Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
NJH said:
Transition on the terms being offered by the EU is a very obvious trap to do a last minute deal that sees continuation of membership for a couple more years. The reasoning is simple, have to stay in to have any say on new legislation coming along during that period, as in no material gain by throwing away all control for nothing in return. Then it gives the EU (and remainers) time to find a way to overturn Brexit. Stunned that this isn't being picked up and that so many leavers seem content to walk into this trap.
Why do we care about any new legislation? Anything that detrimental to us would take ages to get through anyway - and we'd just ignore it. The only things I can think of that could be implemented fairly quickly without our veto and disproportionately effect the UK would be a FS tax, however that doesn't benefit the EU either. If, as mooted, it's a 20 month transition (to align with budgetary cycles), I think we can cope focusing on getting everything sorted for full separation and preparation the future during that time rather than worrying about the EU's next moves.
The "vassal state" moniker only upsets the absolute hard liners that want to leave immediately.
The reality is, that it's bloody unlikely there won't be some clause entered that means that it's a non issue. Either a 'minimum implementation lead time' ensuring that anything changed will be implemented after we've left, or a tacit agreement we can ignore any changes.
Besides, as said, we'd only be a vassal state if we choose to be. Even as it stands, any onerous/undesirable changes we can just ignore for a few months. The notion that we can have left (and be in the transition/implementation phase) and still have power of veto over the EU as a whole is ridiculous.
The reality is, that it's bloody unlikely there won't be some clause entered that means that it's a non issue. Either a 'minimum implementation lead time' ensuring that anything changed will be implemented after we've left, or a tacit agreement we can ignore any changes.
Besides, as said, we'd only be a vassal state if we choose to be. Even as it stands, any onerous/undesirable changes we can just ignore for a few months. The notion that we can have left (and be in the transition/implementation phase) and still have power of veto over the EU as a whole is ridiculous.
Sway said:
The "vassal state" moniker only upsets the absolute hard liners that want to leave immediately.
The reality is, that it's bloody unlikely there won't be some clause entered that means that it's a non issue. Either a 'minimum implementation lead time' ensuring that anything changed will be implemented after we've left, or a tacit agreement we can ignore any changes.
Besides, as said, we'd only be a vassal state if we choose to be. Even as it stands, any onerous/undesirable changes we can just ignore for a few months. The notion that we can have left (and be in the transition/implementation phase) and still have power of veto over the EU as a whole is ridiculous.
I would not expect any special deal since that would require a treaty change. Regulations will apply immediately and the UK will be required to implement directive within the relevant time scale. Obviously if this is after brexit there would be no need.The reality is, that it's bloody unlikely there won't be some clause entered that means that it's a non issue. Either a 'minimum implementation lead time' ensuring that anything changed will be implemented after we've left, or a tacit agreement we can ignore any changes.
Besides, as said, we'd only be a vassal state if we choose to be. Even as it stands, any onerous/undesirable changes we can just ignore for a few months. The notion that we can have left (and be in the transition/implementation phase) and still have power of veto over the EU as a whole is ridiculous.
Mrr T said:
I would not expect any special deal since that would require a treaty change. Regulations will apply immediately and the UK will be required to implement directive within the relevant time scale. Obviously if this is after brexit there would be no need.
Hardly any regulation changes 'apply immediately'. Hence the 'required timescale'. All it takes is a tacit agreement that those timescales mean a EU wide deadline post end of transition, with no Treaty change required.
This isn't about a special deal, merely pragmatic approaches to handling a short term transition to permit the civil services to sort out all the detail.
So we stay in the EU (in all but name) until a trade deal is agreed and if nothing is agreed then, well, we just stay in indefinitely (without an actual say in how the club is run). This is the EU’s dream scenario and it appears our government are on the same wavelength.
The British government is seeking an open-ended transition period after Brexit, according to a Whitehall position paper shared with EU member states, which is likely to inflame tensions in the Conservative party. The EU’s suggestion that the period end after 21 months on 31 December 2020 is being countered by calls from UK ministers for the phase to last “simply” as long as is necessary to prepare for a future trade deal.
The British government is seeking an open-ended transition period after Brexit, according to a Whitehall position paper shared with EU member states, which is likely to inflame tensions in the Conservative party. The EU’s suggestion that the period end after 21 months on 31 December 2020 is being countered by calls from UK ministers for the phase to last “simply” as long as is necessary to prepare for a future trade deal.
BlackLabel said:
So we stay in the EU (in all but name) until a trade deal is agreed and if nothing is agreed then, well, we just stay in indefinitely (without an actual say in how the club is run). This is the EU’s dream scenario and it appears our government are on the same wavelength.
The British government is seeking an open-ended transition period after Brexit, according to a Whitehall position paper shared with EU member states, which is likely to inflame tensions in the Conservative party. The EU’s suggestion that the period end after 21 months on 31 December 2020 is being countered by calls from UK ministers for the phase to last “simply” as long as is necessary to prepare for a future trade deal.
The quotes from the paper don't imply an 'open ended' period to my reading. The British government is seeking an open-ended transition period after Brexit, according to a Whitehall position paper shared with EU member states, which is likely to inflame tensions in the Conservative party. The EU’s suggestion that the period end after 21 months on 31 December 2020 is being countered by calls from UK ministers for the phase to last “simply” as long as is necessary to prepare for a future trade deal.
They seem fairly clear that the purpose of the transition is to enable the necessary changes to be implemented - and that the transition should last for the period necessary for those to happen.
By that token, if it's deemed possible that they can be done in six months, then six months it is. If it's deemed to be 26 months, then 26 months is agreed.
Not that there's no deadline set, or ever continuing membership.
Not really. It was pretty clear from Barnier that the EU sees the timeframe as aligning with their budgetary timescales. Remember all the tension over us paying down 20 odd billion to get them through this budget round. Going on in transition into the next budgetary round will only increase tension to keep in some similar arrangement through that next period.
The Dangerous Elk said:
What would you have us do to avoid it ? (other than the Conservative Party knowing they will lose the next election if it is overturned)
Not that I expect it to happen and given that a "transition period" (we will have left the EU by then) makes good sense on practical/business terms.
That is easy. Be honest and dust off the Swiss set of bilaterial treaties, negotiate over the deltas to those treaties. I have been saying this the past 18 months, this whole thing is currently a ludicrous charade going nowhere. The only viable option in the timescales was a Swiss sort of deal with the argument over modifying what freedom of movement means in practical terms Europe wide (lots of other countries have a problem with this as well, notable Switzerland), allied with a serious negotiation on a customs partnership. They could have got the treaties done in principle by now and instead focussed on resolving the 2 issue outlined above in partnership with our neighbours many of whom have similar issues. Instead we are still arguing over if we want to be involved in anything to do with the EU at all beyond a FTA which is only burning down the time left till its too late to achieve anything useful. Again as I said previously this is another trap, there may be 62 hard line tories wanting hard out, but the rest of parliament bar maybe 3 on the Labour side would like nothing better than to find a way to kill this endeavour (if they can conjure up a suitably face saving mechanism).Not that I expect it to happen and given that a "transition period" (we will have left the EU by then) makes good sense on practical/business terms.
NJH said:
Not really. It was pretty clear from Barnier that the EU sees the timeframe as aligning with their budgetary timescales. Remember all the tension over us paying down 20 odd billion to get them through this budget round. Going on in transition into the next budgetary round will only increase tension to keep in some similar arrangement through that next period.
I don't disagree - it is far easier to align to the budgetary cycle. That shouldn't be an inviolable deadline for either party if it causes unnecessary outcomes, the rhetoric needs to dial itself down from both extremes of the spectrum. pgh said:
mx5nut said:
When even the Independent is ridiculing your remain bus, it must be badhttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-bus-rem...
Given the sheer quantity of assumptions that have gone into creating that figure, I trust it will be as condemned by some here as the £350 million Leave Bus was.
"As I pursued it, Benny Hill-style, in laps around the inside pavement, while this new big red Brexit bus drove in wider concentric circles around me, on more than one occasion I found my target had become confused with either a hop-on, hop-off sightseeing tour or the 159 to Streatham"
pgh said:
When even the Independent is ridiculing your remain bus, it must be bad
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-bus-rem...
Given the sheer quantity of assumptions that have gone into creating that figure, I trust it will be as condemned by some here as the £350 million Leave Bus was.
Nothing wrong with the figures on the bus...Di worked them out so they must be right http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-bus-rem...
Given the sheer quantity of assumptions that have gone into creating that figure, I trust it will be as condemned by some here as the £350 million Leave Bus was.
Reuters said:
LONDON (Reuters) - An anti-Brexit campaign bus was forced into a reversal of its own on Wednesday as it got stuck in a narrow side-street in central London during its first day on the road.
It would appear it's not just DD & the Brexiteers who are lost, the Anti Brexit campaign can't even find it's way around it's own capital..... big bus, narrow street, love it when a plan comes together.
It's reminiscent of an episode of "Twenty Twelve".
I thought we'd reached the political nadir when Bob Geldof and Co. were shouting obscenities across the Thames at Nigel Farage doing an Alan Partridge tribute act.
But, no. Gina Miller on a giant red bus blocking traffic whilst a mad UKipper shouts "Farage for PM" around it probably beats it for sheer farce.
I thought we'd reached the political nadir when Bob Geldof and Co. were shouting obscenities across the Thames at Nigel Farage doing an Alan Partridge tribute act.
But, no. Gina Miller on a giant red bus blocking traffic whilst a mad UKipper shouts "Farage for PM" around it probably beats it for sheer farce.
Edited by confused_buyer on Thursday 22 February 11:58
Made me chuckle somewhat. Seriously, they thought the sign on the bus was the difference in the referendum result so decided to try their own? I can only assume we all have actually died and been reborn in an ever running sitcom.
The only numbers on a bus anyone pays attention to are on the front, checking if it is the 88 to Camden.
The only numbers on a bus anyone pays attention to are on the front, checking if it is the 88 to Camden.
mx5nut said:
Yes offended they are only going to spend 2,000 million on Brexit something that will benefitAll of us...
yet they are planning to spend £403million a MILE or 56 BILLION on HS2 !!!!
just so rich people can commute into london !!!!!
Edited by powerstroke on Thursday 22 February 14:56
powerstroke said:
Yes offended they are only going to spend 2,000 million on Brexit something that will benefit
All of us...
yet they are planning to spend £403million a MILE or 56 BILLION on HS2 !!!!
just so rich people can commute into london !!!!!
Don't worry, you might be able to benefit from a coupon day or something.All of us...
yet they are planning to spend £403million a MILE or 56 BILLION on HS2 !!!!
just so rich people can commute into london !!!!!
Edited by powerstroke on Thursday 22 February 14:56
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff