We can. But not in 18 months. Look at how long CETA took. And Turkey might not be the best example, either.
Printable View
18 months is achievable if we put our mind to it, especially if we agree transitional arrangements.
Normally with third party negotiations like Canada etc we are starting with two completely different sets of arrangements and laws etc and trying to negotiate where to merge them to be the same and who should give way where. This isn't the case for the UK, we already have the same laws etc where relevant to the EU as we are already a part of the EU. Instead in future we may divert but if we sign agreements not to divert in critical areas X, Y and Z that are necessary for the free trade agreement then to simplify things that is the end of the matter. Much easier.
Yeah, easy. Right. Nevermind actual experts saying that it's far from easy. Pardon me if I trust the word of people who actually craft such agreements over armchair generals.
Keep shifting those goalposts. I never said it would be easy, I said it would be different to normal.
Dude, "easy" is equal to "achievable in 18 months". Agreements on trade deals are usually measured in years. Not to mention that discussions on anything trade related will come after the discussions on what the Brexit will actually mean.
I never shifted any goalposts. I pointed out that you're deluding yourself.
How a Brexiter can complain about changing goalposts with a straight face is beyond me.
Transitional agreement = Continued and full application of EU law, being under ECJ jurisdiction and NO voting powers. We can live with that, but can you?
Sure we were routinely outvoted anyway and I was hoping to Remain until a few months before the Referendum it's not like I'm a hardcore leaver.
Loki because that's what's been happening by Remoaners ever since the vote. Hence my joke at the top of the thread about "but you haven't invoked Article 50 yet".
Semi-off topic: https://dutchreview.com/news/interna...nt-annexation/
Dude, you had Veto-rights on the important stuff. Nobody could "outvote" you.
It's the same thing which will make the exit talks very dicey - because everybody has veto-rights. "Outvoted". Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
So you're saying nothing important was decided by QMV?
Well, let's see. Nice, and later Lisbon, did indeed change some stuff from unamity to QMV. Strangely enough, this change required a unanimous vote. So, you're complaining about rules you yourself established.
I think that's what the word "hipocrisy" is for.
Oh, and regarding "routinely": let's have a look at 2008 (since that's a year easily found). How many times were you outvoted?
So, there were 147 Council decisions. 128 of them passed unanimously. For the rest, there was a number of abstentions (32 in total) and 8 real counter votes.
Two by Luxembourg, and one each for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, and Portugal.
Yeah. "Regularly", my ass.
I did look some more. November 2016:
Total decisions by the council: 8. The Uk voted against: Zilch.
October 2016:
Decisions: 8. Uk voted against: Nada.
I'm detecting a trend here. Have fun looking for yourself.
I voted against Lisbon not for it. Well as close as possible to it I voted for a party pledging a referendum on the EU Constitution as it was then called when we had an election as Indeed did all UK parties in the 2005 election. Unfortunately because the Constitution was rejected by the French and Dutch it was rebranded Lisbon and passed without asking the French, Dutch or indeed the British what we think. And we in fact threw out the Brown government that did that dirty deed and the rest is history.
I'm a firm believer that no government should bind it's successors and so no in no way do I accept we endorsed Lisbon. Brown's government did violating his parties manifesto and was chucked out of office afterwards. If this was a regular piece of legislation domestically we could repeal it but because it was an international Treaty that was not an option.
Had the government that implemented the WTO done so having distinctly pledged at the election not to without a referendum first then yes it would be very dodgy the way it was endorsed.
Actually very little is decided by voting at all in the EU. Holding a formal vote over a subject almost amounts to admitting defeat. It's something I don't particularly like in the way the EU works, but it is very uncommon for a country to be outvoted. And that includes the UK.
All very nice, but international agreements are not ruled by internal considerations of a high contracting party. To introduce your way of thinking in the way you deal with treaties means you are not a suitable party to engage with.
In the real world walking away from your liabilities means you become a pariah. And if you want to get some idea of what that means, ask the Argentineans.
If you believe no government should ever be able to bind its successors, in any situation, then it doesn't really matter whether or not a govt went against its own election manifesto in joining an international treaty. And, if my recollection of our most recent discussion is even remotely accurate, your position is indeed that even the most kosher international treaties are in practice non-binding for the purposes of international law.
Now, who is changing the goalposts here? You were just talking about how you were "regularly outvoted". I just proved that this is bullshit.
In case you're unable to comprehend your own language: "Regularly" means "more than once, on a predictable basis".
And this "no government should be bound by its successors" is equally bullshit and shows that you are a moron of the highest order. Go back to your pub and stay there.
Okay look RB says a lot of objectionable things but that there was wholly unwarranted. Go to the corner and take a time out :o
Or to a pub :downcast:
No, it was not unwarranted. First he accuses me of "changing goalposts" and then he does it himself. Next, he complains about being outvoted which is a complete and utter lie. There are countless examples of this type of asshattery.
Plus his notions about "governments should not be bound by the decisions of their predecessors" shows that he has no fucking clue at all of how international treaties work and are upheld. And this is the same guy who consistently rambles on about the great chances his country will get through the same treaties he feels countries should not feel bound by as soon as their government changes. He does not even comprehend how absurdly stupid such a notion is.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uplo...gure-1-Hix.png
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does...-of-ministers/
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uplo...es-3-and-4.png
Apologise at your leisure. You can cherry pick as many individual months as you want but if we had.the same figures as the French for instance things might be different.
As for Treaties, Treaties should not be used as a routine form of legislation and for special circumstances only. Luckily this Treaty provided an exit clause and we are using it.
I don't dispute that he's guilty of all sorts of crimes and misdeeds, I'm just saying that the response--the punishment, if you will--is excessively harsh, especially in light of the fact that RB's frustrating and often misinformed views of the world are rarely grounded in malice so much as they represent legitimate philosophical positions. They may be more wrong than Trump's appreciation for his daughter's ass but not criminally so.
I just think it's good to maintain a reasonable level of anger and vitriol. I mean, if you're this pissed off about his views on international law, what are you going to say when he says something even more heinous, like advocating for blanket surveillance of Pakistanis or claiming that the UK is going to win the World Cup? :downcast:
Most importantly, just think about what this does to you and your well-being. It can't be good. Just give it some consideration. You might have no regard for RB's feelings but it's prudent to look after yourself.
We are not walking away from our liabilities we are honouring them in full. The irony is that the despicable Lisbon ratification was precisely what allowed us to Leave by invoking Article 50. Until then there was no exit. If you don't want people to exit from Treaties don't include an exit clause and then push them to invoking it.
I believe that Treaties are binding for as long as you abide by them. If you wish to be a party to a Treaty then abide by it and honour it. If you don't then withdraw from the Treaty by whatever exit mechanism exists if one does (as here) or by repudiating it if none does.
What I do not believe is that you should claim to be honouring a Treaty while deliberately dishonouring it.
Stop changing the goalposts. You just said you oppose any treaty that binds the successors of those who sign it. EVERY treaty does that. That's what separates a treaty from whatever is the British version of an executive agreement.
If your real problem is not having a veto as new issues come up, then you really should oppose membership in NATO (for most of its decisions), the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO (on compliance issues, where you don't even get a vote). You should also oppose treaties, like the NPT, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Genocide Convention, etc. So would you like to change the goalposts yet again, or do you think the UK should withdraw from all of its treaties?
That's not what I said.
It may verge on sophistry but he didn't say he opposed all treaties, only that he was opposed to the notion that international treaties agreed to by one government also bind subsequent governments. In other words, he likes NATO and doesn't want to leave it, but feels that the UK doesn't have to abide by the treaty if it doesn't want to.
Exactly!
If the circumstances arise where we deem it necessary to quit NATO then we reserve that right.
Since I believe we can quit Treaties when we want to, I don't find them binding indefinitely so don't oppose them. Loki completely mangled his interpretation of my oft stated thinking by substituting his belief that Treaties are binding in perpetuity for my one.
If Donald Trump were to agree a Treaty with Putin that gave Russia the ability to change American domestic legislation, gave Russia oversight over the CIA, forbid many Democrat policies from becoming the law etc . . . And managed to ram that three Congress then Loki would you want to repeal that Treaty or be like "that's international law now so we have to do this forever".
If that was followed by landslide victories for the Democrats and a crushing humiliation for the GOP then should the GOP Russia treaty be untouchable?
So many problems in one sentence. Donald Trump can't ratify treaties. So he's free to sign whatever he wants with Putin; Congress wouldn't ratify it. Furthermore, treaties can't violate the US Constitution. This one certainly would. Meanwhile, the Lisbon Treaty was signed through all the legal and constitutional mechanisms that exist in Britain. Try again.
Rand, remind me why any country should sign a treaty with the UK if the UK has no intention of following treaties the second it becomes inconvenient?
I am not certain why you direct this at me; Theresa May sending the letter with the notification as per article 50 almost made me as happy as a moderate 'kipper'. I even feel a bit sorry for het getting all sorts of flak for not mentioning Gibraltar. As if that would have stopped our side from giving Spain a veto on that. Didn't these remoaners pay any attention to the draft negotiations mandate that probably will be given to Barnier? Basically everything the British PM suggested was wiped of the table like it needed to be set all over again.
I knew you'd jump on the ratification hence why I'd already edited that in that it was able to be rammed through Congress. The Lisbon Treaty was signed and ratified by the government of the day and is being exited by a future government under the provisions the original one ratified. The exit clause is there just like NATO already has an exit clause too.
Interesting that you'd think the Treaty would violate the Constitution as while I was trying to be deliberately outrageous in that Treaty some of those provisos are what we are subjected to as EU members.
Countries should sign Treaties with the UK on the understanding it will be honoured for as long as all parties find it convenient. What's so objectionable to that? Other parties are welcome to exercise exit clauses too.
Randblade, even though you are right in principle, you clearly have no idea how treates work in practise. Even your adamant claims that any high contracting party has the right to withdraw from a treaty is correct. But that is subject to rules either set in the treaty itself or in the Vienna Treaty Convention. Meaning that even getting out of the deal is subject to agreements entered into by previous governments. Disregarding those rules would make the UK a party with which one can not do deals of any kind.
I have no qualms with accepting temporary transitions or notice periods as being part and parcel of sound governance. The point is for the long term that once the Eg 1 year (NATO) or 2 year (Lisbon) period is over then unless otherwise negotiated the Treaty ends.
If you want to be absolutely literal then it isn't possible to pass a new statute in a single day so therefore in the time it takes to change the law the prior government is of course still bound. The principle never meant the law can be changed overnight, just that it can if necessary be changed ultimately.
Don't forget that even if you can leave treaties whenever hoog want, doing so will make it harder to reach new deals because the other party will be less confident you'll stay in.
Yes that's politics.
In his defense, Loki firmly cleaves to the idea that you can't actually leave a treaty unless it has an exit mechanism because other countries would disapprove (even if they would also disapprove of you using an existing exit mechanism) because disapproval makes it physically and philosophically impossible.