Yes which get signed off by all parties. If you think the UK is going to sign off a statement saying we have invoked Article 50 when we haven't then that's an odd idea.
Printable View
Yes which get signed off by all parties. If you think the UK is going to sign off a statement saying we have invoked Article 50 when we haven't then that's an odd idea.
The reason why talks before the notification will not happen (where I hold the believe that notification can't be held off once the 27 have had enough, regardless of the British desires) is because that would mean re-negotiation of the membership terms of a member of the EU by another name. The reason why the february agreement collapsed automatically with the announcement of the results of the referendum have a direct correlation with this. The EU will only talk to the UK in a capacity of them leaving the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That the UK would prefer to negotiate while still being a regular member is understandable; it gives them a whisper of protection against the harshest demands that other states may have.
What people like Randblade are looking for signals that there is room for that; however, if you actually read all that leaders say there can be no doubt about that even though that some of them are willing to give the UK time to get its act (government) together and others much less so, all of them frame that in the light of the UK being out. The German FM said it rather clear when he specified that many things could be talked about; excluding the fact of Brexit itself.
A week ago you were telling everybody that treaties are only worth something if both sides are willing to implement them. This week you totally disregard the fact that this is actually the way things work between two sides in the international arena. Besides that quick switch in principles I have to point out to you that as far as article 50 is concerned your voice on anything considering your exit is not relevant to the EU. So if the other 27 conclude what they have heard is that you intend to leave, your only recourse is the ECJ. Where you will have to let the Justices in Luxemburg decide whether or not the UK has the intention of leaving the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That would be great fun for all.
And here we have it; 1,20. Any big difference between being number 5 and 6 Rand?
You must be smoking some weird stuff lately. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Nope, even reports about the process to the House of Lords point out that the legalities of the process may take a backseat to the politics of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
We shall see....
That s my point anyway; it may all go according to rules. Untill there are attempts to use the rules for leverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
I'd like to remind you of one tidbit I had forgotten about myself: the sunset clause in the February deal. It said that the deal with Cameron would be off the table in case there were a referendum result in favour of leaving. It looks very much like the people who thought that up were way ahead of the Brexiteers. It blocked the approach Johnson promoted before the man himself even got on board with Leave.
I just think it's way too early to call for that. If the UK waits longer than until the new government than you can start getting impatient. This hurry is typical SPD style, trying to lecture people would they should do just for the sake of patronizing.
So how long before Britain is #7? Before or after Brexit is complete?
You have to remember, though, that the UK's fuckery is having a negative effect on other countries as well :o
I think it's brought about more by the suggestion by Johnson that we should not hold our breath waiting for notification.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
But what exactly is uncertain and why? The UK has voted to leave. That cannot be in doubt. One of the outcomes of the negotiations must be that the UK will leave the EU. Until that has been determined, there can be no real progress on negotiations about the UK's future relationship with the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
By starting formal negotiations asap you can reduce uncertainty at least about how long this process is likely to take. Waiting would only increase the duration as well as the magnitude of uncertainty.
If it would be a waste of time to hold formal negotiations because there are elections up ahead then it must surely be an equal if not greater waste of time to have informal negotiations that may have to be reset after those elections, if you believe that the outcomes of said elections will have any relevance to the negotiations. Better then to reduce the potential for those elections to undo all the progress made over several months of negotiations.
By starting formal talks you can also make it crystal clear to the British public, in the event of a new general election this year, that you're committed to Brexit and that there's no going back.
You can also perhaps have some more clarity in the matter of what the options are for the future EU/UK relationship and get a clear answer as to whether or not your new govt will have the mandate to accept any deal that requires free movement.
I guess they are afraid they may have to do an article 50-49 U turn. In which case they actually may loose all their opt-outs. :D
Standard & Poors have now cut the UK's AAA credit rating, stating the result leads to "a deterioration of the UK's economic performance, including its large financial services sector", and will "weaken the predictability, stability, and effectiveness of policymaking in the UK".Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Sterling has dropped 3 points against the bottle cap and the rifle cartridge
But everything is just fine and dandy with the economy. And who are these experts anyway?
Since the UK made its financial services sector so important to its overall economy, that should have been an expected outcome. I'm not a fan of the ratings agencies in the first place (and there wasn't any real reform after the global financial crisis), but what's surprising is that London bankers/financiers are surprised!Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Maybe it does make sense, though....since they never took a Brexit seriously, and didn't factor that into their risk models. Oops?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
They aren't really surprised, it was sort of announced already. It's more of a problem for British companies than for the state. At least in the short run.
Agreed. In the short run guys like Timbuk are panicking and trying to figure out their next move. Sorry, Tim, but the financial sector was designed around bubbles and busts. At least you got a fancy car?
Seriously GGT don't be a dick, this is bad enough. Just leave it.
Can everyone please stay from arguments about people's personal lives? Do we really need more enmity here?
"everyone"
NO. I can appreciate Timbuk's dilemma, and discuss policy at the same time. While I'm sorry he might lose his job in London, I'm not sorry for him. He's made a lot of money in the financial sector, and shared his exploits on this forum, including pictures of his new baby blue Porsche!
This is not emnity. This is not personal. This is about policy......
In case common courtesy is a foreign concept: just because you think something is ok doesn't mean that the targets of your "affection" agree.
People don't come here to be lectured by you on their alleged personal failings.
They come here to be lectured by everyone on their real political failings.
OK, but I wasn't "lecturing" anyone, let alone Tim. :donkey: I don't begrudge his personal profits from the financial industry....but that doesn't mean the financial industry isn't screaming for structural changes/reforms. :bored:
Come to think of it....maybe "being a dick" is what spurs new legislation?
No, just don't be a dick. Say sorry and move on so we can focus on holding RB accountable for the rise of British nazism.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That made me chuckle, untill I started to think :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The short term is the short term, and any FI worth its salt should be able to ride out the current short term uncertainty and plunge in the markets. As Mark Carney said in his post-Brexit announcement, thanks to regulatory restructuring under Basel II and III banks' capital requirements are now 10 times what they were prior to the 2008 crash.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So though the short term is worrying, it is the long term impact to the financial services industry in London that is the real worry.
If access to the EFTA is not granted to the UK, or is granted in a limited way, or most importantly if the European banking passport is not granted to UK centred banks, or there is some other financial penalty imposed on trades conducted by UK-based FIs with the EU, then there is far less reason for banks to headquarter in the UK and for foreign banks to base themselves here. The UK will just become any other country with little incentive for financial services to be here. Banks will massively reduce their presence in the UK, expertise and skilled staff will follow the money and move abroad, wealth is drained, and the UK will no longer enjoy punching way above its weight as it currently does.
The above questions are what need to be negotiated in the coming months. And by the gods I hope they are favourable; not just for my sake but for the sake of the future prosperity of the UK.
That's why I don't understand why people - possibly people who will be in de driver's seat in the UK soon - are playing games with the process. The chances for the UK to secure a - relatively - good deal are not exactly made better by that. The longer the wait, the bigger the chance of a horrible outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
How can they? Currently it's Cameron who is in the driver seat and he already said he won't do it.
No the reason the Feb agreement collapsed was because the Feb agreement had a condition on it that it will come into effect once the UK confirmed it was remaining within the EU. Which was entirely reasonable because a Brexit vote makes the agreement moot and makes a new agreement necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Which is why it is the preferred path for the Brexiteers. Perfectly sensible to try that. Though I think there's a time limit on this anyway for domestic purposes, this can go ahead in either one of two ways. A new government says "this is the type of deal we will seek to agree" and puts it to the country in a General Election to get a mandate to agree to it. I think this is the most likely path especially if as I hope the government is going to go down the EFTA/EEA route as that will give a mandate to Leave via the EFTA which the Vote Leave campaign did not offer. After a GE negotiations begin straight away. Or the new government seeks to get the deal agreed and implemented in what is left of this Parliament before seeking to go to the voters to get a new mandate at the next scheduled election in 2020. Under that path, the deal would need to be complete by 2020 as the electorate will be unforgiving if it isn't.Quote:
That the UK would prefer to negotiate while still being a regular member is understandable; it gives them a whisper of protection against the harshest demands that other states may have.
You seem to miss the fact I 100% agree with this. There is no plausible path to the UK not Brexiting now, what's done is done. To go through all this turmoil and not leave would be the worst of all possible world's and unfair on the rest of the continent. Many remainers still hold forlorn hope that Brexit is not really going to happen, but it has to now.Quote:
What people like Randblade are looking for signals that there is room for that; however, if you actually read all that leaders say there can be no doubt about that even though that some of them are willing to give the UK time to get its act (government) together and others much less so, all of them frame that in the light of the UK being out. The German FM said it rather clear when he specified that many things could be talked about; excluding the fact of Brexit itself.
I stand by what I've said. If you are trying to convince me that the other 27 can ignore the treaties and act differently and we have no recourse then that proves my point! Treaties only hold water if both parties act in good faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No once again I agree with what you said that it's not that meaningful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
So overall I've agreed with almost everything you've said.
That has been determined. That is though the only thing that has been determined. There is a lot still to determine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
1: Will we seek to join the EFTA/EEA to remain in the Single Market with Freedom of Movement?
2: Will we seek to join the EFTA/EEA but negotiate a new bespoke deal that does not yet exist that excludes Freedom of Movement?
3: Will we seek to join the EFTA but not the EEA and negotiate bespoke deals Swiss-style?
4: Will we seek to leave everything and negotiate our own bespoke deals outside the EFTA framework altogether?
5: Will we seek to simply leave and rely upon WTO non-discrimination rules?
6: Will we seek something else altogether?
The referendum campaign did not ask that, so it has not been answered. The Tory leadership election effectively will largely but not exhaustively try to answer this question with leadership candidates setting out their stalls on what kind of Brexit they will seek. That then may or may not be then be followed by a General Election to confirm that is what the nation is OK with and not just 150k Tory members like myself.
We won't be negotiating that we are exiting, that is certain. The negotiations will be to achieve a particular type of exit but that is uncertain so far. What is the point in negotiating say a leave to the EEA if we then end up negotiating for bespoke deals outside the EEA, or vice-versa?
No because if the negotiations aren't finished they'll likely be extended anyway. Starting negotiating without knowing what you are negotiating is just silly and a waste of time.Quote:
By starting formal negotiations asap you can reduce uncertainty at least about how long this process is likely to take. Waiting would only increase the duration as well as the magnitude of uncertainty.
Informal talks can go down multiple paths, while formal talks will be basically down one.Quote:
If it would be a waste of time to hold formal negotiations because there are elections up ahead then it must surely be an equal if not greater waste of time to have informal negotiations that may have to be reset after those elections, if you believe that the outcomes of said elections will have any relevance to the negotiations. Better then to reduce the potential for those elections to undo all the progress made over several months of negotiations.
Indeed. One possibility I've heard discussed is that the government should invoke Article 50 the day it calls the election. Otherwise a party could seek to reverse the referendum in its manifesto.Quote:
By starting formal talks you can also make it crystal clear to the British public, in the event of a new general election this year, that you're committed to Brexit and that there's no going back.
That is why I think there is likely to be a general election, in order to seek such a mandate.Quote:
You can also perhaps have some more clarity in the matter of what the options are for the future EU/UK relationship and get a clear answer as to whether or not your new govt will have the mandate to accept any deal that requires free movement.
I hope the UK keeps the banking passport (though we've probably got no chance of keeping euro clearing). However I'm optimistic London will thrive for multiple reasons even if we don't keep it. If you think of the big financial cities then many of them are not in big blocs (think Hong Kong, Singapore etc) - London has multiple areas of strength that will survive with or without passporting: A flexible regulatory environment, credible rule of law, expertise and experience etc - for what we lose in passporting (which is worst case scenario) we have other gains like losing some pernicious EU regulations on banking and bonuses etc recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
It's all a bit pie in the sky for me. You talk about the end results the British people may want and try to get a mandate for that with the British people before you start the talks. That may sound very democratic but it's highly impractical because you don't need a deal with the British people but with the EU. And if you show up in Brussels with a specific mandate and that mandate happens to be what the EU doesn't want, there is no deal.
Even the rose tinted LDP option of running in the elections on a platform promising maintaining EU membership sounds more practicle and achievable.
My bet is that anything the EU could take away from the UK but that the UK would like to retain will come at a price. And the most likely price is regulation and oversight by the EU.
I get that democracy is a bit pie in the sky for you but I think it's refreshing to know what kind of Europe the country wants to be a part of rather than that which the powers that be have deigned to make available.
When did direct democracy become the only form of democracy? Maybe you should directly ask your people how much they want to pay in taxes, exactly what those revenues should be spent on, and which kind of people deserve to have rights. I hear it works great in California.