the negotiation.Odd definition of agreement you have there.
RizzoTheRat said:
loafer123 said:
It strikes me that the Free Trade Agreement recently done between the EU and South Korea would work perfectly well for us in form.
I suspect that South Korea had got more that we want than we have that they want so why would they want the same terms? PositronicRay said:
loafer123 said:
PositronicRay said:
How about this.
New PM
GE called
The whole thing is fought on Leave/Remain, UKIP v ROW.
Nigel would win some seats, but not enough to form a majority.
Or how about our recently elected representatives get on and do what we recently told them to do?New PM
GE called
The whole thing is fought on Leave/Remain, UKIP v ROW.
Nigel would win some seats, but not enough to form a majority.
Starfighter said:
Don't worry about leaving the EU, Nicola will use here veto...!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headline...
I do hope so, save us from the planless liars..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headline...
Hugo a Gogo said:
I didn't write it, so what does paragraph 4 mean?
Like most legalistic stuff it's not terribly clear, but I think it means that the member of the European Council who was appointed by the leaving state shall not be privy to the "behind the scenes" discussions of the current state of the negotiation. i.e. no potential "spies in the enemy camp".Einion Yrth said:
The thing is; negotiation is an ongoing process. After invocation of article 50 we, and the EU, need to come up with an accomodation that will be acceptable to both parties within two years, but negotiation doesn't just stop at that point. We will continue to change the arrangement over time, hopefully to the betterment of both sides.
If we invoke article 50 we have 2 years to agree a divorce. The doesn't include a trade deal. As the EU said on Friday they will negotiate a trade deal with the UK as a "third country". The wording is specific, it means that they won't open negotiations on a trade deal until we have left the EU. Then it could be years (or decades) before a trade deal is agreed.I tried to open a thread on the possible options the UK has post referendum but the mods are simply closing any new threads. I'll re-post the (rather lengthy) piece I wrote.
Posted earlier in its own thread but it was closed immediately by the mods so I'll add it here.
I think that holding a 2nd referendum or a general election on the result of the referendum will not help the country to come back together and instead effort should be put into what should happen next.
As I see it the UK has 3 options:
1. Do nothing. Ignore the referendum and continue as an EU member state. The referendum isn't legally binding on the Government but I think that this is the worst possible option as it will only further deepen the resentment the public have for the "political elite" and will inevitably lead to a similarly unpleasant campaign at the next general election (and beyond).
2. Leave the EU and go it alone. This option satisfies the majority view from the referendum but is the most dramatic in terms of impact on peoples lives and the UK economy. The EU has said that they will agree a trade deal with the UK as a "third country". This wording is important as it means that the EU won't open talks on a trade deal with the UK until after we have left. In addition the trade deal will have to get the unanimous agreement of all EU member states and national and regional parliaments. For example, in order to gain the approval of Belgium it would have to be approved by all 6 of their parliaments, anyone of which could veto the whole thing. It may take many years (even decades) to agree a trade deal and in the intervening period we will have to manage on WTO terms.
3. Leave the EU and rejoin the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). This also meets the majority view from the referendum as the question was 'should the UK remain a member of the EU?' not 'should we leave the single market?'. When the UK joined the EEC they did it in 2 stages. Firstly in 1960 we joined the EFTA which gave us access to the single market and allowed us to manage the transition for countries in the Commonwealth who were reliant on UK trade. We then joined the EEC in 1973. Membership of the EFTA could be used as a stepping stone to a complete exit (as per option 2) or as a compromise that suits us by re-establishing the supremacy of the UK Parliament whilst not burning our bridges with the rest of Europe. The UK would remain inside the single market and outside of the eurozone and schengen. EU law would not surpass UK law. We get UK passports and our ability to move freely within the EU is unaffected. Our contributions could fall as we would no longer pay in based on the size of our economy but instead there is an "EEA and Norway Grant" that contributes to a variety of programs to reduce inequality across the EU. Important to note that this does not apply to countries that joined after the 2004 expansion so is far less extensive than it may sound.
The major point of contention would be the free movement of labour as it remains one of the conditions of EFTA membership. However, I think that after this referendum the EU have no option but to review this unless other member states want to find themselves in the same situation as the UK is in now. It is worth noting that whilst Switzerland is a member of EFTA they have placed some restrictions on the free movement of labour. They have not been expelled for this but have had some access to the single market restricted. Obviously the Swiss feel that the benefit of this outweighs the downside and I don't think it is meant to be a permanent measure but a solution to a temporary problem.
The other downsides are:
We won't have a vote in the EU but I think that we will still be able to influence the EU. Norway thinks they have influence from their EFTA membership and the UK is considerably bigger than Norway (economically).
We will lose access to EU funding (common agricultural policy, grants etc.). Assuming that we can negotiate an appropriate grant contribution to the EU then the money saved on our previous EU contributions can offset this.
TL:DR We should invoke article 50 and exit the EU and rejoin EFTA thus allowing us retain most of the important parts relating to trade and without getting into the unpleasant task of asking EU immigrants to leave and having to re-home expats. We can then look to negotiating trade deals of our own and making a decision in the future as to whether it is worth taking the next step of leaving EFTA.
I think that holding a 2nd referendum or a general election on the result of the referendum will not help the country to come back together and instead effort should be put into what should happen next.
As I see it the UK has 3 options:
1. Do nothing. Ignore the referendum and continue as an EU member state. The referendum isn't legally binding on the Government but I think that this is the worst possible option as it will only further deepen the resentment the public have for the "political elite" and will inevitably lead to a similarly unpleasant campaign at the next general election (and beyond).
2. Leave the EU and go it alone. This option satisfies the majority view from the referendum but is the most dramatic in terms of impact on peoples lives and the UK economy. The EU has said that they will agree a trade deal with the UK as a "third country". This wording is important as it means that the EU won't open talks on a trade deal with the UK until after we have left. In addition the trade deal will have to get the unanimous agreement of all EU member states and national and regional parliaments. For example, in order to gain the approval of Belgium it would have to be approved by all 6 of their parliaments, anyone of which could veto the whole thing. It may take many years (even decades) to agree a trade deal and in the intervening period we will have to manage on WTO terms.
3. Leave the EU and rejoin the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). This also meets the majority view from the referendum as the question was 'should the UK remain a member of the EU?' not 'should we leave the single market?'. When the UK joined the EEC they did it in 2 stages. Firstly in 1960 we joined the EFTA which gave us access to the single market and allowed us to manage the transition for countries in the Commonwealth who were reliant on UK trade. We then joined the EEC in 1973. Membership of the EFTA could be used as a stepping stone to a complete exit (as per option 2) or as a compromise that suits us by re-establishing the supremacy of the UK Parliament whilst not burning our bridges with the rest of Europe. The UK would remain inside the single market and outside of the eurozone and schengen. EU law would not surpass UK law. We get UK passports and our ability to move freely within the EU is unaffected. Our contributions could fall as we would no longer pay in based on the size of our economy but instead there is an "EEA and Norway Grant" that contributes to a variety of programs to reduce inequality across the EU. Important to note that this does not apply to countries that joined after the 2004 expansion so is far less extensive than it may sound.
The major point of contention would be the free movement of labour as it remains one of the conditions of EFTA membership. However, I think that after this referendum the EU have no option but to review this unless other member states want to find themselves in the same situation as the UK is in now. It is worth noting that whilst Switzerland is a member of EFTA they have placed some restrictions on the free movement of labour. They have not been expelled for this but have had some access to the single market restricted. Obviously the Swiss feel that the benefit of this outweighs the downside and I don't think it is meant to be a permanent measure but a solution to a temporary problem.
The other downsides are:
We won't have a vote in the EU but I think that we will still be able to influence the EU. Norway thinks they have influence from their EFTA membership and the UK is considerably bigger than Norway (economically).
We will lose access to EU funding (common agricultural policy, grants etc.). Assuming that we can negotiate an appropriate grant contribution to the EU then the money saved on our previous EU contributions can offset this.
TL:DR We should invoke article 50 and exit the EU and rejoin EFTA thus allowing us retain most of the important parts relating to trade and without getting into the unpleasant task of asking EU immigrants to leave and having to re-home expats. We can then look to negotiating trade deals of our own and making a decision in the future as to whether it is worth taking the next step of leaving EFTA.
loafer123 said:
PositronicRay said:
loafer123 said:
PositronicRay said:
How about this.
New PM
GE called
The whole thing is fought on Leave/Remain, UKIP v ROW.
Nigel would win some seats, but not enough to form a majority.
Or how about our recently elected representatives get on and do what we recently told them to do?New PM
GE called
The whole thing is fought on Leave/Remain, UKIP v ROW.
Nigel would win some seats, but not enough to form a majority.
ralphrj said:
TL:DR We should invoke article 50 and exit the EU and rejoin EFTA thus allowing us retain most of the important parts relating to trade and without getting into the unpleasant task of asking EU immigrants to leave and having to re-home expats. We can then look to negotiating trade deals of our own and making a decision in the future as to whether it is worth taking the next step of leaving EFTA.
Looks Ok to me, and not dissimilar to my post.Candellara said:
The fact is.....we live in a democracy and there was a majority vote for Leave. End of
Should we not proceed and invoke Article 50 - there'd be riots on the streets which would make the poll tax riots look like a childs tea party
Elective democracy. We vote for representatives to decide stuff like this. This referendum has no legal standing to force it through. Should we not proceed and invoke Article 50 - there'd be riots on the streets which would make the poll tax riots look like a childs tea party
parliament.uk said:
However, there are two provisions that trigger an election other than at five year intervals:
a motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed
a motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)
The latter provision means, in effect, that there can be a general election outside the 5 year cycle of the fixed-term parliament act, but only if Tories and Labour agree to hold one. a motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed
a motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)
Einion Yrth said:
Looks Ok to me, and not dissimilar to my post.
I think that the important bit is that we have a plan before invoking article 50.EFTA seems like a good compromise to me but I am only an ordinary person reading up on it, the devil is in the detail and it needs to be fully evaluated by people smarter than me with access to the full info.
EFTA does fulfill the wishes of the majority by leaving the EU but it doesn't cut us off completely from the rest of Europe.
If there is a second referendum then it should not be the same question again but perhaps between the options 2 and 3 of my post above.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff