Merged Now What?

[ceptimus]

No. You have to trigger Article 50 to BEGIN the negotiations - and there is nothing in the rules that allows you back out once you've triggered it.

The EU have said they're not prepared to negotiate informally BEFORE we trigger Article 50 - though I suppose that could yet change.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. You have to trigger Article 50 to BEGIN the negotiations - and there is nothing in the rules that allows you back out once you've triggered it.

The EU have said they're not prepared to negotiate informally BEFORE we trigger Article 50 - though I suppose that could yet change.

On one of these threads (it's a bit of a mess now with the different topics) it was suggested that while there is nothing in the treaty to allow you to withdraw your resignation there's nothing that doesn't either. In that case legal opinion suggests that yes it could be stopped. Although I guess that's not conclusive.

 

[MikeG]

......The EU have said they're not prepared to negotiate informally BEFORE we trigger Article 50 - though I suppose that could yet change.

Yeah, it'll have to, even if it is just for the really basic stuff like naming their negotiating teams, assigning office space, and timetabling meetings. There doesn't have to be any substance discussed.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, it'll have to, even if it is just for the really basic stuff like naming their negotiating teams, assigning office space, and timetabling meetings. There doesn't have to be any substance discussed.

The EU is doing, and will do, nothing in response to the referendum. It will act in response to a triggering of Article 50.

One thing that's been made clear is that free trade means free movement. As we know, Gove is willing to give up free trade if it comes on those terms.

 

[CapelDodger]

On one of these threads (it's a bit of a mess now with the different topics) it was suggested that while there is nothing in the treaty to allow you to withdraw your resignation there's nothing that doesn't either. In that case legal opinion suggests that yes it could be stopped. Although I guess that's not conclusive.

There'll be injunctions before bedtime, mark my words.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah, it'll have to, even if it is just for the really basic stuff like naming their negotiating teams, assigning office space, and timetabling meetings. There doesn't have to be any substance discussed.

Any reason why?

Because the UK is so important that they will just have to do what they are told?

One common thread of every single Leave argument - "the world will bend to suit my preferences"

Seriously I had someone tell me today that leaving the EU will get proportional representation into the UK Parliament. Simply because he wants that to happen.

 

[MikeG]

........As we know, Gove is willing to give up free trade if it comes on those terms.

Yours isn't a response to what I was talking about, but never mind. Gove will come third in the leadership election, I reckon. He will be seen as treacherous and toxic by many MPs, and least likely of all the candidates to unite the party. So, I wouldn't be too interested in what Gove wants. However, I would suggest that they do seriously consider giving up free trade. Plenty of countries trade perfectly well with the EU without free trade agreements, and it may be the price of a free trade arrangement is just too high.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yours isn't a response to what I was talking about, but never mind.

That's what conversation is like.

Gove will come third in the leadership election, I reckon. He will be seen as treacherous and toxic by many MPs, and least likely of all the candidates to unite the party. So, I wouldn't be too interested in what Gove wants.

Noted. And not just by me, I suspect.

What Gove said about Johnson is what a lot of people have been thinking, and he gave Johnson every chance to prove them wrong. In fact he proved exactly the opposite - that he's useless.

However, I would suggest that they do seriously consider giving up free trade. Plenty of countries trade perfectly well with the EU without free trade agreements, and it may be the price of a free trade arrangement is just too high.

By which you presumably mean free movement of labour. The other three freedoms - goods, services and capital - are hardly contentious, after all.

What do you regard as the price of immigration? Not in a monetary sense, but philosophically. Existentially, even.

 

[CapelDodger]

Seriously I had someone tell me today that leaving the EU will get proportional representation into the UK Parliament. Simply because he wants that to happen.

It's the Philosopher's Stone.

 

[angrysoba]

Any reason why?

Because the UK is so important that they will just have to do what they are told?

One common thread of every single Leave argument - "the world will bend to suit my preferences"

Seriously I had someone tell me today that leaving the EU will get proportional representation into the UK Parliament. Simply because he wants that to happen.

If you dream hard enough anything can happen.

 

[ceptimus]

I think giving up on free trade of goods would be okay - I think mutually beneficial low tariffs could be negotiated fairly swiftly on goods.

I think politicians are more worried about the financial services and trading done by the City of London in the EU. European countries all want a bigger slice of that action and I suspect the EU will play hardball in the negotiations over it.

 

[CapelDodger]

If you dream hard enough anything can happen.

Now I feel bad for not dreaming hard enough.

Can you sell me something to fix that?

 

[CapelDodger]

I think giving up on free trade of goods would be okay - I think mutually beneficial low tariffs could be negotiated fairly swiftly on goods.

I think politicians are more worried about the financial services and trading done by the City of London in the EU. European countries all want a bigger slice of that action and I suspect the EU will play hardball in the negotiations over it.

That's a lot of thinking you're doing there, pilgrim. Has something got you spooked?

 

[ceptimus]

Eh?

 

[CapelDodger]

Eh?

I get that a lot.

"Mutually beneficial low tarrifs" do sound attractive, but the benefits of tarrifs, low or high, are a matter of judgement by each party. Unless one assumes that low tarrifs are in principle mutually beneficial, in which case we're doing the best we can with none at all as currently pertains, then the level that's mutually beneficial will necessarily become subject to contention.

Remember that lawyers and diplomats will be involved, and contention is always to their mutual benefit.

 

[angrysoba]

Now I feel bad for not dreaming hard enough.

Can you sell me something to fix that?

Booze and fags. It worked for Farage.

 

[McHrozni]

I think giving up on free trade of goods would be okay - I think mutually beneficial low tariffs could be negotiated fairly swiftly on goods.

Assuming that economy is the only thing at stake. EU could stand some damage for itself slightly by tariffs on British goods, if it means ending the Euroseptic dreams for good. UK a lot less so. Trade with Britain is about 5% of all EU (sans UK) exports, whereas exports to EU amount to 56% of British exports. Who do you think has the upper hand anyway?

I think politicians are more worried about the financial services and trading done by the City of London in the EU. European countries all want a bigger slice of that action and I suspect the EU will play hardball in the negotiations over it.

This is one of the main reasons why Brexit is inherently a bad idea. Free movement of goods aside, the cornerstones of British economy are existentially linked to the treaties with the EU. UK can not easily replace that, and EU would gladly take the financial business away from London and into Paris or Frankfurt or wherever. It's an inherent weakness that will require substantial concessions from UK.
Furthermore, once Article 50 is triggered, UK doesn't have two years to negotiate a deal on this. It has half the time, if that - the banks will start leaving well before their operations will be hampered by lack of an EU passport. If there is no deal or it doesn't come quickly enough, EU looses a powerful negotiating tool in exchange for a substantial slice of British business, which is a good enough deal in on itself. UK gets the shaft and likely knows this as well.

The problem doesn't actually end there. If UK doesn't use the Article 50 soon, it will demonstrate that UK is not serious about leaving the EU. It will most likely keep it's already privileged position, but forget about extorting an even better deal for the next 50 years or so.

It just shows how poorly thought out the Brexitard position is. UK will come out weaker, practically regardless of what happens.

McHrozni

 

[MikeG]

.........This is one of the main reasons why Brexit is inherently a bad idea. Free movement of goods aside, the cornerstones of British economy are existentially linked to the treaties with the EU. UK can not easily replace that, and EU would gladly take the financial business away from London and into Paris or Frankfurt or wherever. It's an inherent weakness that will require substantial concessions from UK.

It is worth pointing out that there isn't a free market in financial services in the EU. UK insurance companies, for instance, can't sell insurance directly in Berlin or Bratislava or wherever. It might also be worth remembering that many consider our economy is seriously out of balance at the moment because of its dependency on financial services, which periodically **** up so badly that the whole world ends up paying for their mess, and without them suffering any consequences in terms of their ridiculous bonuses.

I for one wouldn't be disappointed to see a long term correction to this imbalance, which has such huge distorting influences in our economy, and which has produced many repugnant contrasts between extremely rich (and
entitled) people who buy and sell notional stuff all day, and ordinary folk working just as hard buying, selling and producing real stuff all day.......

......... EU looses a powerful negotiating tool.......

loses

 

[MikeG]

........By which you presumably mean free movement of labour. The other three freedoms - goods, services and capital - are hardly contentious, after all.........

Why would you presume that? No, you're wrong. I mean stay out of the single market altogether. It isn't complicated.

 

[McHrozni]

I for one wouldn't be disappointed to see a long term correction to this imbalance, which has such huge distorting influences in our economy, and which has produced many repugnant contrasts between extremely rich (and
entitled) people who buy and sell notional stuff all day, and ordinary folk working just as hard buying, selling and producing real stuff all day......

If you think UK will be better off not having a disproportionally massive contributor to the taxes, that's your prerogative.

loses

Let's settle for "trades"

McHrozni