Geopolitical impact of Brexit

[RandBlade]

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

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

[Hazir]

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

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

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

[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.

[Aimless]

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

[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.

[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.

[Hazir]

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.

[RandBlade]

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?

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:

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.

[earthJoker]

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

[Hazir]

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.

[RandBlade]

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.

[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.

[Hazir]

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.

[RandBlade]

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

[Hazir]

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.

[earthJoker]

No it isn't.

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

[Hazir]

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'.

[RandBlade]

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

[earthJoker]

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.

[Flixy]

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.

[Hazir]

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

Of course. You'd be crazy to work from the premise that you absolutely need a deal.

[Hazir]

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.

Aw, how cute, this unwarranted concern for my mental health. Doesn't change anything about the reality that 'no deal' is on the table as a possible outcome.

What I think is that there should be no doubt about why you are such a big fan of whatever Randblade writes; you hope somehow that his preferred divide and rule strategy might work and thus gets your own country out of the terrible mess it made for itself with a vote in favor of the MEI. Wishful thinking can be a strong motivator, but in the end it is just wishful thinking.

Even your big tunnel project didn't change anything about that. And how 'common sense' would it have been to assume that it would soften the EU refusal of all attempts of implementing MEI? Nobody is answering the phone still buddy. Regardless of your conviction that everyone is interested in a smooth process.

[earthJoker]

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.

I don't disagree with that. The EU doesn't need the deal. Nether the UK. Fortunately we have fallbacks like the WTO. But just because you don't need something, it doesn't mean it isn't prefeable. It's pretty much like sex, you can live without it, but do you really want to live without it? And of course it should only be made if both agree with the terms to have it.

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.

What makes you think that one implies the other? Look, I don't say that the talks between the UK and the EU couldn't fail, of course they can, but I find it rather pessimistic to assume that they will.

[earthJoker]

Doesn't change anything about the reality that 'no deal' is on the table as a possible outcome.

Of course it is on the table, it's just not the preferable dish, for either side.

[Hazir]

I didn't say that it was preferable, I said it was indispensible as a negotiating tool. Preferable is a Norwegian option in which the UK slips into the role of a client-state of the EU. For that they could keep most, but not all, the Common market has to offer.

And yes, I will be gloating a bit if that includes stripping a few of the opt-outs the UK as a EU member used to have.

[earthJoker]

I didn't say that it was preferable, I said it was indispensible as a negotiating tool.

It is totally OK to say that. It's just an obvious bluff if the EU tries to make us believe isn't interested in a good deal with the UK, nobody would buy this.

[Hazir]

It is totally OK to say that. It's just an obvious bluff if the EU tries to make us believe isn't interested in a good deal with the UK, nobody would buy this.

You are mistaken. It can't be a bluff for it to be effective.

It also is the direct result of the fact that the negotiations take place for no other reason than that the UK just voted to break the old agreement.

[RandBlade]

We didn't vote to break it. The option of leaving was a part of the old agreement, we've just democratically exercised that option.

Though even if we go with the notion we did break it, the idea the old agreement is more valuable to us because we voted to break it is bizarre logic. Presumably the one that chose to end the relationship is the one less enamored with it. It's like suggesting that a wife is the one who most needs a marriage because she just filed for divorce.

[earthJoker]

You are mistaken. It can't be a bluff for it to be effective.

If you say so Mr. Varoufakis.

[Hazir]

We didn't vote to break it. The option of leaving was a part of the old agreement, we've just democratically exercised that option.

Though even if we go with the notion we did break it, the idea the old agreement is more valuable to us because we voted to break it is bizarre logic. Presumably the one that chose to end the relationship is the one less enamored with it. It's like suggesting that a wife is the one who most needs a marriage because she just filed for divorce.

I didn't say the old agreement is more valuable to you. I say any agreement is more valuable to you. Because if this were a divorce, the assets were put out of your reach in the prenuptials.