Geopolitical impact of Brexit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

So the UK has given up its turn for the rotating presidency in the second half of 2017.

---

:o

Sensible decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Sensible decision.

---

One would think so. Also makes you wonder if the UK has indicated it intends to leave the EU :D

Not this year. We know this already :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Not this year. We know this already :o

---

What about the sky ?

:o

Interesting.

:o

Interesting, Angela Merkel gets a question what she thinks about delaying article 50 and gives a long winding answer about how the treaties contain the rules about the procedure, bla bla bla. She doesn't even get close to giving an answer and article 50 is not mentioned. But at the end she implies that the time for talking is not now.

:o

Gee whoever could have foreseen that?

And in unrelated news, PM May has said Article 50 will not be invoked in 2016. What a [non] shocker ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Gee whoever could have foreseen that?

And in unrelated news, PM May has said Article 50 will not be invoked in 2016. What a [non] shocker ...

---

She already said that before, this time the fact that Angela Merkel did not give consent could not be overlooked. I think the German term is 'abblitzen'.

Quote:

---

Theresa May in Berlin
Merkel will den Briten Zeit lassen

---

http://www.nzz.ch/international/euro...ssen-ld.106748

https://66.media.tumblr.com/ea5c3141...ao2_r1_500.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

She already said that before, this time the fact that Angela Merkel did not give consent could not be overlooked. I think the German term is 'abblitzen'.

---

Did not give consent? For what? Merkel has made clear she has no issue with us not invoking this year. We are clearly going to invoke next year for a 2019 Brexit, as I said all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Did not give consent? For what? Merkel has made clear she has no issue with us not invoking this year. We are clearly going to invoke next year for a 2019 Brexit, as I said all along.

---

Well, if you understand German, it wasn't so hard to understand that the way she expressed understanding was also not agreeing with the timeframe that was just proposed. She didn't imply you would get time to get ready till next year, she said she understood you needed some time to get ready. That could mean anything between; get started already and see you some time next year.

No it could mean anything between "get started later this year" or "see you sometime next year". 'You need time' != "get started already".

Realistically there is no reason to start negotiations with a fight over a simple matter of process. There is simply no realistic possibility that following that response to what May has said, that Merkel would suddenly turn around and kick off demanding that it gets invoked this year. That is not going to happen, there is no need for it to happen.

If May decides (as I think she should) to wait from early next year until after the German elections, that could raise eyebrows. 2016 though is now off the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No it could mean anything between "get started later this year" or "see you sometime next year". 'You need time' != "get started already".

Realistically there is no reason to start negotiations with a fight over a simple matter of process. There is simply no realistic possibility that following that response to what May has said, that Merkel would suddenly turn around and kick off demanding that it gets invoked this year. That is not going to happen, there is no need for it to happen.

If May decides (as I think she should) to wait from early next year until after the German elections, that could raise eyebrows. 2016 though is now off the table.

---

You must have missed the fact that the EU understands very well that not talking before notification is in its own interest. That means the 'negotiations' already have bogged down in a point of order. It the EU sticks to its position the only thing the UK wins is a longer period of EU membership. Counting on individual members to start talking is silly thinking because those countries run the risk of this all ending in no deal, in which case their selfish attempts will backfire.

So Randblade, what exactly are you going to do in those 5 months? Join our Swiss friend in keeping an eye on the colour of the sky ?

Previous observational studies conducted in Switzerland have strongly suggested that the sky is predominantly blue during the daytime for for the majority of the year in that region, however further research in the form of prospective randomized controlled studies are required to confirm that this is indeed the case also in The United Kingdom. plz give us EU money for this lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Findings from previous observational studies in Switzerland have strongly suggested that the sky is predominantly blue during the daytime for for the majority of the year, however further research in the form of prospective randomized controlled studies are required to confirm that this is indeed the case also in The United Kingdom. plz give us EU money for this lol

---

:D But not this year I hope.

And Hollande tells the sooner the better. And of course no negotiations without notification.

Because Hollande is calling the shots and will be around to sign the final deal ... :haha:

What do you expect Hollande to say? "Please, wait until I lose re-election ..." :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Because Hollande is calling the shots and will be around to sign the final deal ... :haha:

What do you expect Hollande to say? "Please, wait until I lose re-election ..." :haha:

---

You realise that the article 50 negotiations are about getting out of the EU and not about your future relations?

Exiting the EU could be done tomorrow if we want. Revoke the 1973 Act and we are out.

Article 50 is about negotiating our future relations with the EU which is why when we start negotiations with his successor they will determine our future.

http://www.thecommentator.com/articl...cess_explained

I think one of the main problems between the UK and EU in the upcoming negotiations is just a continuation of the old problem between the UK and EU. On the UK side they think it's just about free trade, on the EU side they don't. The first step the British side should make is to stop thinking that they are dealing with a free trade zone, because that way they're not getting anywhere. They should imagine they are dealing with another country with which they want a free trade deal. If they keep dreaming the impossible dream it will just lead to tears.

Every bit of serious commentary I've seen so far agrees that article 50 negotiatons technically only cover the withdrawal. There is no plausible way for them to cover the future relationship other than to take possible scenarios into account. A future relationship involving EEA membership would require negotiations with and the unanimous approval of all other EEA members. Other arrangements would likewise require separate negotiations. Unilaterally revoking the ECA and pretending you're no longer members effective immediately would be constitute breach of treaty obligations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Exiting the EU could be done tomorrow if we want. Revoke the 1973 Act and we are out.

Article 50 is about negotiating our future relations with the EU which is why when we start negotiations with his successor they will determine our future.

---

Actually it's not that easy. Revoking the 1973 Act doesn't solve any of the practicle problems that withdrawing from the EU causes. For example; who's going to pay the pensions of UK citizens who have worked for the EU? Or if there is an actual pension fund for these retirees, to who does this fund belong? What happens to UK citizens working for the EU? What more specifically happens to UK citizens working for the EU in the UK itself. Who will be paying for offices in the UK that the EU no longer will be using for agencies that were located in the UK? And like that there are a gazillion questions that need to be addressed under article 50.

IF a deal like that has been finalized and decided by QMV we can talk about a concurrent or subsequent deals about the future. Such a deal may or may not be subject to QMV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I think one of the main problems between the UK and EU in the upcoming negotiations is just a continuation of the old problem between the UK and EU. On the UK side they think it's just about free trade, on the EU side they don't. The first step the British side should make is to stop thinking that they are dealing with a free trade zone, because that way they're not getting anywhere. They should imagine they are dealing with another country with which they want a free trade deal. If they keep dreaming the impossible dream it will just lead to tears.

---

Well that's the only way I see to square the circle, which is a way of saying I agree.

I want, and the UK wants, free trade. We don't want any of the political nonsense that accumulated. You want a country. We don't.

A free trade agreement between the UK and the EU allows us both to get what we want. You get a country called Europe without us obstructing it, we get free trade, everyone is happy. IF that happens then Brexit will be good for both of us, don't you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Every bit of serious commentary I've seen so far agrees that article 50 negotiatons technically only cover the withdrawal. There is no plausible way for them to cover the future relationship other than to take possible scenarios into account. A future relationship involving EEA membership would require negotiations with and the unanimous approval of all other EEA members. Other arrangements would likewise require separate negotiations. Unilaterally revoking the ECA and pretending you're no longer members effective immediately would be constitute breach of treaty obligations.

---

Try reading Article 50:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article 50

Article 50

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


2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.


3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.


4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.


A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

---

It is the future Article 50 is there to deal with, not the past, as Article 50.2 says. Even if there was a failure to reach agreement on any of the issues Hazir raises then after 2 years Article 50.3 says we are out anyway unless we and you unanimously agree to continue negotiations. The future relationship is explicitly mentioned in the Article.

If we were to be seeking EEA membership then those negotiations would happen concurrently with other negotiations. Negotiations can happen concurrently rather than consecutively, that is why we have already started negotiations with non-EU nations on free trade deals.

The moment that you realize that the word "futute" is part of Article 50. Priceless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Well that's the only way I see to square the circle, which is a way of saying I agree.

I want, and the UK wants, free trade. We don't want any of the political nonsense that accumulated. You want a country. We don't.

A free trade agreement between the UK and the EU allows us both to get what we want. You get a country called Europe without us obstructing it, we get free trade, everyone is happy. IF that happens then Brexit will be good for both of us, don't you agree?
Try reading Article 50:
It is the future Article 50 is there to deal with, not the past, as Article 50.2 says. Even if there was a failure to reach agreement on any of the issues Hazir raises then after 2 years Article 50.3 says we are out anyway unless we and you unanimously agree to continue negotiations. The future relationship is explicitly mentioned in the Article.

If we were to be seeking EEA membership then those negotiations would happen concurrently with other negotiations. Negotiations can happen concurrently rather than consecutively, that is why we have already started negotiations with non-EU nations on free trade deals.

---

Taking account, not including. Not a trivial difference. And you are right, you would still be out. The problems would then have to be dealt with by both sides seperately.

Well indeed because if the future relationship that is concurrently negotiated is for instance the EEA then that negotiation can't be concluded by the EU alone (it would need the agreement of Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and potentially Switzerland), so the Article 50 negotiations will need to take into account that which is being negotiated concurrently. Negotiations will be concluded when both sets of concurrent arrangements are complete - or failing that two years unless extended.

You can only take account of something that you have at least an idea of what it is. That means, you need to negotiate what framework will replace the current situation along with the negotiation of the Brexit itself. Which of course is the most sensible thing anyway. A smooth transition is in the interest of everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

You can only take account of something that you have at least an idea of what it is. That means, you need to negotiate what framework will replace the current situation along with the negotiation of the Brexit itself. Which of course is the most sensible thing anyway. A smooth transition is in the interest of everyone.

---

No it isn't.

Now you're just being either naive, obtuse or silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Now you're just being either naive, obtuse or silly.

---

Not at all, only yesterday I experienced again that all I needed to get a deal on my terms was implying I didn't need a deal at all. (And no that wasn't me trying to bargain on a purchase). You'd be crazy to give away that position before you even start talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

No it isn't.

---

OK, it's in the interest of everyone with a brain who is able to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

OK, it's in the interest of everyone with a brain who is able to use it.

---

Assuming we need a deal limits our freedom in negotiations. And since having a deal with the UK is one which might have advantages, but is not essential to our future, we should not act as if we need one. Just like WE don't need a deal with your country blue sky boy, not even if you can't imagine not having a deal because it's 'in everybody's interest', but we know it is a 'lot more in your interests'.

Having a deal with the EU equally has advantages for us but is not essential to our future by the same logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Assuming we need a deal limits our freedom in negotiations. And since having a deal with the UK is one which might have advantages, but is not essential to our future, we should not act as if we need one. Just like WE don't need a deal with your country blue sky boy, not even if you can't imagine not having a deal because it's 'in everybody's interest', but we know it is a 'lot more in your interests'.

---

I think the recent events didn't go well for your psyche. You should take some time off or see some help. I mean this seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

I think the recent events didn't go well for your psyche. You should take some time off or see some help. I mean this seriously.

---

Not that I disagree with you, but Hazir has a point that a deal is far more important to the UK than the EU (especially when you consider political effects). And that does influence your negotiation position.

Note that I would prefer a smooth transition, but a deal that gives the UK everything they had could be a bad deal for the EU.