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

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

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

The Dangerous Elk

4,642 posts

76 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
Variomatic said:
Not at all. In or out, I'll be fine whatever happens,

But I'll take enormous pleasure in watching the idiots' worlds slowly crumble as the painful truth dawns on them.
Well done for admitting that you are not really a worthy human. Yuk.

Bye

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
pgh said:
toppstuff said:
pgh said:
braddo said:
Parliament will prevent a no deal,
How? What mechanism can be used?
There is a large enough parliamentary majority to vote to defer art 50 and to get another vote. They would vote for either of these before allowing a default to no deal.
Who would put that option before the house?
If parliament votes against the May deal, the Govt is required to respond within 21 days with a statement setting out how it intends to proceed.

This statement will be a 'motion' which will be debated by parliament who can put forward amendments.

This would create an opportunity for someone to propose an extension of article 50 or a second referendum, which could then be approved by a vote.

That vote would not be binding on the Govt, but it's hard to imagine that they would allow us to tick down to a no-deal exit if a significant majority of MP's have voted to do something else:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/04/w...

See also the Plan B amendment here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaningful_vote#Re-t...
Bit in bold not true I am afraid
How so? The articles I linked explain that Grieves amendment removes standing orders which would allow amendments to be tabled to this ‘neutral’ motion.


Edited by Elysium on Wednesday 12th December 22:55

Tuna

19,930 posts

283 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
Variomatic said:
Not at all. In or out, I'll be fine whatever happens,
Brexit cliche number 462... are you new here?

Vanden Saab

13,892 posts

73 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
Variomatic said:
frisbee said:
So basically the most likely options at this point are:

1. May's deal which is a slave state under EU control
2. Cancel A50 and accept tighter integration with the EU

Oh well!
Out of fairness, you should include

3. Crash out with no deal then discover that no-one outside the ranks of hard Brexiteers give a st about our Glorious Empire Past and the rest of the world will trade with us but only on terms that they dictate because we need it far more than they do.
List of the top 10 countries we have a trade surplus with...

Switzerland: $6.8 billion
United Arab Emirates: $6.8 billion
Ireland: $6.4 billion
Hong Kong: $3.6 billion
Singapore: $3.3 billion
Saudi Arabia: $2.7 billion
Oman: $2.2 billion
South Korea: $2.1 billion
Qatar: $1 billion
Macedonia: $950 million

and the top 10 countries we have a trade deficit with...

Germany: $41.5 billion
China: -$38.3 billion
Netherlands: -$24 billion
Norway: -$19.8 billion
Belgium: -$14.4 billion
Italy: -$10.9 billion
Canada: -$8.8 billion
Poland: -$7.1 billion
Spain: -$6.8 billion
Vietnam: -$6.3 billion

I would be fascinated to know why so many countries that sell far more to us than we do to them will not want a trade deal ... may be you can explain?



don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
Laplace said:
I'm pretty sure I read that if we revoke it then that's it, we can't trigger A50 again, we're in for good.
I've read similar a few times now.

Is that really the case?
Anyone got some sort of official link that states that?

I can't see many people who are sat on a fence/lying in bed seeing that as a go to reason for voting to Remain in the EU in any 2nd referendum.

Like joining a club, not being able to leave and not being able to cancel your DD even if you cancel the card used to make the payment.
Who would sign up to that rubbish arrangement, the exception being someone like May?




citizensm1th

8,371 posts

136 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
Like joining a club, not being able to leave and not being able to cancel your DD even if you cancel the card used to make the payment.
Who would sign up to that rubbish arrangement, the exception being someone like May?
Sounds very close to the terms and conditions of david lloyd health centres

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
I've read similar a few times now.

Is that really the case?
Anyone got some sort of official link that states that?

I can't see many people who are sat on a fence/lying in bed seeing that as a go to reason for voting to Remain in the EU in any 2nd referendum.

Like joining a club, not being able to leave and not being able to cancel your DD even if you cancel the card used to make the payment.
Who would sign up to that rubbish arrangement, the exception being someone like May?
Unless I have totally misunderstood, there was nothing in the ECJ ruling that said that,

It wouldn't be the first time I have been wrong though.

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
desolate said:
don'tbesilly said:
I've read similar a few times now.

Is that really the case?
Anyone got some sort of official link that states that?

I can't see many people who are sat on a fence/lying in bed seeing that as a go to reason for voting to Remain in the EU in any 2nd referendum.

Like joining a club, not being able to leave and not being able to cancel your DD even if you cancel the card used to make the payment.
Who would sign up to that rubbish arrangement, the exception being someone like May?
Unless I have totally misunderstood, there was nothing in the ECJ ruling that said that,

It wouldn't be the first time I have been wrong though.
I'll post it again since it's relevant.

the ruling said:
(...)the revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw must, first, be submitted in writing to the European Council and, secondly, be unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf...

The unequivocal and unconditional part is important. If our reason for revoking is to regroup, hold a referendum, work out an actual plan and then send the letter back in a few years later, the revocation would not be accepted.

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
gooner1 said:
Good old TM, no chance of a 2nd Referendum. Sorry Remoaners, but you KNEW this
would be the outcome.

So No Deal it is. smile.
the bookies don't even appear to be taking any bets on it anymore ,i can't find any offering odds online .maybe my crap search capabilities confused

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
citizensm1th said:
don'tbesilly said:
Like joining a club, not being able to leave and not being able to cancel your DD even if you cancel the card used to make the payment.
Who would sign up to that rubbish arrangement, the exception being someone like May?
Sounds very close to the terms and conditions of david lloyd health centres
I guess you found that out after signing up wink

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
desolate said:
Unless I have totally misunderstood, there was nothing in the ECJ ruling that said that,

It wouldn't be the first time I have been wrong though.
Its wrong. The only way it could change is by an EU treaty change and under the current rules that would require all the EU countries to ratify it.

Its now in UK law that any new EU treaty change that changes a sovereignty issue, and that would be one, has to have a referendum to OK it. laugh

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
davepoth said:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf...

The unequivocal and unconditional part is important. If our reason for revoking is to regroup, hold a referendum, work out an actual plan and then send the letter back in a few years later, the revocation would not be accepted.
So we can revoke.

Then change our minds, again.

It's just how we write the letter.

Variomatic

2,392 posts

160 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
and the top 10 countries we have a trade deficit with...

Germany: $41.5 billion
China: -$38.3 billion
Netherlands: -$24 billion
Norway: -$19.8 billion
Belgium: -$14.4 billion
Italy: -$10.9 billion
Canada: -$8.8 billion
Poland: -$7.1 billion
Spain: -$6.8 billion
Vietnam: -$6.3 billion

I would be fascinated to know why so many countries that sell far more to us than we do to them will not want a trade deal ... may be you can explain?
Take out the ones in bold, because they're all part of the EU. So no deal with the EU means no deal with any of them. Because, by definition, they can't set up trade deals on their own.

China will trade, but any deals will be on their terms and very unlikely to match (let alone exceed) their terms with the far larger EU market. Basic rule of business: smaller customers get worse terms.

Norway and Canada might strike deals, but it took 7 years to get CETA agreed and it's unlikely we'd be able to do it any quicker. That's a LONG time for the economy

That leaves Vietnam. Great plan - give up all the ready-negotiated EU deals to trade freely with Vietnam.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
davepoth said:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf...

The unequivocal and unconditional part is important. If our reason for revoking is to regroup, hold a referendum, work out an actual plan and then send the letter back in a few years later, the revocation would not be accepted.
How would they know that's the plan?

It could be a Farage PM'ship that triggered Art 50 again after the UK civil war. laugh

Once we were back in, it's too late for the ECJ to stop us revoking Art 50.

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
desolate said:
So we can revoke.

Then change our minds, again.

It's just how we write the letter.
It's how Brussels understand the letter that's important. If it looks like we're doing it tactically it probably won't be allowed regardless of what's been written.

pingu393

7,719 posts

204 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
Laplace said:
I'm pretty sure I read that if we revoke it then that's it, we can't trigger A50 again, we're in for good.
On Radio Nottingham this afternoon, Ken Clarke suggested that we should do this. Withdraw A50, get all our ducks in a row, submit a new A50.

The EU have said that we can't do this, but there is nothing, legally, to stop us doing it. I don't think that we would get a very good deal if we did, but we would be aware that we wouldn't get a good deal and the ducks would be ready for a "no deal".

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
davepoth said:
It's how Brussels understand the letter that's important. If it looks like we're doing it tactically it probably won't be allowed regardless of what's been written.
If there is one thing Brussels loves it's a can kicked firmly down the road.

Personally I think they would grasp that opportunity with both hands then set about "clarifying" the article 50 process.
We'll see how quickly they can get a deal done then.





anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
Variomatic said:
Norway and Canada might strike deals, but it took 7 years to get CETA agreed and it's unlikely we'd be able to do it any quicker. That's a LONG time for the economy
bks. The Canada deal was in a large part to get access to the UK market. It would take very little time to sort that one out, just a copy and paste exercise of CETA.

The reason CETA took so long was because of the crazy issues of getting 28 countries, and their regional parliaments (Walloon FFS) to agree after being bribed.

Average time for an FTA with bilateral deals is 18 months.

citizensm1th

8,371 posts

136 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
citizensm1th said:
don'tbesilly said:
Like joining a club, not being able to leave and not being able to cancel your DD even if you cancel the card used to make the payment.
Who would sign up to that rubbish arrangement, the exception being someone like May?
Sounds very close to the terms and conditions of david lloyd health centres
I guess you found that out after signing up wink
Nope her indoors did though.

Elysium

13,756 posts

186 months

Wednesday 12th December 2018
quotequote all
desolate said:
davepoth said:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf...

The unequivocal and unconditional part is important. If our reason for revoking is to regroup, hold a referendum, work out an actual plan and then send the letter back in a few years later, the revocation would not be accepted.
So we can revoke.

Then change our minds, again.

It's just how we write the letter.
That just means that the revocation must be 'clear' and 'without conditions'. Neither of those things make it permanent.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED