Brexit discussion thread II

Vronsky

Interesting comment there solo. How do you square saying that you haven't been posting because there hasn't been much happening (in other words, no progress) with also saying the negotiations are going well?

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No bother. I can't say. He works for British Influence, a think tank which seems to be opposed to a no-deal Brexit. He seems legit as far as I can tell though I only just heard of him!

I've followed him on twitter for a good while. He seems to have the respect of well known posters like Jo Maugham, Ian Dunt etc so I guess they know who he is.

murphaph

Vronsky wrote: »

Interesting comment there solo. How do you square saying that you haven't been posting because there hasn't been much happening (in other words, no progress) with also saying the negotiations are going well?

Yeah that leaped out at me as well. No progress in this time limited negotiation but it's all fine...now let me rearrange those deckchairs again.

demfad

Apologies if this has been linked already. Interesting case being brought forward. The implication is that A50 was not triggered legally!

Here is A50 Clause 1:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

The referendum was advisory. The referendum act remained silent on the result's effect. When the supreme court decided that Parliament and not the executive had to decide to withdraw this was confirmation that no decision had yet been made (referendum had no legal effect). Yet the Brexit Bill passed by parliament had nothing to do with deciding to leave or remain. It was just about triggering article 50.


https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/

Speaking about the rushed Brexit Bill, David Davis could not have been clearer that it was nothing to do with Leave or Remain. He said, that it was: "not a Bill about whether the UK should leave the European Union or, indeed, about how it should do so; it is simply about Parliament empowering the Government to implement a decision already made—a point of no return already passed.”

But the supreme court clarified that a decision had not been made and a point of return not passed. Therefore the constituional decision to leave was never made which breaches clause 1 of Article 50.

Article 50 is an exit clause. As with a contract termination clause, to use it, you must tick all its boxes. The A50 exit clause is very simple. There’s only one box to tick – was the actual leave decision itself constitutionally valid. A50 is not remotely interested in whether the notification is authorised. It’s interested only in the actual decision – if there is one, notification of intention to leave is mandatory.

Had the 2015 Referendum Act made the poll binding, there would be no issue. But, whatever politicians say, the Act is silent on the effect of the result. So, the June 2016 referendum was no more than a big opinion poll. .So, when politicians say that “the United Kingdom has decided to leave the EU” in June 2016, that is inaccurate. The Act Parliament chose to pass gave it no effect. Politicians won’t admit that they made sure it wasn’t a decision after saying otherwise, but that’s why the government lost Miller.

As Margaret Thatcher said about the 1975 referendum – “the [1975] referendum is a tactical device to get over a split in their own party, and any constitutional consequences are, therefore, of only secondary importance.” See more at https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102649

If referendums are consultative, candour about that fact is crucial. Rather than squarely confront the need for Parliament to decide the leave or remain issue, the government asked Parliament for authority to notify a decision already made! As their own lawyers in Miller had said, to do Brexit, they had to answer the leave or remain question in favour of leave and put it in clear words in legislative form. They didn’t even ask the question.

Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled that no decision had been made – the government took the “decision” as read.

Charles Babbage

demfad wrote: »

Apologies if this has been linked already. Interesting case being brought forward. The implication is that A50 was not triggered legally!

Here is A50 Clause 1:




The referendum was advisory. The referendum act remained silent on the result's effect. By deciding that Parliament and not the executive had to decide to withdraw this was confirmation that no decision had yet been made. Yet the Brexit Bill passed by parliament had nothing to do with leave or remain. It was just about triggering article 50.


https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/


But the supreme court clarified that a decision had not been made and a point of return not passed. Therefore the constituional decision to leave was never made which breaches clause 1 of Article 50.

I see no merit in this. Parliament voted to implement A50 knowing that it meant leaving the EU.

swampgas

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I see no merit in this. Parliament voted to implement A50 knowing that it meant leaving the EU.

IANAL ... but I guess the problem is that from a legal perspective the EU could claim that Article 50 was not invoked correctly. Regardless of what parliament "knew" if A50 was not invoked correctly (in the EU's view) then the EU can (correctly, IMO) argue that everything is on hold until the UK get their act together and invoke A50 properly, as described in A50 itself.

Whether the EU-27 (or the UK opposition) see value in pursuing this angle ... I have no idea.

ambro25

demfad wrote: »

Apologies if this has been linked already. Interesting case being brought forward. The implication is that A50 was not triggered legally!

Here is A50 Clause 1:




The referendum was advisory. The referendum act remained silent on the result's effect. When the supreme court decided that Parliament and not the executive had to decide to withdraw this was confirmation that no decision had yet been made (referendum had no legal effect). Yet the Brexit Bill passed by parliament had nothing to do with deciding to leave or remain. It was just about triggering article 50.


https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/a50-chall-her-e50/


But the supreme court clarified that a decision had not been made and a point of return not passed. Therefore the constituional decision to leave was never made which breaches clause 1 of Article 50.

Very interesting, demfad

But for all the points -correct and well summarised- in the above, i.e. in the context of Article 50(1) which you excerpted above-

(i) indeed it is the decision to withdraw from the Union, which must be 'in accordance with its own constitutional requirements', since

(ii) the triggering of Article 50 TEU is the effective act of withdrawing itself (that is because the triggering starts the 2 year clock at the end of which membership automatically ceases, and there is no statutory get-out of it, only the possibility of extension of the clock by collective consent);

-I don't buy their argument/case (much as I'd like to).

That is because their argument is hinged upon the (unsaid) notion that the 'constitutional requirements' of the UK require that the decision to leave the EU be 'taken' by Parliament, rather than 'endorsed'. But there is no such constitutional requirement or distinction in the UK, that I'm aware of.

What the Miller case and appeal determined, was that Parliament had the final say ('was sovereign') in all matters, and that the government therefore could not do its own thing as it saw fit ('trigger Article 50' and so effectively withdraw the UK from the EU, which is what May wanted to do and which caused the Miller case to be filed) without the sanction of a Commons vote. I oversimplify, but that's the gist of it in context.

The corollary to this, is that MPs desirous of not giving effect to the government's decision (i.e. deciding not to withdraw from the Union-), were fully empowered ('sovereign', as confirmed by the Miller win) to vote against Davis' European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (-in accordance with the UK's own constitutional requirements). By voting (overwhelmingly) in favour of it, MPs decided to withdraw from the Union, fully according to UK constitutional requirements.

I certainly look forward to see how the challenge goes, regardless of whether I'm vindicated or (hopefully) not.

Vronsky

swampgas wrote: »

IANAL ... but I guess the problem is that from a legal perspective the EU could claim that Article 50 was not invoked correctly. Regardless of what parliament "knew" if A50 was not invoked correctly (in the EU's view) then the EU can (correctly, IMO) argue that everything is on hold until the UK get their act together and invoke A50 properly, as described in A50 itself.

Whether the EU-27 (or the UK opposition) see value in pursuing this angle ... I have no idea.

In fairness that argument they are trying to make is paper thin. Parliament knew what it was doing when it passed through Art. 50.

There only way to stop the process is for the UK to withdraw it's intent to leave AND get the agreement of the other states to allow it.

steddyeddy

Vronsky wrote: »

Interesting comment there solo. How do you square saying that you haven't been posting because there hasn't been much happening (in other words, no progress) with also saying the negotiations are going well?

The pity is that there are real Brexiters that I debate with in work. Some of their arguments seem fair. They do expect Britain to be worse off, but consider it a price worth paying for what they consider freedom. I don't agree, but at least they're not kidding themselves about consequences.

Nody

Vronsky wrote: »

In fairness that argument they are trying to make is paper thin. Parliament knew what it was doing when it passed through Art. 50.

There only way to stop the process is for the UK to withdraw it's intent to leave AND get the agreement of the other states to allow it.

Well that's the main use I can see for it; EU can use it as the excuse to cancel A50 on UK's request basically. But that would only happen if UK requested it which as noted earlier is not going to happen.

c_man

steddyeddy wrote: »

The pity is that there are real Brexiters that I debate with in work. Some of their arguments seem fair. They do expect Britain to be worse off, but consider it a price worth paying for what they consider freedom. I don't agree, but at least they're not kidding themselves about consequences.

One of the Brexiteers in my workplace likes to come out with the "Well it didn't make economic sense for Ireland to leave us, worked out better for you in the end though didn't it?" Which is fair enough actually.

c_man

c_man wrote: »

One of the Brexiteers in my workplace likes to come out with the "Well it didn't make economic sense for Ireland to leave us, worked out better for you in the end though didn't it?" Which is fair enough actually.

LOL.

Professor Moriarty

c_man wrote: »

One of the Brexiteers in my workplace likes to come out with the "Well it didn't make economic sense for Ireland to leave us, worked out better for you in the end though didn't it?" Which is fair enough actually.

You should refer your friend to the harsh economic realities that befell Ireland in the decades immediately after independence.

c_man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You should refer your friend to the harsh economic realities that befell Ireland in the decades immediately after independence.

Yeah that's the point... it worked out better for Ireland in the end (or well to now at least).

Edit: he realises there'll be economic hits in the immediate to short term, thinks it will be worth it farther down the road.

Professor Moriarty

c_man wrote: »

Yeah that's the point... it worked out better for Ireland in the end (or well to now at least).

Edit: he realises there'll be economic hits in the immediate to short term, thinks it will be worth it farther down the road.

From a long term perspective, it worked out better for Ireland in the end because Ireland joined the EEC/EU...

ArmaniJeanss

solodeogloria wrote: »

The departure of Priti Patel presents an opportunity for the Prime Minister on the Brexit legislation. I think she should choose a remainer like Nicky Morgan provided that she supports the Government on the EU Withdrawal Bill. Mathematics will be important when it comes to the return of the bill. Her time in Cameron's Government also shows that she's an effective minister. May needs to shore up loyalty now to ensure the legislative agenda for Brexit gets through relatively unscathed.

It'll be Penny Mordaunt or JRM (the latter would be fun for us all anyway) or a similar remainer, because TMPM will have been told that the Brexit/Remain balance in Cabinet must be retained. Kemi Badenhoch if they want to promote a young up-and-coming who ticks a few diversity boxes and who the Mail seems to love.

Nicky Morgan is about as likely as Ken Clarke imo.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

The pity is that there are real Brexiters that I debate with in work. Some of their arguments seem fair. They do expect Britain to be worse off, but consider it a price worth paying for what they consider freedom. I don't agree, but at least they're not kidding themselves about consequences.

Good afternoon!

This comparison of me to a "real Brexiteer" isn't profitable for discussion. We can really do without that. I'm willing to show you respect and I ask for the same.

I don't dispute that there is going to be a cost in adjusting the UK's relationship with the EU. The challenge is to keep as much trade with the EU whilst regaining control over trade policy to forge new free trade agreements with other countries. I think this trade off will be worth it.

I agree that there are costs and consequences to readjusting to a new reality. I don't dispute this. What I do dispute is highly speculative doom mongering.

I think the mood music on both sides is easing. This is welcome. Not much has happened since October due to the fact there hasn't been a round of talks but I anticipate real progress from both sides on the issues to move forward.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

c_man wrote:

Yeah that's the point... it worked out better for Ireland in the end (or well to now at least).

The reason it worked out well for Ireland in the end was first the Anglo Irish FTA and then EU membership - the opposite of what the UK is doing.

c_man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From a long term perspective, it worked out better for Ireland in the end because Ireland joined the EEC/EU...

Not really the point, it is? I'm not arguing for it, just chiming in with what steddyeddy said that Brexiteers I know aren't blind to the economic hits that will come.

View

c_man wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

The pity is that there are real Brexiters that I debate with in work. Some of their arguments seem fair. They do expect Britain to be worse off, but consider it a price worth paying for what they consider freedom. I don't agree, but at least they're not kidding themselves about consequences.

One of the Brexiteers in my workplace likes to come out with the "Well it didn't make economic sense for Ireland to leave us, worked out better for you in the end though didn't it?" Which is fair enough actually.

It did but, if we are honest, it probably wasn’t until the early 90s onwards that it was true. In the 50/60 years after independence it was really a debatable point for most of the time.

Professor Moriarty

c_man wrote: »

Not really the point, it is? I'm not arguing for it, just chiming in with what steddyeddy said that Brexiteers I know aren't blind to the economic hits that will come.

Actually, it's very much the point when you say this:

Yeah that's the point... it worked out better for Ireland in the end (or well to now at least).

Anyway, unless they have a crystal ball and are able to foresee what kind of Brexit will happen and the consequences of that Brexit, Brexiteers' opinions are relatively moot regarding the pros and cons of staying or leaving

c_man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Actually, it's very much the point when you say this:

Look it was just an anecdote that I was relaying. Go and argue him if you want!

Yeah that's the point

Should have read "his point"...

Brexiteers' opinions are relatively moot regarding the pros and cons of staying or leaving

Actually I find their opinions pretty interesting, not that I agree but it's fascinating to see the "real deal" versus what popular perception is. Particularly back home which I find wildly off the mark. I'm glad I'm over here to see a bit of history in motion and what the people on the street think. So far Brexit has been financially pretty good for me, finger's crossed it stays that way!

View

steddyeddy wrote: »

The EU parliament and Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt says Britain's new offer on citizen's rights is inadequate. Do we think that trade talks will commence in December?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-eu-citizens-rights-inadequate-european-parliament-britain-a8044331.html

It is hard to blame the EP. The U.K. offer is basically to retrospectively treat EU citizens in the U.K. as they would have treated them were they non-EU citizens who had arrived there at the same time.

That hardly warrants the EU to break new legal ground by involving itself in an offer for citizens of a (future) non-EU country, particularly, given it would create a precedence and that other non-EU countries would almost certainly make demands for comparable special arrangements in future.

Professor Moriarty

c_man wrote: »

Look it was just an anecdote that I was relaying. Go and argue him if you want!

You posted the opinion, not him.

Should have read "his point"...

OK.

Actually I find their opinions pretty interesting, not that I agree but it's
fascinating to see the "real deal" versus what popular perception is.
Particularly back home which I find wildly off the mark. I'm glad I'm over here
to see a bit of history in motion and what the people on the street think. So
far Brexit has been financially pretty good for me, finger's crossed it stays
that way

Dunno what you do for a living but best of luck with it. I find the people in the streets opinions vary from the deluded to the ridiculous considering that their government can't even decide what it wants. And that is before the EU gets to put forward their response to well...to nothing so far.

murphaph

c_man wrote: »

Look it was just an anecdote that I was relaying. Go and argue him if you want!



Should have read "his point"...



Actually I find their opinions pretty interesting, not that I agree but it's fascinating to see the "real deal" versus what popular perception is. Particularly back home which I find wildly off the mark. I'm glad I'm over here to see a bit of history in motion and what the people on the street think. So far Brexit has been financially pretty good for me, finger's crossed it stays that way!

So far Brexit hasn't happened. A no deal Brexit will be like the drop from the gallows to the UK economy.

ancapailldorcha

c_man wrote: »

One of the Brexiteers in my workplace likes to come out with the "Well it didn't make economic sense for Ireland to leave us, worked out better for you in the end though didn't it?" Which is fair enough actually.

I don't see how. Britain invaded Ireland for exploitation, not for Ireland's benefit. Ireland and the UK acceded to the EU, then the common market because they thought it would be beneficial. I'm not aware of any evidence that Ireland saw any benefit from being part of the empire. The same could be said for the north of England, Scotland and Wales.

Ireland's post-Empire success can be attributed to the Lemass government's decision to lower the rate of corporation tax which successfully lured American companies to Ireland because they saw it as a base for European operations. Ireland's accession to the European Economic Community in 1973 strengthened this case.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

LOL.

Don't post nonsense like this here please.

c_man

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how.

Fair enough in terms that he doesn't think there'll be an immediate land of milk and honey.

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Dunno what you do for a living but best of luck with it. I find the people in the streets opinions vary from the deluded to the ridiculous considering that their government can't even decide what it wants.

Like a fair whack of board I'm a software engineer! Place I was in at the time of the vote would have folded that Summer only for the ref result and drop in Sterling. And the boost to the FTSE was nice too personally.

Do you actually live in the UK? Have you ever met a Brexit supporter/voter?

steddyeddy

c_man wrote: »

Yeah that's the point... it worked out better for Ireland in the end (or well to now at least).

Edit: he realises there'll be economic hits in the immediate to short term, thinks it will be worth it farther down the road.

I've heard that too. The difference is Ireland under British rule was one of the poorest parts of Europe. Britain went from IMF to 5th largest economy under the EU so I don't think the economic argument holds up.

demfad

ambro25 wrote: »

Very interesting, demfad

But for all the points -correct and well summarised- in the above, i.e. in the context of Article 50(1) which you excerpted above-

(i) indeed it is the decision to withdraw from the Union, which must be 'in accordance with its own constitutional requirements', since

(ii) the triggering of Article 50 TEU is the effective act of withdrawing itself (that is because the triggering starts the 2 year clock at the end of which membership automatically ceases, and there is no statutory get-out of it, only the possibility of extension of the clock by collective consent);

-I don't buy their argument/case (much as I'd like to).

That is because their argument is hinged upon the (unsaid) notion that the 'constitutional requirements' of the UK require that the decision to leave the EU be 'taken' by Parliament, rather than 'endorsed'. But there is no such constitutional requirement or distinction in the UK, that I'm aware of.

What the Miller case and appeal determined, was that Parliament had the final say ('was sovereign') in all matters, and that the government therefore could not do its own thing as it saw fit ('trigger Article 50' and so effectively withdraw the UK from the EU, which is what May wanted to do and which caused the Miller case to be filed) without the sanction of a Commons vote. I oversimplify, but that's the gist of it in context.

The corollary to this, is that MPs desirous of not giving effect to the government's decision (i.e. deciding not to withdraw from the Union-), were fully empowered ('sovereign', as confirmed by the Miller win) to vote against Davis' European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (-in accordance with the UK's own constitutional requirements). By voting (overwhelmingly) in favour of it, MPs decided to withdraw from the Union, fully according to UK constitutional requirements.

I certainly look forward to see how the challenge goes, regardless of whether I'm vindicated or (hopefully) not.

Thanks for that. I'll make a few points with the understanding that I'm on shaky ground legally (Not that I will incriminate myself just that I am not expert).

Anyway here is the actual notification:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/9/section/1/enacted

Power to notify withdrawal from the EU

(1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

(2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.

We are dealing here with section 1(1):

In effect, the parliament has given the prime minister permission to notify the European council that it intends to withdraw from the European Union which should trigger A50.

It seems clear up to this point that the UK has neither legally nor constitutionally decided to withdraw from the EU. The referendum certainly had political significance but had no legal significance. In that sense (IMO) it cannot be endorsed, the same way as an opinion poll cannot be endorsed.

Either way, the decision to decide to leave the EU is wholly with the parliament and had not been legally or constitutionally made up to the point of triggering A50 or giving the PM permission to do so.

The question is then: Under British law is triggering A50 of the Lisbon Treaty (or giving the PM permission to do so) constitutionally the same as deciding to leave the EU? I think it might be doubtful.

It could be argued that correctly triggering article 50 amounts to deciding to leave the EU. But to correctly trigger it one must have already decided to leave. This would move the question to: Is giving the PM permission to do trigger A50 the same as deciding to leave?

(ii) the triggering of Article 50 TEU is the effective act of withdrawing itself (that is because the triggering starts the 2 year clock at the end of which membership automatically ceases, and there is no statutory get-out of it, only the possibility of extension of the clock by collective consent);

And this is the crux of it: If the triggering means leaving for the reason above (which would be a common reason for all members) why does A50 include the provision about the member states "own constitutional requirements"?
It comes down again to does triggering (or giving the PM permission to do so)=deciding under British law?
If yes to either then A50 was triggered.
If no then A50 may NOT have been triggered and the countdown would be deemed to have not started, and we take the legal time machine back to pre March 2017. (which would make things messy given the Brexit Bill has been enacted!)

Just throwing those points out there.

Professor Moriarty

c_man wrote: »

Like a fair whack of board I'm a software engineer! Place I was in at the
time of the vote would have folded that Summer only for the ref result and drop
in Sterling. And the boost to the FTSE was nice too personally.

Do you
actually live in the UK? Have you ever met a Brexit supporter/voter

?

No, I live in Ireland. Yes, I have met Brexit supporters. Why?

An unmanaged drop in Sterling is not good for the economy. Good for you if you're benefiting for now.

ancapailldorcha

c_man wrote: »

Fair enough in terms that he doesn't think there'll be an immediate land of milk and honey.

Did he present any sort of reason why Brexit might work out or was it all just wishful thinking?

c_man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, I live in Ireland. Yes, I have met Brexit supporters. Why?

You just seem pretty hostile and dismissive to the act of even listening to people from the other side!

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Did he present any sort of reason why Brexit might work out or was it all just wishful thinking?

Nothing new really.

LeinsterDub

Boris Johnson is under fresh pressure over Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe after Iranian state television cited his erroneous statement about her as “an inadvertent confession” that she was spying in Iran.

Iran’s national television (IRIB), whose programmes of such nature are sanctioned by senior officials, remained defiant of efforts by the UK foreign secretary to rectify his mistake about a British-Iranian woman serving a five-year jail term.

Can BoJo dodge this bullet? If he didn't have one hand of the reigns of power he'd of been long gone for this gaff.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/09/johnson-under-fresh-pressure-over-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-error-iranian-tv

Professor Moriarty

c_man wrote: »

You just seem pretty hostile and dismissive to the act of even listening to
people from the other side!

.

I presume you are not suggesting I have been hostile to, or dismissive of, any poster on here.

Am I hostile to a bunch of Tory Little Englanders and their lying press, both of whom are promoting an act of self-harm that threatens the economy of my country and its peace and security? Damn right I am.

Do I dismiss the repetition of uninformed and shallow wishful thinking? Absolutely.

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Can BoJo dodge this bullet? If he didn't have one hand of the reigns of power he'd of been long gone for this gaff.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/09/johnson-under-fresh-pressure-over-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-error-iranian-tv

What the article doesn't mention is that she is due to appear in front of a court again soon and there is a distinct possibility that her sentence could be doubled to 10 years. I can't see Boris surviving that eventuality.

c_man

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I presume you are not suggesting I have been hostile to, or dismissive of, any poster on here.

No I'm not.

PeadarCo

c_man wrote:

Like a fair whack of board I'm a software engineer! Place I was in at the time of the vote would have folded that Summer only for the ref result and drop in Sterling. And the boost to the FTSE was nice too personally.

In terms of FTSE I've heard part of the reason for the improvement is due the performance of the world economy. I can't remember the exact figure but the majority of the companies(due to their international nature) who are on the FTSE are not reliant/are not heavily influenced by the domes UK economy.

Its a poor indicator of the performance/future expectations relating to the domestic UK economy.

flatty

What do people think Scotlandand the SNP will do when brexit goes through?
They seem to be keeping their cards very close to their chest at the minute.

An Ciarraioch

flatty wrote: »

What do people think Scotlandand the SNP will do when brexit goes through?
They seem to be keeping their cards very close to their chest at the minute.

Won't rush into a decision, but will let economic effects play out. If a prolonged recession ensues, Indyref 2 would be there for the winning sometime around 2021/22.

steddyeddy

flatty wrote: »

What do people think Scotlandand the SNP will do when brexit goes through?
They seem to be keeping their cards very close to their chest at the minute.

They're in a great position. All they have to do is wait for Brexit to happen and the economic consequences to become obvious. Then the can push for independence and re-entry into the EU.

ancapailldorcha

c_man wrote: »

Nothing new really.

The problem I have is that most of the Brexiteers I know are wealthy family members who ultimately won't suffer any of the ill effects. My aunt just shouted "We'll survive" at me when I pushed her on it. So far, the plan seems to be:

1. Leave the European Union
2. ????
3. Profit

eire4

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Won't rush into a decision, but will let economic effects play out. If a prolonged recession ensues, Indyref 2 would be there for the winning sometime around 2021/22.

That probably is their best bet and also why they are keeping their cards close to their chest so to speak right now. I would say also I find it highly ironic that during the 2014 referendum one of the key planks used to scare people into voting no was if you leave you will be out of the EU and no guarantee that you will be readmitted straight away.

Professor Moriarty

eire4 wrote: »

That probably is their best bet and also why they are keeping their cards close to their chest so to speak right now. I would say also I find it the highly ironic that during the 2014 referendum one of the key planks used to scare people into voting no was if you leave you will be out of the EU and no guarantee that you will be readmitted straight away.

Very good point.

blanch152

Vronsky wrote: »

In fairness that argument they are trying to make is paper thin. Parliament knew what it was doing when it passed through Art. 50.

There only way to stop the process is for the UK to withdraw it's intent to leave AND get the agreement of the other states to allow it.

I agree with you that it is paper thin. Moreover, it appears to be based on EU law rather than UK law, meaning that it is possible that the ECJ might have to clarify some of the issues.

Imagine what would happen if the ECJ ruled that the A50 withdrawal was illegal. The Brexiteers would go ballistic.

steddyeddy

eire4 wrote: »

That probably is their best bet and also why they are keeping their cards close to their chest so to speak right now. I would say also I find it highly ironic that during the 2014 referendum one of the key planks used to scare people into voting no was if you leave you will be out of the EU and no guarantee that you will be readmitted straight away.

I also find it highly ironic and wrong that they're currently being told "independence isn't a good thing because they might not get into the EU as Spain will block them".

First of all Spain said it wouldn't block an independent Scotland. Secondly they're being told that independence might not yield EU entry by people who are making sure that Scotland, along with the rest of the UK lose EU membership.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem I have is that most of the Brexiteers I know are wealthy family members who ultimately won't suffer any of the ill effects. My aunt just shouted "We'll survive" at me when I pushed her on it. So far, the plan seems to be:

1. Leave the European Union
2. ????
3. Profit

Good evening!

If that were actually true I'd agree with you.

It isn't true though. The Government have highlighted that they want a transitional period, they have highlighted that they want to ratify FTA's with existing external partners and to sign a free trade deal with the European Union and they have highlighted that they want to forge free trade agreements with other countries for when the transitional period is over. That's a pretty clear plan in respect to the economy. That isn't ????? but a clear strategy.

If this was simply your first post on the thread I'd understand. If you'd been outside of Britain, heck most of the world without any internet, TV or radio I'd really understand but there's not really an excuse for saying there isn't a plan.

There is and if that outcome is reached the UK will be better off in the long term for having executed it and regained control. More liberal trade with the wider world will mean more jobs.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

flatty

The govt can "plan" or lay out clear idea of what it wants until the cows come home.
There is no negotiation to be had.
The eu doesn't really need the UK, and getting to the stage where it doesn't want the UK.
The eu will offer terms for a trade agreement. The UK can take them, or leave them.
Sin e e.
The UK "leadership" are as thick as ditches.

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Government have highlighted that they want a transitional period, they have highlighted that they want to ratify FTA's with existing external partners and to sign a free trade deal with the European Union and they have highlighted that they want to forge free trade agreements with other countries for when the transitional period is over. That's a pretty clear plan in respect to the economy. That isn't ????? but a clear strategy.

Is it, though? Or is it a series of aspirations?

If I announce that I want to leave my wife so that I am free to sleep with Heidi Klum, that's not a plan (unless Heidi has agreed in advance). The freedom to make trade deals is only useful if there is a queue of countries waiting to do deals with the UK that are unwilling to do such deals with the EU; and/or if those deals are on more favourable terms than the EU would be able to negotiate.

More liberal trade with the wider world will mean more jobs.

Maybe, if it happens. I'm not convinced that the UK is in a stronger negotiating position than the EU, though, which means that trade deals will be done from a position of relative weakness.

The EU is positively promiscuous when it comes to negotiating trade deals with the wider world. I have yet to see a convincing case made that the UK will be able to make better deals than the EU could make on its behalf.

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If that were actually true I'd agree with you.

It isn't true though. The Government have highlighted that they want a transitional period, they have highlighted that they want to ratify FTA's with existing external partners and to sign a free trade deal with the European Union and they have highlighted that they want to forge free trade agreements with other countries for when the transitional period is over. That's a pretty clear plan in respect to the economy. That isn't ????? but a clear strategy.

If this was simply your first post on the thread I'd understand. If you'd been outside of Britain, heck most of the world without any internet, TV or radio I'd really understand but there's not really an excuse for saying there isn't a plan.

There is and if that outcome is reached the UK will be better off in the long term for having executed it and regained control. More liberal trade with the wider world will mean more jobs.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You have said “free trade” a number of times on this thread. What do you mean about “free trade deal”. Do you mean membership of a FTA or tariff free trade with another country.

Tariff free trade deals are very different to FTA deals. An example say the U.K. agrees as part of deal with EU that it has “free trade” in relation to agri with EU. Then it wants to do say do a free trade deal with US which the US wants to include agri goods. Now there is a problem as many agri goods from USA are not allowed in EU. So U.K. will have to make a choice, deal with USA means the EU will close free trade on agri products from U.K.

The above goes across all areas and it’s why deals take years to negotiate.

In relation to Article 50 the EU says before we talk about our trade relationship we must have agreed People money and border. If those 3 not agreed then after 2 years U.K. is a third country who’s citizens have no rights in EU and will not even have visa free travel it’s own citizens in EU will have no rights to reside.

All the UK has to do is say on people all treated the same on money we agree to what ever we signed up to and on border because we been Good on people and money that issue is shelved till trade arrangement is sorted. But U.K. is so divided it can not at the moment agree anything.

Also to remember with free trade China has free trade with the EU on electronic goods but in return must agree to a lot of EU regulations and laws on for example IP.