How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)

[Garvin]

CrutyRammers said:

Garvin said:

Simples. A democratic decision by UK is needed to revoke A50 and it has to be notified formally to the EU before the A50 expires and we leave. This could be via a parliamentary vote or a referendum. As we are talking here about another referendum there is no time to run one properly before the time limit. This means that the EU will have to agree to extend the time limit. Therefore, it is not solely in the hands of the UK to just revoke A50. I am not aware that the time limit has been extended.

i believe that the wording is "constitutional" rather than "democratic".

You are correct, that is the precise wording of the ECJ ruling - my apologies for not being accurate enough. The leaving date is, I believe, enshrined in UK law which means parliament will have to overturn that law iaw its constitutional process. It could then notify the EU following further voting that it is revoking A50. Job done.

However, we are currently talking about Parliament/government getting a mandate to do so via another referendum which can’t be held in time and relies on the EU to extend the time limit.

Some posters here, even those who quote legal at you in bold, haven’t understood that.

[bitchstewie]

Garvin said:

You are correct, that is the precise wording of the ECJ ruling - my apologies for not being accurate enough. The leaving date is, I believe, enshrined in UK law which means parliament will have to overturn that law iaw its constitutional process. It could then notify the EU following further voting that it is revoking A50. Job done.

However, we are currently talking about Parliament/government getting a mandate to do so via another referendum which can’t be held in time and relies on the EU to extend the time limit.

Some posters here, even those who quote legal at you in bold, haven’t understood that.

We were talking about the ECJ judgement which is a legal one rather than being concerned with how the UK would go about it.

All the stuff about a mandate is entirely separate to the legal ruling which is why I quoted legal at you in bold.

[mikal83]

PurpleMoonlight said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

And the Federal project moves on towards full take-over

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-defense-...

Is a majority not democratic now?

Easy answer, ask a remainer!

[The Dangerous Elk]

mikal83 said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

And the Federal project moves on towards full take-over

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-defense-...

Is a majority not democratic now?

Easy answer, ask a remainer!

Like most of them they are happy to follow the great Tony Blair and his fellow democratic EU "members" to the bright socialist European utopia.

[Garvin]

bhstewie said:

Garvin said:

You are correct, that is the precise wording of the ECJ ruling - my apologies for not being accurate enough. The leaving date is, I believe, enshrined in UK law which means parliament will have to overturn that law iaw its constitutional process. It could then notify the EU following further voting that it is revoking A50. Job done.

However, we are currently talking about Parliament/government getting a mandate to do so via another referendum which can’t be held in time and relies on the EU to extend the time limit.

Some posters here, even those who quote legal at you in bold, haven’t understood that.

We were talking about the ECJ judgement which is a legal one rather than being concerned with how the UK would go about it.

All the stuff about a mandate is entirely separate to the legal ruling which is why I quoted legal at you in bold.

Deflection and backtracking much here. The ECJ ruling states that A50 can only be unilaterally revoked after “. . . . the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements.” Hence it can be seen that the legal ruling is concerned with how the UK goes about it. It is a clear criterion.

[Helicopter123]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Helicopter123 said:

Remain means unilateral revoke A50 = nothing changes from the deal we already have, the one negotiated by Thatcher and May with the rebate and opt outs.

And there _you know_ you are telling fantasy stories.

I'm not.
Because
The ECJ.

[bitchstewie]

Garvin said:

Deflection and backtracking much here. The ECJ ruling states that A50 can only be unilaterally revoked after “. . . . the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements.” Hence it can be seen that the legal ruling is concerned with how the UK goes about it. It is a clear criterion.

You did say a "democratic" rather than "constitutional" which to me implied public involvement rather than it being as simple as Parliament passing it.

Either way, revoking does require we follow our constitution - I apologise if I misunderstood you

[Mrr T]

Garvin said:

CrutyRammers said:

Garvin said:

Simples. A democratic decision by UK is needed to revoke A50 and it has to be notified formally to the EU before the A50 expires and we leave. This could be via a parliamentary vote or a referendum. As we are talking here about another referendum there is no time to run one properly before the time limit. This means that the EU will have to agree to extend the time limit. Therefore, it is not solely in the hands of the UK to just revoke A50. I am not aware that the time limit has been extended.

i believe that the wording is "constitutional" rather than "democratic".

You are correct, that is the precise wording of the ECJ ruling - my apologies for not being accurate enough. The leaving date is, I believe, enshrined in UK law which means parliament will have to overturn that law iaw its constitutional process. It could then notify the EU following further voting that it is revoking A50. Job done.

However, we are currently talking about Parliament/government getting a mandate to do so via another referendum which can’t be held in time and relies on the EU to extend the time limit.

Some posters here, even those who quote legal at you in bold, haven’t understood that.

While the withdrawal bill repeals the 1972 act it does not of itself mean we leave the UK. That's the Art 50 notice. No vote in Parliment is needed to revoke Art 50 as we now know no vote was required to serve the notice.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

PurpleMoonlight said:

In terms of leaving, I think there should only be the options of what is achievable now, ie May's deal or no deal. The opportunity of other possibilities has past.

In terms of remaining, that's a difficult one. It is not undemocratic for people to change their mind, the issue is when or indeed if they should be given the opportunity to effect the previous outcome because of that.

In life outside politics only a fool would ignore subsequent information that came to light before a decision was implemented, and plough on regardless with the original decision.

Someone posted recently an excellent way of posing the new referendum question:

In or out?

If out were to win, then Mays deal or no deal?

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 16th December 08:15

We had in or out already. Since May wouldn't even put her deal before parliament I don't see parliament voting to put it to the country but we live in strange times.

If they do get remain it will only be viewed as a fudge by me and I suspect many others, and unless it gets more than the 17.4 million who voted Leave last time it will still be a fairly weak basis for ignoring what will still be the biggest democratic mandate for anything in British political history.

[Randy Winkman]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Randy Winkman said:

Is this a philosophy exam? If it is, I guess none of us knows anything about what will happen at any point in the future. And perhaps our memories of the past are equally unknown.

On the other hand. I voted remain and felt I did know what I voted for. I voted not to do something. i.e. leave the EU. The same way I know that I've decided not to go Christmas shopping this morning. It's not complicated, I'm just not going.

But the people who want to go shopping have decided you will go shopping regardless.

That's how shopping works.

OK - but that wasn't the question. By the way. I might go shopping tomorrow, but if I do I'll make a list first and decide on the best way of doing it.

[tobinen]

The Dangerous Elk said:

And the Federal project moves on towards full take-over

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-defense-...

Also not widely reported, the other concessions for UK defence in the WA

http://www.melaniephillips.com/no-risks-greater-ma...

[PurpleMoonlight]

Randy Winkman said:

OK - but that wasn't the question. By the way. I might go shopping tomorrow, but if I do I'll make a list first and decide on the best way of doing it.

Now that sounds like a plan.

Never good to decide what you want after you get there only to find it isn't available.

[loafer123]

PurpleMoonlight said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

And the Federal project moves on towards full take-over

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-defense-...

Is a majority not democratic now?

I think this is a perceptive comment that gets to the very heart of the debate.

If we stay in the EU, we will be inevitably following a democratic, valid decision by the EU countries to get ever closer, to create an EU army, and probably, eventually, to join the Euro and so on.

If we leave, the only democratic votes that will matter will be those of our own electorate.

[toppstuff]

Stuff this. It’s Sunday and I’m going down the pub for Sunday lunch and a few pints of Doombar.

Everyone leave this thread now and get a life.

Yule thank me later

Edited by toppstuff on Sunday 16th December 11:42

[JuanCarlosFandango]

wc98 said:

gooner1 said:

I see you still have their details 3 Sheets.


Recognise any of these, don't be shy now?

which branch of the lib dems is that then ?

I think it's the whole party.

[PurpleMoonlight]

loafer123 said:

I think this is a perceptive comment that gets to the very heart of the debate.

If we stay in the EU, we will be inevitably following a democratic, valid decision by the EU countries to get ever closer, to create an EU army, and probably, eventually, to join the Euro and so on.

If we leave, the only democratic votes that will matter will be those of our own electorate.

Not everyone opposes closer integration with the EU.

As long as I don't have to get out of bed I'm happy.

[sunbeam alpine]

I couldn't vote in the referendum - I've been out of the UK for too long - but I'm pretty sure I would have voted remain. I do however agree that there is now no way that the UK can turn back the clock - staying in the EU is not an option.

What I don't understand is how the UK can protect it's current trading arrangement with EU countries while wanting to leave the Single Market & Customs Union. The UK - being no longer a member, cannot trade on the same terms.

I've seen various figures quoted - ranging from 36% to 44% - which represent the export business we do with the EU. I can accept that means that we do more trade with the rest of the world, but if that's so, what's stopped us from increasing trade with ROW while we've been EU members?

My simplistic (maybe wrong?) view is this - we have taken a decision which will probably (at least in the short term) make it more difficult to trade with at least 36% of our existing customers. The payback is that we could - in the future - grow new business more easily in new markets.

As a (tiny) business owner, I would run a mile from this - risk upsetting/losing about a third of my customers - in the hope of winning new business to replace it.

What am I missing?

[johnxjsc1985]

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but we cannot agree trade deals with another Country unless it goes through the EU first. this is one of the main reason given for leaving the EU restricts our ability to trade outside the EU.

[dan98]

sunbeam alpine said:

I couldn't vote in the referendum - I've been out of the UK for too long - but I'm pretty sure I would have voted remain. I do however agree that there is now no way that the UK can turn back the clock - staying in the EU is not an option.

What I don't understand is how the UK can protect it's current trading arrangement with EU countries while wanting to leave the Single Market & Customs Union. The UK - being no longer a member, cannot trade on the same terms.

I've seen various figures quoted - ranging from 36% to 44% - which represent the export business we do with the EU. I can accept that means that we do more trade with the rest of the world, but if that's so, what's stopped us from increasing trade with ROW while we've been EU members?

My simplistic (maybe wrong?) view is this - we have taken a decision which will probably (at least in the short term) make it more difficult to trade with at least 36% of our existing customers. The payback is that we could - in the future - grow new business more easily in new markets.

As a (tiny) business owner, I would run a mile from this - risk upsetting/losing about a third of my customers - in the hope of winning new business to replace it.

What am I missing?

57% of our exports go to the EU, of which 13% passes through to other countries. (Not including the latest deals with Canada and Japan)

...not that any of these figures are of interest to the average Brexit voter.

[Fittster]

ash73 said:

sunbeam alpine said:

What am I missing?

It's not just about money.

It was about immigrants but we have to come up with a fig leaf to hide that one.