Brexit Referendum Superthread

Calina

First Up wrote: »

Who said that? The process couldn't be clearer; exit negotiations start when 50 is invoked. Negotiations END two years later, not start.

Exit negotiations and trade negotiations are not necessarily the same set of negotiations.

K-9

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's also difficult to believe.

EU Governments don't only speak to one another when the Council of the EU or the European Council is in session.

They telephone one another, they whatsapp each other, and so do their senior civil servants. There is a constant dialogue, and for anyone to think, to be so credulous as to believe that there are no informal discussions happening, is quite strange.

Now that the UK actually has some plans or ideas I'd agree. Took a few months to get there.

Then why are you portraying the UK as dithering between the extant agreements?

It will be none of those.

Other than trying to win some internet argument I can't see what your point is. Existing deals will be referenced by the EU, and you know who else? The UK when it suits them.

Some parts will probably be new otherwise there'd be no point talking, just pick one off the peg!

Absolutely. You've made that remark a few times, but negotiation is a two-way process. There will be quid pro quos and Britain (aided by Ireland, probably) will undoubtedly secure concessions that some Europeans will find difficult to swallow.

Indeed both sides will give some concessions. The UK are restricted with a lot of fervent hard Brexiters and a mainstream media baying for blood against the EU, portraying British judges as traitors. I wish them well!

First Up

Calina wrote:

Exit negotiations and trade negotiations are not necessarily the same set of negotiations.

In the case of the EU and UK's post Brexit trade relations, they most certainly are.

Nody

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Absolutely. You've made that remark a few times, but negotiation is a two-way process. There will be quid pro quos and Britain (aided by Ireland, probably) will undoubtedly secure concessions that some Europeans will find difficult to swallow.

No chances are very high it will be a hard brexit because once the new deal is done not only does it need to pass EU parliament (who have a tendency to snub certain set of EU leaders) AND most likely get approved by all national parliaments in the remaining 27 states (due to treaty changes)... How big of a chance do you think they will all sign up to a deal they find "difficult to swallow" in two years (or manage to sweet talk all 27 states to agree to extension, no qualified majority allowed for that but 100% approval only to extend the uncertainty)?

Why the national parliaments? Because policy areas within the preserve of the member states, such as certain elements of services, transport and investment protection require it and there's going to be areas such as bank guarantees, transport in/out of EU to handle etc. which would with a very high probability be in there to throw a big fat wrench in it. Thought negotiation with EU was tough? Wait until the Polish parliament starts debating over UK not accepting unlimited polish people and are asked to sign of that deal or the Flemish get another chance to stick it to EU...

Zubeneschamali

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There will be quid pro quos and Britain (aided by Ireland, probably) will undoubtedly secure concessions that some Europeans will find difficult to swallow.

Which Europeans, exactly? Because if just one Government finds any concession difficult to swallow, Britain will not secure it. Any single Government can torpedo anything better than WTO status.

If, say, Czechia blocks free trade for UK built cars (to help their own car industry), will someone pay them off somehow? What should Ireland block, and how much should we demand?

Thomas_...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

I get convinced that Cameron was left with no other choice but to resign upon the result of the Brexit referendum.

Of course he had to resign - he called and then lost the most disastrous referendum ever held in the UK.

I'm not calling him an idiot for resigning, he's an idiot for risking EU membership to settle an internal dispute in the Conservative party in he first place, and then not doing enough to win.

I wonder why you've omitted to mention the UKIP in all this and especially Farage who was campaigning for a Brexit for decades and the pressure from the UKIP which was growing from one EP election to another (2009 and 2014) is imo also an important aspect in regards to the internal dispute within the Tory Party.

Cameron was calculating that if he had refused to bring about an EU Referendum in the UK, the UKIP had got the chance to draw even more Tory voters on their side but curiously, the UKIP got more voters from the Labour Party recently.

I think that Cameron did enough in his abilities to win the referendum but the EU Commission was not inclined to help him in his efforts to win and thus keeping the UK in the EU.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Which Europeans, exactly? Because if just one Government finds any concession difficult to swallow, Britain will not secure it. Any single Government can torpedo anything better than WTO status.

If, say, Czechia blocks free trade for UK built cars (to help their own car industry), will someone pay them off somehow? What should Ireland block, and how much should we demand?

I have to say that this kind of negotiation is meat and drink to the European institutions.

The whole point of the EU is to avoid warfare between European states. It accepts that their interests will not always coincide and will sometimes conflict, and it seeks to provide an environment, a culture and a set of institutions by which those tensions and conflicts can be negotiated, managed and settled, so that common ground can be found and a consensus built. It's boring, it's sometimes murky, but it's better than another European war.

All other things being equal, the Czech Republic might, as you say, be inclined to prefer barriers in the way of British car imports into the EU. But all other things are not equal. Germany, let's say, might not want to see barriers to British car imports into the EU, since the likely consequence would be barriers to EU car imports into the UK, and Germany would unquestionably lose out. And Germany and the Czech have a great many common interests, such that neither of them wants to piss the other off too much over an issue like this. So, Germany and the Czechs talk about what might be done to make free trade in cars acceptable to the Czechs. Perhaps it's some support for the car industry. Perhaps it's a quid pro quo in terms of a concession on some other point of concern to the Czechs. Or, perhaps the Czechs get their barriers to UK cars, but they are lower barriers than they might otherwise be. Or the Czechs drop their opposition to some other point of a proposed Brexit deal.

The bottom line is yes, any one state could veto any aspect of a UK deal that required a treaty amendment, or a new treaty. And, if we just consider one aspect of any deal in isolation, we can point to lots of single items where we can say that, yes, it looks as though it would be in the interests of such-and-such a state to veto that. But the aspects of any deal don't exist in isolation; they are all connected. It may be that, taken in isolation, it's in the Czechs' interest to veto any proposal to give UK cars access to the EU market. But, when the deal is taken as a whole, it wouldn't necessary be in the Czechs' interests to veto it, since there will be other aspects that appeal to them, and since any deployment of the veto will have implications for their relations with the other 26 member states, many of whom are of much greater importance to them than the UK car industry ever was or ever will be.

It's not in the interests of the EU-27 to give the British everything they ask. But, equally, it's not in their interests to grind the UK into paste. Something in between is likely to emerge. With 27 potential vetoes you may think it's a miracle that the EU ever gets anything done, but it does get a huge amount done (the amount the EU does was one of the Brexiters' main complaints, in fact) and it will get this done.

Thomas_...

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

whatstherush wrote: »

6 posts previously


Redcite over the weekend

Free trade does not necessarily mean Single Market access. You know what CETA is, right?

Quite right, just that the British govt is always talking about single market access which they want to have but at the same time blocking free movement of people. CETA is for EU - Canada trade relations. There isn't anything invented to please the Brits in the same way like the Canadians, yet. Further, you're missing the Point the EU is about to make which is to deter other member states to do likewise like the British and hold a referendum about the countries Membership within the EU. If other likeminded EU member states see that the British are more successful by getting better Terms and conditions for having access to the single market and on the other hand block migration from other EU member states, this would set a pattern that is likely to path the way to the break up of the EU herself. This is what Farage always wanted and campaigned for, but this is also the way into a mega crisis in Europe which Europe (in that respect the EU) cannot afford.

Brexiteers usually don't give a damn about their expats living in other EU member states and there are lots of them residing around the Med countries.

Thomas_...

Calina wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Who said that? The process couldn't be clearer; exit negotiations start when 50 is invoked. Negotiations END two years later, not start.

Exit negotiations and trade negotiations are not necessarily the same set of negotiations.

Yes, but in the Brexit case, they are both to be interlinked cos the Brits want to have the Exit from and at the same time the trade deal with the EU.

Peregrinus

Thomas_... wrote: »

Quite right, just that the British govt is always talking about single market access which they want to have but at the same time blocking free movement of people . . .

In fairness to the British government, I think they’ve stopped saying that. They did for a while, but I think they now grasp that it’s incoherent, a contradiction in terms.

There’s a range of trading relationships that can get confused:

The Single Market: Does what it says on the tin. All countries particating in the single market comprise, well, a single market. Which is to say, goods and services move freely throughout the market. A product/service which can be sold anywhere in the market can be sold everywhere in the market, so there are no, e.g., separate national standards for packaging, or labelling, or product safety, or production standards. Instead there are uniform standards throughout the market. There are no customs formalities; goods can be moved from Aberdeen to Athens with no more restrictions or requirements than apply to goods moving from Aberdeen to Abroath. Workers can work anywhere; a shoemaker in Genoa can go and make shoes in Glasgow, and vice versa. Capital can move anywhere; an investor in Scotland can buy shares or property in Spain - no restrictions, no notification requirements, nothing.

Brexiters don’t want to participate in the single market, for two principal reasons. One, they want to control immigration at the national level, and this is not consistent with the free movement of labour. If a shoemaker from Genoa cannot go and make shoes in Glasgow, then shoemakers in Genoa and Glasgow are not operating in a single market; it's as simple as that. Two, they don’t want the UK to have to implement EU legislation on product standards, packaging, labelling, etc, etc. Brexiters who talk about getting access to the single market while controlling immigration/not being subject to EU law are mostly just demonstrating that they don’t know what the single market is.

To participate in the EU single market you also have to pay a contribution to the EU budget. Brexiters generally don’t want to do this either.

A customs union: The countries in a customs union (a) apply no customs duties on goods moving between them, and (b) apply common customs duties on goods imported from the rest of the world. Free movement of labour is generally not involved.

Brexiters generally don’t want to be in a customs union with the EU, for two reasons. First, in a customs union, the UK would not be in a position to set its own customs duties. Secondly, countries in a customs union can’t negotiate trade agreements independently with the rest of the world, since the main element of most trade agreements is mutual promises to grant reduced or no customs duties on imports from one another, and a country in a customs union can’t promise this unilaterally; all members of the union have to act together on this.

A free trade agreement: Under a free trade agreement, each country promises to admit the other’s good without any customs tariffs and, often, agrees to reduce or eliminate non-tariff barriers. But they remain free to deal with the rest of the world independently of one another. A free trade agreement may or may not involve free movement of labour or (more usually) easier movement of labour - preferential access to visas, that kind of thing.

The freedom to deal independently with the rest of the world limits the attractiveness of a free trade agreement. If A and B enter into a free trade agreement, goods moving from A to B still have to be checked to be sure that they are in fact goods produced in A (and vice versa). If this isn’t done A and B aren’t really free to set their own customs tariffs with the rest of the world, since it would be easy to avoid the higher tariff of one country by routing imports through the other. So with a free trade agreement there are still significant non-tariff barriers to trade in the form of customs checks, delays, rules about foreign content of manufactured goods, etc, etc. And there may be non-tariff barriers like different product safety standards in each country.

Brexiters would generally like a free trade agreement with the EU and, if they can get them, with some other countries or trading blocs.

A trade agreeement: Like a free trade agreement, except customs tariffs aren’t necessarily eliminated; just reduced. Or, they may be eliminated for some classes of goods/services, but not for others.

Brexiters would generally like trade agreements where they can’t get free trade agreements.

Thomas_...

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

Quite right, just that the British govt is always talking about single market access which they want to have but at the same time blocking free movement of people . . .

In fairness to the British government, I think they ve stopped saying that. They did for a while, but I think they now grasp that it s incoherent, a contradiction in terms.

There s a range of trading relationships that can get confused:

The Single Market: Does what it says on the tin. All countries particating in the single market comprise, well, a single market. Which is to say, goods and services move freely throughout the market. A product/service which can be sold anywhere in the market can be sold everywhere in the market, so there are no, e.g., separate national standards for packaging, or labelling, or product safety, or production standards. Instead there are uniform standards throughout the market. There are no customs formalities; goods can be moved from Aberdeen to Athens with no more restrictions or requirements than apply to goods moving from Aberdeen to Abroath. Workers can work anywhere; a shoemaker in Genoa can go and make shoes in Glasgow, and vice versa. Capital can move anywhere; an investor in Scotland can buy shares or property in Spain - no restrictions, no notification requirements, nothing.

Brexiters don t want to participate in the single market, for two principal reasons. One, they want to control immigration at the national level, and this is not consistent with the free movement of labour. If a shoemaker from Genoa cannot go and make shoes in Glasgow, then shoemakers in Genoa and Glasgow are not operating in a single market; it's as simple as that. Two, they don t want the UK to have to implement EU legislation on product standards, packaging, labelling, etc, etc. Brexiters who talk about getting access to the single market while controlling immigration/not being subject to EU law are mostly just demonstrating that they don t know what the single market is.

To participate in the EU single market you also have to pay a contribution to the EU budget. Brexiters generally don t want to do this either.

A customs union: The countries in a customs union (a) apply no customs duties on goods moving between them, and (b) apply common customs duties on goods imported from the rest of the world. Free movement of labour is generally not involved.

Brexiters generally don t want to be in a customs union with the EU, for two reasons. First, in a customs union, the UK would not be in a position to set its own customs duties. Secondly, countries in a customs union can t negotiate trade agreements independently with the rest of the world, since the main element of most trade agreements is mutual promises to grant reduced or no customs duties on imports from one another, and a country in a customs union can t promise this unilaterally; all members of the union have to act together on this.

A free trade agreement: Under a free trade agreement, each country promises to admit the other s good without any customs tariffs and, often, agrees to reduce or eliminate non-tariff barriers. But they remain free to deal with the rest of the world independently of one another. A free trade agreement may or may not involve free movement of labour or (more usually) easier movement of labour - preferential access to visas, that kind of thing.

The freedom to deal independently with the rest of the world limits the attractiveness of a free trade agreement. If A and B enter into a free trade agreement, goods moving from A to B still have to be checked to be sure that they are in fact goods produced in A (and vice versa). If this isn t done A and B aren t really free to set their own customs tariffs with the rest of the world, since it would be easy to avoid the higher tariff of one country by routing imports through the other. So with a free trade agreement there are still significant non-tariff barriers to trade in the form of customs checks, delays, rules about foreign content of manufactured goods, etc, etc. And there may be non-tariff barriers like different product safety standards in each country.

Brexiters would generally like a free trade agreement with the EU and, if they can get them, with some other countries or trading blocs.

A trade agreeement: Like a free trade agreement, except customs tariffs aren t necessarily eliminated; just reduced. Or, they may be eliminated for some classes of goods/services, but not for others.

Brexiters would generally like trade agreements where they can t get free trade agreements.

Well, that's a very good post you've written there. No doubt, pointing at the essential terms and also pointing out how backwards minded the Brexiters really are, in the meaning of backwards minded it is precisely meant by myself that they seek to get back to the times of the UKs pre-EU Membership and think that those times were always the best but this was a long time ago and things have changed. For one example, the world wasn't that globalised as it is today.

I'd say, I take a bow to your summarations. Really good. But the odds are against the Brexiters in many ways cos there is no prospect that if they get what they are seeking, it doesn't means that they would be better off than now, for the other 27 EU member states would have to give their consent, respectively their approval for such deals and they also have their interests in mind, like the EU has as a whole.

Thomas_...

"Former top judge warns over Article 50 Appeal"

The tabloids were already at it with their usual inciting of hatred as is described in the following article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37904160

The justice system could be undermined if a ruling that only Parliament can trigger Brexit is overturned, a former lord chief justice has said.
Lord Judge said it would be seen as a victory for pro-Brexit demonstrators should the Supreme Court reverse last week's controversial High Court ruling.
The government, he told BBC Newsnight, had been too slow to defend judges following press attacks over the case.
...
Amid anger over the High Court ruling, which led the Daily Mail to label three of the most senior judges in England and Wales "enemies of the people", UKIP leader Nigel Farage has vowed to lead peaceful protests outside the Supreme Court in the run-up to the hearing.
The Daily Express has claimed 100,000 people could join a march in Westminster on the first day of the Supreme Court hearing.
Lord Judge, who was the most senior judge in England and Wales between 2008 and 2013 and who is now a crossbench peer, told BBC Newsnight that people were entitled to protest but he was concerned about the impact the case might have on the legal System.
...
"Let's say for the sake of argument the Supreme Court decides the High Court was wrong, it will undoubtedly be conveyed as a victory for the demonstrators.
"It won't be but that's what will be conveyed. And if that is conveyed, you've undermined the administration of justice."
Lord Judge said the judges who delivered last week's ruling, including his successor as lord chief justice Lord Thomas, carried out their duty and "happened to decide that Parliament was sovereign".
...

Jim2007

K-9 wrote: »

Bit cynical wrote: »

Another poster has made the (quite important) point that what is possibly not realistic is expecting a detailed document stating exactly what the UK wants at the outset. Such documents no doubt exist to be provided to the negotiating teams. The EU will also, no doubt, have detailed plans for negotiation set out once they can get some sort of agreement among their member states. But what you seem to be expecting is for the UK to show its hand while the EU does not. Is that realistic?

Well I suppose the UK has to put proposals to the EU before it can respond. I'm sure they've a rough idea of how they'll respond to different proposals.

If the UK wants banking included, well here's Switzerland's deal. We can work around this.

EEA? Norway.

No freedom of movement? Here's South Africa or Canada. Oh Nissan and the bankers wont be happy? Let's go back to the Swiss deal.

No freedom of movement? Ok, let's go back to the Canadian deal.

Well first of all there is no Swiss/EU agreement, there are multiple individual agreements on various issues and secondly the agreements we have do no include financial services nor passporting. That is one of the reason why major Swiss banks have a London office....

whatstherush

Peregrinus wrote: »

There’s a range of trading relationships that can get confused:

The Single Market:

A customs union:

A free trade agreement:

A trade agreeement: .

Great post. Having laid out what the Brexiteers would prefer (the later two), would you say that these two are unacceptable to the Auto industry(i.e. 40% of parts of Nissan car imported from EU, disruption of JIT flows if imports subject to custom checks etc..) and Finance industry (do any EU existing third country FTA deals cover services and/or bank passporting rights).

Also if they went the Custom union route who would be the arbiter of the Custom union rules, is it the ECJ (in Turkeys case???) and if so it seems incompatible with Mays promise to CPC about not being subject to foreign court rulings.

Jim2007

First Up wrote: »

Calina wrote:

Exit negotiations and trade negotiations are not necessarily the same set of negotiations.

In the case of the EU and UK's post Brexit trade relations, they most certainly are.

Article 50 covers an exit agreement and an indication of what future relation between the two might be. It does not in any way require a trade agreement. And given the current position of the UK government I doubt it will go beyond that.

Peregrinus

Jim2007 wrote: »

Article 50 covers an exit agreement and an indication of what future relation between the two might be. It does not in any way require a trade agreement. And given the current position of the UK government I doubt it will go beyond that.

It's very much in the interests of both the EU and the UK that, if there is to be any kind of special relationship between them, at least the bare bones of that get hammered out during the two-year negotiation period so that the UK can transition from membership to special relationship without any hiatus in between, and I think every effort will be made to see that that happens.

That probably involves a lot of transitional measures along the lines "after exit day the UK will continue to do X, Y and Z, and continue to benefit from A, B and C, and all parties will negotiate over when and how these arrangements will come to an end/be replaced by something else".

Jim2007

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Bit cynical wrote: »

The point is it is easy to cheer when some EU leader says, for example, that trade talks between the EU and the UK can't begin until after the two years are up (such things have been said), but we need to remember that were this allowed to happen, hard brexit would occur and Ireland would suffer disproportionately.

It's also difficult to believe.

EU Governments don't only speak to one another when the Council of the EU or the European Council is in session.

They telephone one another, they whatsapp each other, and so do their senior civil servants. There is a constant dialogue, and for anyone to think, to be so credulous as to believe that there are no informal discussions happening, is quite strange.

If anyone genuinely subscribes to that opinion, PM me today for some magic beans, available now at a very competitive price.

K-9 wrote: »

That paragraph doesn't really mean anything though!

Of course it wont be a copy and paste of previous agreements.

Then why are you portraying the UK as dithering between the extant agreements?

It will be none of those.

There will be a downside to the UK and they'll have to agree to things they don't particularly want to.

Absolutely. You've made that remark a few times, but negotiation is a two-way process. There will be quid pro quos and Britain (aided by Ireland, probably) will undoubtedly secure concessions that some Europeans will find difficult to swallow.

The UK will not get anything that has not already been granted in some other deal, which means no single market access nor passporting of financial services. To go beyond that means referenda in Denmark, France and Ireland which is something the Commission will seek to avoid, the last thing they need is referenda in Denmark and France turning into a vote on membership and trying to convince the Irish to vote for a change that would require a hard border with NI.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's very much in the interests of both the EU and the UK that, if there is to be any kind of special relationship between them, at least the bare bones of that get hammered out during the two-year negotiation period so that the UK can transition from membership to special relationship without any hiatus in between, and I think every effort will be made to see that that happens.

That probably involves a lot of transitional measures along the lines "after exit day the UK will continue to do X, Y and Z, and continue to benefit from A, B and C, and all parties will negotiate over when and how these arrangements will come to an end/be replaced by something else".

There will actually be a transition agreement which will last several years. The UK has zero chance of completing in the 2 years.

First Up

demfad wrote:

There will actually be a transition agreement which will last several years. The UK has zero chance of completing in the 2 years.

Nothing in the rules about a transition period. Its two years or no deal. Changing that would need unanimity from the 27 members and I'd give you good odds on that.

murphaph

I wonder how a Brexit with the UK outside the customs union would impact the single electricity market on the island of Ireland.

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm really confused as to why you think controls over unskilled labour would be bad for the UK as an economy. It would allow protection for unskilled workers in Britain and enable them to find a better and easier pathway to work.

Ask yourself why those workers need protection?

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also cited a few articles in the Financial Times that suggests that London will remain a major financial centre after Brexit…

London will continue being London, whatever happens – it’s the rest of the country that is likely to experience problems.

solodeogloria wrote: »

So it's not in anyone's benefit to protect billions of Euro in trade with the UK?

Of course it is, but as has been said time and time and time again, those billions are much more important to the UK than they are to the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

A punitive treatment if the UK will hurt EU member states in addition to the UK. This isn't a positive argument for the EU's approach. The UK isn't asking for a punitive deal. It's looking for the most open arrangement in respect to trade while listening to the British public.

As far as we can gather (largely based on what was sold to the British public during the referendum campaign), the British want a trade arrangement that resembles the status quo so far as is possible, whilst also demanding restrictions on migration from the EU.

That is hopelessly unrealistic. Suggesting that the EU is seeking punitive measures against the UK because it won’t agree to such an arrangement is just plain daft.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There isn't a coherent message amongst member states.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen EU leaders as united and coherent on any issue as they have been regarding Brexit.

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

EU Governments don't only speak to one another when the Council of the EU or the European Council is in session.

They telephone one another, they whatsapp each other, and so do their senior civil servants. There is a constant dialogue, and for anyone to think, to be so credulous as to believe that there are no informal discussions happening, is quite strange.

Perhaps, but it’s difficult to believe at this point that there’s been any kind of coherent message coming from the UK through these channels.

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

He's now Foreign Secretary and does in fact represent the UK government in that particular capacity. However I have not heard him say that one of the demands of the UK was identical access to the single market as at present (i.e. one of the members of the single market) and at the same time complete control over movement from the EU.

About a month after the referendum result, in his capacity as foreign secretary, it was all over the papers that an agreement would be reached in a matter of weeks which preserved the UK’s access to the single market whilst also permitting restrictions on immigration.

Not surprisingly, this was dismissed as tosh by (among others) the French and German foreign ministers.

Bit cynical wrote: »

But what you seem to be expecting is for the UK to show its hand while the EU does not. Is that realistic?

Yes, because the EU’s “hand” is totally dependent on what the UK demands.

Thomas_...

Some news from Scotland:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-37909299

Scottish government seeks to intervene in Brexit case

The Scottish government is to seek to intervene against the UK government's appeal to the Supreme Court over the triggering of Article 50.
The High Court ruled last week that MPs must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU.
The UK government immediately said it would appeal to the Supreme Court, with a hearing due next month.
The Lord Advocate, Scotland's most senior law officer, will now apply to be heard in the case.
He is expected to argue that the consent of the Scottish Parliament should also be sought before Article 50 is triggered.
...
As if Theresa May didn't have enough on her plate following last week's High Court ruling forcing the government to give MPs a say before Brexit is triggered, now the Scottish government has piled in.
In effect it has said if MPs are going to be given a say, the Scottish Parliament should also have to give its approval.
The difficulty for Mrs May is that she knows the Scottish Parliament is overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit and her fear will be that Nicola Sturgeon is in effect threatening to blow Brexit out of the water.
Scotland's first minister insists she is not playing the veto card. She respects the right of the rest of the UK to leave the EU, but wants to protect the interests of Scotland which voted against Brexit.
It may be she is simply trying to increase her leverage over Theresa May to try and secure a particular Brexit deal for Scotland - something Mrs May has already ruled out.
But there is another problem and it is on delay - the danger that Brexit gets snarled up in the courts.
We have already had the High Court ruling - the Supreme Court will decide on the appeal in January - and now Scottish lawyers are piling in and the danger is the timetable of triggering Brexit by March gets put through the legal shredder.
...
The first minister said: "The Scottish government is clear that triggering Article 50 will directly affect devolved interests and rights in Scotland.
"And triggering Article 50 will inevitably deprive Scottish people and Scottish businesses of rights and freedoms which they currently enjoy.
"It simply cannot be right that those rights can be removed by the UK government on the say-so of a prime minister without parliamentary debate, scrutiny or consent."
She also urged the prime minister to "live up to her promise to treat Scotland as an equal partner in the United Kingdom and listen to the will of the people of Scotland".
...
Ms Sturgeon is due to unveil proposals for a "flexible Brexit" - which would see Scotland remain in the single market even if the rest of the UK leaves - in the coming weeks.
...
Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie welcomed Ms Sturgeon seeking to join the legal action against what he described as the "unjust and undemocratic" use of the Royal Prerogative to invoke Article 50.
He added: "Theresa May could end all this and simply accept that there must be a democratic vote before Article 50 is invoked. However she chooses to waste time and money fighting the decision made so she can impose an unwanted hard Brexit on the United Kingdom."

They are all about to give the PM a hard time and do everything they can to stop her from just Walking over the interests of others in the UK, especially parliaments and assemblies. Such acting would be easier without the devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament and the two Assemblies in Wales and NI.

I think that in the end, the PM has to give way to let Westminster, Holyrood, Belfast and Cardiff have their say and vote on the triggering of Article 50. I'm also going out from the rather real prediction that the Supreme Court is not about to rule against the High Court and thus making way for the votes in the aforesaid parliaments and assemblies. That of course will make the Brexiteers jump and protest, but in the end of the day everyone who has a real believe in democracy understands that parliaments cannot be set aside and a PM uses his ambitions in regards of the Royal prerogative to have a "marching through" and deprive other consitutional institutions of their rights.

I simply cannot see any way that Scotland could remain both within the UK and the Single Market in the event that the rest of the UK leaves said Single Market.

If we think the ROI/NI Border issue is complicated, that would be a whole other level of difficult.

Bit cynical

Yes, because the EU’s “hand” is totally dependent on what the UK demands.

I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems overly simplistic. The UK is leaving the EU. That is all that is certain so far. In negotiations, both sides will have negotiating positions. These will be dynamic and will change as negotiations progress.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

I simply cannot see any way that Scotland could remain both within the UK and the Single Market in the event that the rest of the UK leaves said Single Market.

It is true that if the UK is no longer a member of the single market then Scotland, since it is a region of the UK, will also not be a member of the single market.

However it may be possible for Scotland to have free trade access to the single market through the UK achieving a deal with the EU for free trade between the single market and the UK as a whole. Scotland, as part of the UK then benefits from this.

This is best achieved by Nicola Sturgeon working cooperatively with the UK government.

Thomas_...

Deleted User wrote: »

I simply cannot see any way that Scotland could remain both within the UK and the Single Market in the event that the rest of the UK leaves said Single Market.

If we think the ROI/NI Border issue is complicated, that would be a whole other level of difficult.

Me neither but that's just the path of Mrs Sturgeon to walk towards Scotland's Independence and I think that the latter is more at her heart than the somehow unrealistic thing with Scotland remaining in the EU as well as being part of the UK. It's only an Independent Scotland that can have her place in the EU and try to have close relations with the rest of the UK.

The train is set to go towards independence and the Brexit is the tool to get there.

Jim2007

Jim2007 wrote: »

The UK will not get anything that has not already been granted in some other deal

You ought to change your name to Mystic Meg.

I don't know what EU leaders and UK will negotiate in the next two years, or into the medium term. But I expect it will be different to all the extant agreements, just like every new trade agreeement is.

which means no single market access nor passporting of financial services. To go beyond that means referenda in Denmark, France and Ireland

No it does not. Why are you writing things that are simply untrue? This isn't the Lisbon Treaty. It isn't the case that every instance of treaty change requires a referendum in Ireland, much less a trade deal. . I have no clue what makes you think there is any such requirement in France and Denmark.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Which Europeans, exactly? Because if just one Government finds any concession difficult to swallow, Britain will not secure it. Any single Government can torpedo anything better than WTO status.

That isn't true. Only the most complex deals straying outside of EU competencies would, once agreed, be subject to individual ratification in national parliaments, i.e. an effective veto.

However, I think you're missing the point of a quid pro quo. In negotiations, both sides almost inevitably have to swallow things they don't like, in order to advance a desirable opportunity for themselves and their allies. This applies to both the British Government and EU leaders.

Thomas_... wrote: »

CETA is for EU - Canada trade relations. There isn't anything invented to please the Brits in the same way like the Canadians, yet.

Before CETA, there was no CETA. Genius. That's just tautology. How can there be anything invented to regulate Brexit when Brexit is only beginning?!

There will be an agreement, and it won't be CETA, nor the Peruvian deal, nor the Swiss, nor Norwegian.

Can we grasp this, please?

Further, you're missing the Point the EU is about to make which is to deter other member states to do likewise like the British and hold a referendum about the countries Membership within the EU.

I'm not missing that point, I agree with it to an extent, but it's one of many considerations, which also include trade, financial stability, and peace in Northern Ireland, which I expect will be keenly stressed by both the Irish and British negotiators, and which is one of the EU's success stories. It just won't do, in Brussels or across 'old Europe', to see sparks of armed conflict inside Western Europe.

Although this process is fairly straightforward, the factors which will be taken into serious consideration are decidedly more complex than many people are acknowledging. It won't be a simple case of punishing the Brits, or giving Europe the two fingers, or any other garbage that appears in this thread and in tomorrow's chip paper.

robinph

Would have been against Scottish Independence from the UK, but since June I'd be totally for it. No reason for us to drag Scotland down with us just out of spite. Let Scotland go and at least have some chance within the EU whilst the rest of England flushes itself down the toilet.