How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
drdel said:
^^^ Its a long standing convention that the UK does not make appointments while there's an election as its the right of the incoming Government. The EU was/ is well aware of this when they agreed to an extension allowing a GE.
The EU Nov 1st 'start' was delayed to 1st Dec because other country's representatives were turned down .
Can we fine them for the delay?The EU Nov 1st 'start' was delayed to 1st Dec because other country's representatives were turned down .
drdel said:
^^^ Its a long standing convention that the UK does not make appointments while there's an election as its the right of the incoming Government. The EU was/ is well aware of this when they agreed to an extension allowing a GE.
The EU Nov 1st 'start' was delayed to 1st Dec because other country's representatives were turned down .
And if that's true (I don't know so I'll assume you do) it sounds much more reasonable.The EU Nov 1st 'start' was delayed to 1st Dec because other country's representatives were turned down .
chrispmartha said:
Asking? OK.Forward to brussel for processing and payment.
turbobloke said:
chrispmartha said:
Asking? OK.Forward to brussel for processing and payment.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:drdel said:
^^^ Its a long standing convention that the UK does not make appointments while there's an election as its the right of the incoming Government. The EU was/ is well aware of this when they agreed to an extension allowing a GE.
The EU Nov 1st 'start' was delayed to 1st Dec because other country's representatives were turned down .
And if that's true (I don't know so I'll assume you do) it sounds much more reasonable.The EU Nov 1st 'start' was delayed to 1st Dec because other country's representatives were turned down .
The forming of the new commision is already well behind schedule, as France had its nominated commissioner blocked. It may be the case the commision is not in place even ignoring the UK, by the time of the UK election. EU parliament is already pissed at the new commision as they appointed the new head after rejecting every name put forward by the EU Parliament.
You have to ask the question why they are pushing this, when at worst it's delaying the new commision marginally, even if they manage to get their delayed formation in place by the next expected date.
jsf said:
EU have stated EU law overrules UK law, so our conventions on procedure during election periods don't matter. That's going to play well.
The forming of the new commision is already well behind schedule, as France had its nominated commissioner blocked. It may be the case the commision is not in place even ignoring the UK, by the time of the UK election. EU parliament is already pissed at the new commision as they appointed the new head after rejecting every name put forward by the EU Parliament.
You have to ask the question why they are pushing this, when at worst it's delaying the new commision marginally, even if they manage to get their delayed formation in place by the next expected date.
At least all this silly nonsense will remind voters of all that is wrong with staying in the EU. We shouldn't need to continually respond to 27 other countries demands - and soon we won't !The forming of the new commision is already well behind schedule, as France had its nominated commissioner blocked. It may be the case the commision is not in place even ignoring the UK, by the time of the UK election. EU parliament is already pissed at the new commision as they appointed the new head after rejecting every name put forward by the EU Parliament.
You have to ask the question why they are pushing this, when at worst it's delaying the new commision marginally, even if they manage to get their delayed formation in place by the next expected date.
jsf said:
EU have stated EU law overrules UK law, so our conventions on procedure during election periods don't matter. That's going to play well.
The forming of the new commision is already well behind schedule, as France had its nominated commissioner blocked. It may be the case the commision is not in place even ignoring the UK, by the time of the UK election. EU parliament is already pissed at the new commision as they appointed the new head after rejecting every name put forward by the EU Parliament.
You have to ask the question why they are pushing this, when at worst it's delaying the new commision marginally, even if they manage to get their delayed formation in place by the next expected date.
I’m not sure if you are being serious.The forming of the new commision is already well behind schedule, as France had its nominated commissioner blocked. It may be the case the commision is not in place even ignoring the UK, by the time of the UK election. EU parliament is already pissed at the new commision as they appointed the new head after rejecting every name put forward by the EU Parliament.
You have to ask the question why they are pushing this, when at worst it's delaying the new commision marginally, even if they manage to get their delayed formation in place by the next expected date.
The term is ‘precedence’ and only applies to where the UK as part of the EU have agreed to such. It does not apply to any nation states non Eu related laws.
If you’re not sure ask BV a QC who posts on such matters. I’m sure he will inform you correctly.
Nickgnome said:
I’m not sure if you are being serious.
Ignoring tbe EU law aspect, they have been playing commissioner whack a mole for months. I posted a while ago, they haven't a snowballs chance in hell of a 1st Dec start. The factions in the EU parliament are delaying this. Thats a fact.
chrispmartha said:
Exactly the same as the disputes over quota (and access) since the first (and all subsequent) tranches of EU membership growth for the last 20 years... Plenty of the same nations pissed off that they were required, with no input, to extend tariff free access to their markets. Plenty of the same nations pissed off that agreed low/no tariff quotas were suddenly covering a much larger market/area, without adjustment.
I was thinking about the last few months of Brexit fun and games today.
I know that Brexiteers disliked the Benn Act and supported Johnson when he characterised it as an act of 'surrender'.
He said that it would 'fatally undermine' his ability to reach a deal with the EU:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-09...
Isn't it obvious that this was simply manufactured outrage?
Johnson surely proved that beyond all doubt by going on to agree a 'great' deal with the EU.
So the 'surrender act' did not frustrate our negotiations. Not even remotely.
I know that Brexiteers disliked the Benn Act and supported Johnson when he characterised it as an act of 'surrender'.
He said that it would 'fatally undermine' his ability to reach a deal with the EU:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-09...
Isn't it obvious that this was simply manufactured outrage?
Johnson surely proved that beyond all doubt by going on to agree a 'great' deal with the EU.
So the 'surrender act' did not frustrate our negotiations. Not even remotely.
Elysium said:
I was thinking about the last few months of Brexit fun and games today.
I know that Brexiteers disliked the Benn Act and supported Johnson when he characterised it as an act of 'surrender'.
He said that it would 'fatally undermine' his ability to reach a deal with the EU:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-09...
Isn't it obvious that this was simply manufactured outrage?
Johnson surely proved that beyond all doubt by going on to agree a 'great' deal with the EU.
So the 'surrender act' did not frustrate our negotiations. Not even remotely.
What negotiations would they be then Ely?I know that Brexiteers disliked the Benn Act and supported Johnson when he characterised it as an act of 'surrender'.
He said that it would 'fatally undermine' his ability to reach a deal with the EU:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-09...
Isn't it obvious that this was simply manufactured outrage?
Johnson surely proved that beyond all doubt by going on to agree a 'great' deal with the EU.
So the 'surrender act' did not frustrate our negotiations. Not even remotely.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit/
Elysium said:
I was thinking about the last few months of Brexit fun and games today.
I know that Brexiteers disliked the Benn Act and supported Johnson when he characterised it as an act of 'surrender'.
He said that it would 'fatally undermine' his ability to reach a deal with the EU:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-09...
Isn't it obvious that this was simply manufactured outrage?
Johnson surely proved that beyond all doubt by going on to agree a 'great' deal with the EU.
So the 'surrender act' did not frustrate our negotiations. Not even remotely.
It did undermine our ability to get a better deal, what we have is probably as good as we would have got with anyone in charge after the Benn Act was passed. I know that Brexiteers disliked the Benn Act and supported Johnson when he characterised it as an act of 'surrender'.
He said that it would 'fatally undermine' his ability to reach a deal with the EU:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-09...
Isn't it obvious that this was simply manufactured outrage?
Johnson surely proved that beyond all doubt by going on to agree a 'great' deal with the EU.
So the 'surrender act' did not frustrate our negotiations. Not even remotely.
I don't really get what you are getting at?
gizlaroc said:
It did undermine our ability to get a better deal, what we have is probably as good as we would have got with anyone in charge after the Benn Act was passed.
I don't really get what you are getting at?
The Benn Act forced Boris and the EU to agree a deal. I don't really get what you are getting at?
Without it Boris would have taken the UK out of the EU on 31st October without one. The EU didn't want that and neither did they want leaving dragging on for much longer.
Digga said:
The WA is merely the starting point, from which the UK begins to negotiate future trade deals and arrangements.
Sort of agree with most of the above posts.
I see potentially years of further Brexit uncertainty ahead, even if we get a majority government.
I believe they have to decide by the summer of 2020 whether or not the transition is extended.Sort of agree with most of the above posts.
I see potentially years of further Brexit uncertainty ahead, even if we get a majority government.
Digga said:
The WA is merely the starting point, from which the UK begins to negotiate future trade deals and arrangements.
Sort of agree with most of the above posts.
I see potentially years of further Brexit uncertainty ahead, even if we get a majority government.
If Boris gets his majority then the WA will be passed and UK will start its exit from the EU, possibly before end January - no need to wait if the WA is passed earlier.Sort of agree with most of the above posts.
I see potentially years of further Brexit uncertainty ahead, even if we get a majority government.
Then begins the real fun. The negotiation of the PD to a ‘proper’ agreement on the relationship is on a better level playing field and, with a sizeable majority, no deal sits firmly on the table staring defiantly at everyone. This will really test the resolve of the EU!
However, without a workable majority then, yes, years of further Brexit uncertainty beckons!
If, by some miracle of unfathomable origin (or postal voting fraud), JC gets elected with a majority then there will be no Brexit uncertainty. He will agree a new WA which will be indistinguishable from Remain and the public will be given Hobson’s choice in a second referendum and the previous four years will have been for nought.
The real frightening spectre is Labour in power propped up by the SNP!
No Brexit uncertainty if we are transported through a wormhole to a doppelgänger somewhere and lovely Jo gets elected. A50 could well be revoked by Christmas. In such a doppelgänger situation the greens coukd come into play and we could all be back living in caves by the New Year
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff