PDA

View Full Version : Article 50 won't be triggered this year under Gove



Milkyway
1st July 2016, 11:20
Gove says article 50 won't be triggered this year.

Tory leadership contest and Brexit latest - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120)

Now, I say, it will never be triggred! :rollin:

BlasterBates
1st July 2016, 11:29
The EU won't negotiate any trade terms until exit negotiations are completed, which themselves would be complicated and drawn out.

Brexit: Tensions emerge over UK-EU trade negotiations - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36682735)

not looking good for the next PM, what a farce.

That's what happens when you pick a fight with someone who is 10 times the size of you.

:D

GB9
1st July 2016, 11:46
Gove says article 50 won't be triggered this year.

Tory leadership contest and Brexit latest - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120)

Now, I say, it will never be triggred! :rollin:

Keep dreaming. Gove won't be in a position to trigger anything.

We have a stand off. The EU is correct in that why would they bother negotiating an exit when no one had said they are going to exit.

Equally, they know we will exit and are getting mightily peed off waiting.

The French have already indicated freedom of movement is o the table, so who blinks next?

Milkyway
1st July 2016, 12:01
Keep dreaming. Gove won't be in a position to trigger anything.

We have a stand off. The EU is correct in that why would they bother negotiating an exit when no one had said they are going to exit.

Equally, they know we will exit and are getting mightily peed off waiting.

The French have already indicated freedom of movement is o the table, so who blinks next?

Eh? What is there to dream?

I am saying he won't be triggering it, and in fact we as UK will NOT (and cannot afford to!) trigger it at all, and we will remain in the EU for ever, no matter who wins the fancy dress contest.

Brexit is nothing but chaos!

BrilloPad
1st July 2016, 12:03
Eh? What is there to dream?

I am saying he won't be triggering it, and in fact we as UK will NOT (and cannot afford to!) trigger it at all, and we will remain in the EU for ever, no matter who wins the fancy dress contest.

Brexit is nothing but chaos!

So much for the "democratic" will of the people.

The way out is to do something about non-EU immigration, and/or build more houses/infrastructure.

Then have another vote.....

GB9
1st July 2016, 12:04
Eh? What is there to dream?

I am saying he won't be triggering it, and in fact we as UK will NOT (and cannot afford to!) trigger it at all, and we will remain in the EU for ever, no matter who wins the fancy dress contest.

Brexit is nothing but chaos!

You are still dreaming that we will stay in the EU. Forever and ever and ever........ (ad lib to fade).

NotAllThere
1st July 2016, 12:07
You are still dreaming that we will stay in the EU. Forever and ever and ever........ (ad lib to fade).Ad infinitum, ab nauseum, possibly. But not ad lib. Unless you expect him to start an improvisational workshop while waiting for the exit button to be pressed.

GB9
1st July 2016, 12:09
Ad infinitum, ab nauseum, possibly. But not ad lib. Unless you expect him to start an improvisational workshop while waiting for the exit button to be pressed.

I wouldn't put it past him.

Pondlife
1st July 2016, 12:21
Release some of that frustration

Slap Michael Gove (http://games.usvsth3m.com/slap-michael-gove/)

psychocandy
1st July 2016, 12:25
So much for the "democratic" will of the people.

The way out is to do something about non-EU immigration, and/or build more houses/infrastructure.

Then have another vote.....

Surely if it turns out we dont exit then it was a bit pointless having a referendum in the first place.

However, has confirmed that referendums are a waste of time. Why have parliament and mps if you're going to have referendums?

CretinWatcher
1st July 2016, 12:48
so who blinks next?

You lot are still in la-la land:laugh

The EU doesn't have to do a thing, just wait till investment in the UK dries up and companies start relocating to EUrope to access the larger markets. Then we'll go in with our begging bowl.

vetran
1st July 2016, 12:53
Surely if it turns out we dont exit then it was a bit pointless having a referendum in the first place.

However, has confirmed that referendums are a waste of time. Why have parliament and mps if you're going to have referendums?

If we get a much better deal and stay in the common market not march towards the EUSSR then its a total result.

The choice was between ever closer union & getting out the EU told us so.

CretinWatcher
1st July 2016, 13:01
The choice was between ever closer union & getting out the EU told us so.

Nope. The EU acknowledged that the UK would have the right to NOT JOIN ANY POLITICAL UNION, and I quote, "IN PERPETUITY".(I know you're a Brexiter, so I'll translate, that means NEVER).
That was going to be writen into the Treaty documents.
Now it's null and void.
We will be going back into the EU at some point, either sooner, if the economy tanks worse than expected or later, when the people over 50 have died out and the younger generation takes us back in.
But we will never have as good terms as we had.

woohoo
1st July 2016, 13:05
The EU won't negotiate any trade terms until exit negotiations are completed, which themselves would be complicated and drawn out.

Brexit: Tensions emerge over UK-EU trade negotiations - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36682735)

not looking good for the next PM, what a farce.

That's what happens when you pick a fight with someone who is 10 times the size of you.

:D

Jeesh you couldn't negotiate yourself out of a paper bag. Get some balls man.

woohoo
1st July 2016, 13:08
You lot are still in la-la land:laugh

The EU doesn't have to do a thing, just wait till investment in the UK dries up and companies start relocating to EUrope to access the larger markets. Then we'll go in with our begging bowl.

Nonsense you negative little man. Grow some.

CretinWatcher
1st July 2016, 13:11
Jeesh you couldn't negotiate yourself out of a paper bag. Get some balls man.

I think our only card is "We're not going to buy your German cars".
And then they'll play their ace "You don't get passport access for your biggest industry - financial services".
And the UK negotiators will look at the twin deficits, large debt, lack of industrial base and cave in.

This isn't about optimism or pessimism, it's about reality. Don't take a knife to a gun shootout.

CretinWatcher
1st July 2016, 13:12
Nonsense you negative little man. Grow some.

When God made you he ran out of brains, didn't he.?
So you didn't feel left out, he overcompensated in the plums department.:laugh:laugh

SueEllen
1st July 2016, 13:13
The Tories members have a habit of not choosing the front runner as their leader so May is very likely out.

Gove is likely out as only 4 MPs went to his press conference - he needs something like 112 MPs to be chosen as a candidate to put to the members.

So that leaves Liam Fox (Brexiter), Andrea Leadsom (Brexiter, ex-city banker and Leave.EU favourite) and Stephen Crabbe (known bigot, christian and remainer)

meridian
1st July 2016, 13:17
So much for the "democratic" will of the people.

The way out is to do something about non-EU immigration, and/or build more houses/infrastructure.

Then have another vote.....

We're a referential democracy, not a direct democracy.

If you don't like what parliament does, you can always vote them out in the next GE.

Fortunately (hopefully?) our chosen representatives have more brains than the Brexiteers and do what's best for the country.

CretinWatcher
1st July 2016, 13:22
We're a referential democracy, not a direct democracy.

If you don't like what parliament does, you can always vote them out in the next GE.

Fortunately (hopefully?) our chosen representatives have more brains than the Brexiteers and do what's best for the country.

Ironically the "plebiscite" (yes the root of the word is PLEB) is a terrible European (Roman) invention.:)
It has no place in an Anglo Saxon democracy.;)

kolata
1st July 2016, 13:24
So much for the "democratic" will of the people.


The referendum can be ignored as it was decided by senile pensioners and chavs, cant it?
So no art 50 and happy days.

Support Monkey
1st July 2016, 13:36
You lot are still in la-la land:laugh

The EU doesn't have to do a thing, just wait till investment in the UK dries up and companies start relocating to EUrope to access the larger markets. Then we'll go in with our begging bowl.

Ummm!!!! now lets think about this, Move to France People shouting leave same as Sweden and the Netherlands, and no one who works more than a 30 hour week in France, Italy People shouting leave and up tulip creak with the finances along with Portugal, Greece, and Ireland , what about Romania, Lithuania or Poland not big enough or powerful enough, what about Turkey they should be joining sometime in the next Millennium, so that just leaves Germany, looks like Germany is going to be full up

CretinWatcher
1st July 2016, 13:42
Ummm!!!! now lets think about this, Move to France People shouting leave same as Sweden and the Netherlands, and no one who works more than a 30 hour week in France, Italy People shouting leave and up tulip creak with the finances along with Portugal, Greece, and Ireland , what about Romania, Lithuania or Poland not big enough or powerful enough, what about Turkey they should be joining sometime in the next Millennium, so that just leaves Germany, looks like Germany is going to be full up

Stick to third line support or whetever it is you do. And take some evening classes in English, won't you?

MrMarkyMark
1st July 2016, 13:47
Ummm!!!! now lets think about this, Move to France People shouting leave same as Sweden and the Netherlands, and no one who works more than a 30 hour week in France, Italy People shouting leave and up tulip creak with the finances along with Portugal, Greece, and Ireland , what about Romania, Lithuania or Poland not big enough or powerful enough, what about Turkey they should be joining sometime in the next Millennium, so that just leaves Germany, looks like Germany is going to be full up

Great analysis. You reassure me, it's all going to be OK then :eyes

Support Monkey
1st July 2016, 13:55
Great analysis. You reassure me, it's all going to be OK then :eyes

it's common sense to me, why would any organisation move to a country that could go down the same route and is controlled by an organisation that is being dragged down by its failing members.

Support Monkey
1st July 2016, 13:57
Stick to third line support or whetever it is you do. And take some evening classes in English, won't you?

Surely I would be better off learning German if that's where all the jobs are.

MrMarkyMark
1st July 2016, 13:58
it's common sense to me, why would any organisation move to a country that could go down the same route and is controlled by an organisation that is being dragged down by its failing members.

Happening already, for quite a while in IBs. Poland has been a very popular choice.

jamesbrown
1st July 2016, 14:02
For anyone interested, it's worth watching the most recent Treasury Select Committee hearing, as this takes evidence from a number of respected witnesses who argue that is shouldn't be triggered until next ~spring and possibly not until after the German/French elections, but probably before (politically more palatable in the UK). Once we trigger Article 50, the advantage shifts to the EU so it's imperative that we have a clear strategy in advance. I'll post the link later - currently on my phone.

sirja
1st July 2016, 14:26
The massive problem we have is that the final destination of leave was never known. People voted for a journey without knowing where they are going. This was because Gove , Farage and Boris promised them it wont matter. They promised them that the EU will be desperate to do a deal with us because we buy more from them, omitting to mention that our sales to them as a percentage of our total exports is much larger than there their's to us(Something like 44% of to 8%). Also the issue of the EU passport for Financial services was hardly mentioned as tall, not to talk of potential loss of foreign investment if we are outside the single market.

The simple truth is no UK PM is going to pull the UK out of the single market. The disruption to the economy will be massive. The EU know this, which is why they are calling the UK's bluf and saying, first trigger article 50, then we talk. I just can't see how any PM triggers article 50 in such a situation. Heck I can't even seem them getting the vote in parliament to authorize it

DaveB
1st July 2016, 14:35
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13567307_1041277792635973_1015214087423094586_n.jp g?oh=c5c6ef18d5cdf9a935159e417c0b4844&oe=57FA3200

CretinWatcher
1st July 2016, 16:32
...have a clear strategy in advance. ..

You claim to be from academia.
Did you do some post-modernist course in some poly, which told you that everything was relative?
You're about to get a shock when you find out about the realities of economic power.:laugh:laugh

If of course Article 50 is ever invoked...:laugh:laugh:rollin:

jamesbrown
1st July 2016, 16:47
You claim to be from academia.
Did you do some post-modernist course in some poly, which told you that everything was relative?
You're about to get a shock when you find out about the realities of economic power.:laugh:laugh

If of course Article 50 is ever invoked...:laugh:laugh:rollin:

Imagine the polar opposite of that :D

Which means I know a button pusher when I see one :D

FatLazyContractor
1st July 2016, 16:55
Slap Michael Gove (http://games.usvsth3m.com/slap-michael-gove/)

:winker:

vetran
1st July 2016, 16:58
Imagine the polar opposite of that :D

Which means I know a button pusher when I see one :D

Finally a way to understand AssCretin

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1538287584/phytl-signs-explorer-the-worlds-first-wearable-for

jamesbrown
1st July 2016, 17:10
Finally a way to understand AssCretin

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1538287584/phytl-signs-explorer-the-worlds-first-wearable-for

:laugh

Someone that hides behind sockies (hides, in a figurative sense) and alludes to their "credentials" every few posts is not someone that's at ease with the world.

Cheer up, sadguru.

CretinWatcher
1st July 2016, 17:47
:laugh

Someone that hides behind sockies (hides, in a figurative sense) and alludes to their "credentials" every few posts is not someone that's at ease with the world.

Cheer up, sadguru.

:laugh:wink

Mordac
2nd July 2016, 01:46
Finally a way to understand AssCretin

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1538287584/phytl-signs-explorer-the-worlds-first-wearable-for

I somehow, deep down, always knew he/it was a sockie. Nobody that stupid would be granted planning permission to borrow a brain cell, let alone own one. Still, it was fun playing with the idiot, but now the village wants him back. F**k knows why, they'll regret it in the morning, but I guess day release means exactly what it says on the tin. I'd want to be a few dozen miles away when his nappy needs changing, that's for sure...

DallasDad
3rd July 2016, 15:08
Now, I say, it will never be triggered!:


The referendum can be ignored as it was decided by senile pensioners and chavs, cant it?
So no art 50 and happy days.

You might both be right, admittedly from the Guardian but:

"Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union – and MPs have every right, and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain, to vote to stay."

jamesbrown
3rd July 2016, 15:27
You might both be right, admittedly from the Guardian but:

"Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union – and MPs have every right, and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain, to vote to stay."


The EC 1972 Act is simply the mechanism by which new EU legislation is transposed into UK law. The Act becomes redundant at the end of the Article 50 process, regardless of its formal status. A separate Act governs the status of law already enacted through a mechanism that subsequently becomes redundant (i.e. there is no automatic repeal of existing law).

There are varying academic opinions on the triggering process for Article 50 (for example, contrast this (https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/06/30/brexit-on-why-as-a-matter-of-law-triggering-article-50-does-not-require-parliament-to-legislate/) with this (https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/01/t-t-arvind-richard-kirkham-and-lindsay-stirtonarticle-50-and-the-european-union-act-2011-why-parliamentary-consent-is-still-necessary/)), but I'd prefer to listen to Lord Lisvane, previously Clerk of the House. There's probably no one else alive that is better positioned to offer a view, and his considered view is that Article 50 is a matter of prerogative power, regardless of whether it is politically expedient to bypass Parliament. Bottom line, the new PM can trigger Article 50 using prerogative power alone.

AtW
3rd July 2016, 16:17
Bottom line, the new PM can trigger Article 50 using prerogative power alone.

He could, but after that there will be vote of on confidence in Govt, will he survive it?

mudskipper
3rd July 2016, 16:33
She could, but after that there will be vote of on confidence in Govt, will she survive it?

FTFY

jamesbrown
3rd July 2016, 16:39
He could, but after that there will be vote of on confidence in Govt, will he survive it?

Tories voting for no confidence in their own, recently elected, PM and Gov't? :rollin:

SueEllen
3rd July 2016, 16:42
Tories voting for no confidence in their own, recently elected, PM and Gov't? :rollin:

They would all just abstain if they bother to show up.

jamesbrown
3rd July 2016, 16:45
They would all just abstain if they bother to show up.

Who, Labour? :laugh

As part of her pitch to become PM, May has been explicit about invoking Article 50 after the negotiating strategy is resolved (early next year) and without a GE, so that's what will happen. Unlike several other candidates, she's straight talking, whether or not you like her (I'm not a massive fan TBH).

It seems that several here are still in the "I'm with Nick (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/03/britain-general-election-before-article-50)" camp.

Good luck with that.

AtW
3rd July 2016, 16:57
Tories voting for no confidence in their own, recently elected, PM and Gov't? :rollin:

But far less than 100% of Tories are for Brexit!

And Labour, Lib Dems, SNP + others will vote no confidence easily.

SueEllen
3rd July 2016, 17:58
But far less than 100% of Tories are for Brexit!

And Labour, Lib Dems, SNP + others will vote no confidence easily.

Why would they do that?

It's not like we have an opposition that works.

jamesbrown
3rd July 2016, 18:56
But far less than 100% of Tories are for Brexit!

And Labour, Lib Dems, SNP + others will vote no confidence easily.

Seriously, this would be beyond absurd. It's the Remainers in the Tory party, primarily, who want May to win. I think you forget that the Tories are ruthless but, ultimately, they value power far more than principle. There is literally zero possibility that May, recently elected, would face (let alone lose) a confidence vote upon invoking Article 50 through prerogative power. In practice, there's a very good chance she will offer a vote on Article 50 (it's not politically expedient to use prerogative power), but she won't lose it (because it will be seen the same as a confidence vote).

Again, we'll see who's right in due course. I'll happily eat my words if I'm wrong, but I'm confident that I won't be munching :D

SueEllen
3rd July 2016, 22:04
ATW you forget many Labour MPs are in constituencies that voted Leave.

To ensure they don't get deselected and that UKIP don't win their seats in 2020 they would have to abstain or not turn up to any vote on evoking Article 50 if there are not informal talks before hand indicating the UK can get what it wants.

The Tories would vote with their PM while the SNP, the parties in NI, Lib Dems and only Labour MPs in constituencies that voted Remain would vote against it.

The only MPs who would then risk losing their seats in 2020 are Tory MPs like mine if the opposition parties got themselves together as they would be voting against the majority of their constituents wishes.

jamesbrown
3rd July 2016, 22:46
ATW you forget many Labour MPs are in constituencies that voted Leave.

To ensure they don't get deselected and that UKIP don't win their seats in 2020 they would have to abstain or not turn up to any vote on evoking Article 50 if there are not informal talks before hand indicating the UK can get what it wants.

The Tories would vote with their PM while the SNP, the parties in NI, Lib Dems and only Labour MPs in constituencies that voted Remain would vote against it.

The only MPs who would then risk losing their seats in 2020 are Tory MPs like mine if the opposition parties got themselves together as they would be voting against the majority of their constituents wishes.

You raise a good point, but many of the same MPs were advocating to remain, knowing that their constituents (or a significant fraction thereof) were likely to be voting to leave. It's worse now, because they know the results. However, in practice, MPs are frequently misaligned with their constituents on a particular issue (even more with grassroots activists/members), and their job is to represent, but also to think for themselves. My gut instinct is that the vast majority of Labour MPs would vote down an Article 50 motion if they really didn't believe in it, but your point is nevertheless well taken, and some may choose to abstain instead. Anyway, losing an Article 50/confidence vote isn't a real risk IMO, which is why May is quite likely to offer one. It gets trickier when they vote on a specific, negotiated, package, but the pressures are completely different at the end of the Article 50 process (i.e. you're out, either way).

It's also important to remember that Article 50 is just the process for negotiating the terms of exit, and not things like trade per se. It's unlikely that a trade deal would be negotiated within the Article 50 timeframe, which is another reason for delaying its invocation.

AtW
4th July 2016, 00:05
As long as they don't order to execute order 66 ...

Paddy
4th July 2016, 00:47
Article 50 process on Brexit faces legal challenge to (http://www.mishcon.com/news/firm_news/article_50_process_on_brexit_faces_legal_challenge _to_ensure_parliamentary_involvement_07_2016)


Legal steps have been taken to ensure the UK Government will not trigger the procedure for withdrawal from the EU without an Act of Parliament. The case is being brought by leading law firm, Mishcon de Reya, on behalf of a group of clients. Following publication of articles on the subject this week Mishcon de Reya has retained Baron David Pannick QC and Tom Hickman to act as counsel in this action, along with Rhodri Thompson QC and Anneli Howard.

The Referendum held on 23 June was an exercise to obtain the views of UK citizens, the majority of whom expressed a desire to leave the EU. But the decision to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union, the legal process for withdrawal from the EU, rests with the representatives of the people under the UK Constitution.

The Government however, has suggested that it has sufficient legal authority. Mishcon de Reya has been in correspondence with the Government lawyers since 27 June 2016 on behalf of its clients to seek assurances that the Government will uphold the UK constitution and protect the sovereignty of Parliament in invoking Article 50.

If the correct constitutional process of parliamentary scrutiny and approval is not followed then the notice to withdraw from the EU would be unlawful, negatively impacting the withdrawal negotiations and our future political and economic relationships with the EU and its 27 Member States, and open to legal challenge. This legal action seeks to ensure that the Article 50 notification process is lawful.

TykeMerc
4th July 2016, 01:16
As long as they don't order to execute order 66 ...

Nah there are a few to do before that one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7CRatBZBaY

Hobosapien
4th July 2016, 07:27
Interesting that according to this article (http://www.cityam.com/244673/lord-owen-and-lawson-stop-dithering-we-must-leave-eu) (which I can only partially see as it obscures most of the content if one has an ad blocker active :moon:), Lord Owen and Lord Lawson say we can leave the EU without using Article 50 and the 2 year delay. :banana:

Lord knows they are right. We make our own laws, part of the main reason for wanting to leave the EU, and negotiate immediately on trade deals, and ignore the overly bureaucratic EU laws.

Simple. :rolleyes:

Edit: One can view the content of the article by doing a 'view source' of the web page. :smokin

Paddy
4th July 2016, 07:39
Interesting that according to this article (http://www.cityam.com/244673/lord-owen-and-lawson-stop-dithering-we-must-leave-eu) (which I can only partially see as it's obscures most of the content if one has an ad blocker active :moon:), Lord Owen and Lord Lawson say we can leave the EU without using Article 50 and the 2 year delay. :banana:

Lord knows they are right. We make our own laws, part of the main reason for wanting to leave the EU, and negotiate immediately on trade deals, and ignore the overly beauracratic EU laws.

Simple. :rolleyes:

Edit: One can view the content of the article by doing a 'view source' of the web page. :smokin

Baron David Pannick QC is heading the legal challenge. He is in the House of Lords and a retired judge from the Supreme Court UK. You can’t compare Lord Owen and Lord Lawson’s knowledge to that of an ex-Supreme Court judge.

Hobosapien
4th July 2016, 08:05
Baron David Pannick QC is heading the legal challenge. He is in the House of Lords and a retired judge from the Supreme Court UK. You can’t compare Lord Owen and Lord Lawson’s knowledge to that of an ex-Supreme Court judge.

I'm not attempting anything other than pointing out all this article 50 talk may be wasted if there are genuinely other routes. What's the EU going to do go crying to the UN? :laugh

Maybe this is the war in Europe Cameron was on about. Though if we promise to keep buying German tat we'll be ok. If they play hardball we'll just threaten to buy more chinese or american tat instead.

We have the power of greyskull, aka the house of lords. :smokin

sirja
4th July 2016, 08:36
I'm not attempting anything other than pointing out all this article 50 talk may be wasted if there are genuinely other routes. What's the EU going to do go crying to the UN? :laugh

Maybe this is the war in Europe Cameron was on about. Though if we promise to keep buying German tat we'll be ok. If they play hardball we'll just threaten to buy more chinese or american tat instead.

We have the power of greyskull, aka the house of lords. :smokin

Article 50 is part of the Niece Treaty of which we are signatories. As a nation that prides itself on law and due process it would be very strange if we just walked away from our international treaties without following the protocols set down in said treaties. That would be setting a very bad precedent and I doubt there's a majority in the commons for such an approach.

VectraMan
4th July 2016, 08:40
I'm not attempting anything other than pointing out all this article 50 talk may be wasted if there are genuinely other routes. What's the EU going to do go crying to the UN? :laugh

Maybe this is the war in Europe Cameron was on about. Though if we promise to keep buying German tat we'll be ok. If they play hardball we'll just threaten to buy more chinese or american tat instead.

We have the power of greyskull, aka the house of lords. :smokin

I now have an image of Michael Gove holding aloft his magic sword and shouting "I HAVE THE POWER!".

The problem with breaking international agreements is that nobody will want to sign an international agreement with us ever again. Even UKIP voters wouldn't be crazy enough to suggest just walking away.

GB9
4th July 2016, 08:49
I now have an image of Michael Gove holding aloft his magic sword and shouting "I HAVE THE POWER!".

The problem with breaking international agreements is that nobody will want to sign an international agreement with us ever again. Even UKIP voters wouldn't be crazy enough to suggest just walking away.

Equally, if Parliament were to block the consensus of the people then that would be ok?

Opinion seems to be that any act required would be passed, even if you might end up with 600 abstentions.

Hobosapien
4th July 2016, 08:51
Didn't they say similar about Iceland defaulting a few years ago? Seems they've gone from strength to strength recently.

Rules are overruled by money. Who wants to sell us some tat?

BlasterBates
4th July 2016, 08:52
I now have an image of Michael Gove holding aloft his magic sword and shouting "I HAVE THE POWER!".

The problem with breaking international agreements is that nobody will want to sign an international agreement with us ever again. Even UKIP voters wouldn't be crazy enough to suggest just walking away.

Article 50 states nothing more than that when a country states it's intent to leave the EU it's automatically triggered. So it's a little bit inconceivable that the UK leaves the EU without notifying anyone.

A prime minister actually doesn't have to turn up they can simply send a letter to be read out to the Council.

BlasterBates
4th July 2016, 08:56
Didn't they say similar about Iceland defaulting a few years ago? Seems they've gone from strength to strength recently.

Rules are overruled by money. Who wants to sell us some tat?

Iceland has schengen, the freedom of movement of people and access to the single market.

Everyone including all "Remain" MP's agreed with that arrangement the UK would be more or less completely unaffected by Brexit, though one could argue what point was of doing a Brexit. The UK wouldn't though be able to influence EU rules, which is the key argument.

jamesbrown
4th July 2016, 09:10
All this focus on Article 50 is a distraction anyway, because they need to get the final deal through Parliament, and trade won't be negotiated before the end of Article 50. By the time May et al. have finished, the options on the table will be Brexit-light (EEA+) and Brexit-superlight (EEA). We'll probably start with EEA and, following negotiation, end up with EEA :laugh I really don't see them budging on the Freedoms, but it's worth a discussion.

SueEllen
4th July 2016, 09:52
Didn't they say similar about Iceland defaulting a few years ago? Seems they've gone from strength to strength recently.

Rules are overruled by money. Who wants to sell us some tat?

Iceland defaulted and put certain Icelandic people in prison.

If they were a basket case like certain countries in the Euro were people could bribe their way out of prison, no one would be selling them tat.

SueEllen
4th July 2016, 09:54
All this focus on Article 50 is a distraction anyway, because they need to get the final deal through Parliament, and trade won't be negotiated before the end of Article 50. By the time May et al. have finished, the options on the table will be Brexit-light (EEA+) and Brexit-superlight (EEA). We'll probably start with EEA and, following negotiation, end up with EEA :laugh I really don't see them budging on the Freedoms, but it's worth a discussion.

Ending up with an EEA agreement is shit.

It means certain new countries can and will make rules to screw us and we can't stop them. Norway has to cosy up with it's Nordic neighbours to find out what is happening and to convince them what is bad for Norway is bad for them.

jamesbrown
4th July 2016, 10:19
Ending up with an EEA agreement is tulip.

It means certain new countries can and will make rules to screw us and we can't stop them. Norway has to cosy up with it's Nordic neighbours to find out what is happening and to convince them what is bad for Norway is bad for them.

Yes, I know what it means (a subset of EU laws and regulations in exchange for no control on how they are made), and I wouldn't support it. However, if May is elected, the EU institutions will be cognisant of her remain position and willingness to accept more trade for more immigration. I have no doubt that she'll follow through on Brexit, but EEA will be the starting point, whereas WTO/most favoured nation would be the starting point for someone like Leadsom or Fox.

Mordac
5th July 2016, 10:54
Yes, I know what it means (a subset of EU laws and regulations in exchange for no control on how they are made), and I wouldn't support it. However, if May is elected, the EU institutions will be cognisant of her remain position and willingness to accept more trade for more immigration. I have no doubt that she'll follow through on Brexit, but EEA will be the starting point, whereas WTO/most favoured nation would be the starting point for someone like Leadsom or Fox.

Scaremongering quotes from the Grauniad: Links here EU referendum morning briefing: five become four in Tory leadership contest | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/eu-referendum-morning-briefing-five-become-four-tory-leadership-contest), halfway down page:

Has the UK Brexited yet?
No. And according to the Austrian finance minister Hans Jörg Schelling, perhaps it never will. Schelling told German newspaper Handelsblatt (here in English):

Britain will remain a member of the EU in the future. In five years, there will still be 28 member states.

When you look at all of those [companies] who want to move to the EU, it’s a wake-up call for Britain not to leave in the end.

On the other hand, Alain Juppé, former prime minister of France and the favourite to win next year’s French presidential election, thinks the UK should leave toute de suite:

When you get divorced, you do not get to stay at home. You have to leave the common house .

Juppé also raised the prospect – rejected by the current French government but potentially a future flashpoint should he end up in the Elysée palace – that the Le Touquet agreement could be scrapped. The current accord allows the UK border force to operate in Calais.

We cannot continue with a system in which on French territory the British authorities decide the people that can be welcomed and can be rejected. That is not acceptable.

BrilloPad
5th July 2016, 11:18
Iceland defaulted and put certain Icelandic people in prison.

And amazingly were able to borrow again 2 years later.

DaveB
5th July 2016, 11:37
And amazingly were able to borrow again 2 years later.

So not only are they better than us at football, they are better at economics as well.

Mordac
5th July 2016, 11:46
So not only are they better than us at football, they are better at economics as well.

And their women are fitter. :tongue

Bee
5th July 2016, 12:44
David Cameron should “swallow the frog” and send the formal notification to leave EU ASAP, and move forward. Would be better for everyone.

tomtomagain
5th July 2016, 12:48
David Cameron should “swallow the frog” and send the formal notification to leave EU ASAP, and move forward. Will be better for everyone.

What would be the point in that? Far better to wait until we have actually decided what we want "Out" to look like, have staffed up and trained a negotiating team and have informal talks with other non-EU future trading partners underway.

There's no rush. It to took 43 years to get this far. If it takes a few more months to begin the exit procedures then that's no big deal.

AtW
5th July 2016, 12:48
David Cameron should “swallow the frog” and send the formal notification to leave EU ASAP, and move forward. Would be better for everyone.

He won't do it and he got no authority to do it anyway.

Mordac
5th July 2016, 12:58
He won't do it and he got no authority to do it anyway.

Technically he has the authority, but he's already said he won't, having previously indicated he would (honour the outcome of the referendum). Only it didn't go quite to plan, so it was toys-out-of-the-pram time and he ran off with the ball.

Bee
5th July 2016, 13:18
He won't do it and he got no authority to do it anyway.

He has the authority, he is in the goverment until October.

SueEllen
5th July 2016, 13:37
He has the authority, he is in the goverment until October.

While you think it is simple it is not.

He has to get parliament to vote on a few laws before evoking it and at least one of those bills is a new law that has to be written from scratch.

OwlHoot
5th July 2016, 13:42
David Cameron should “swallow the frog” and send the formal notification to leave EU ASAP, and move forward. Would be better for everyone.

Absolutely (BTW, FYI the usual phrase in English is "bite the bullet")

But you must remember Cameron is a pathetic coward, and no doubt still hopes he can somehow engineer things to prevent Brexit happening.

northernladuk
5th July 2016, 13:42
While you think it is simple it is not.
.

Debatable.

CretinWatcher
5th July 2016, 13:46
Debatable.

As we found out during the referendum, the obvious is debatable if one party in the debate is stupid enough.

jamesbrown
5th July 2016, 13:47
While you think it is simple it is not.

He has to get parliament to vote on a few laws before evoking it and at least one of those bills is a new law that has to be written from scratch.

TBH, I think it's rather pointless debating it further on here. There are respected authorities on both sides of this. My personal view (aligned with Lord Lisvane, for example) is that they absolutely can exercise prerogative power, if they wish, but that it would not be politically expedient to do so.

In terms of triggering Article 50 quickly, that would be stupid. Aside from the consolidation and planning that we need to engage with, it's one of our few bargaining chips. :laugh If the Gov't are willing to bargain with EU citizens living in the UK, they'll most assuredly be willing to use this as a bargaining chip. That the EU institutions are whining so much about us invoking it quickly is evidence of this leverage. They have other mechanisms to encourage us (e.g. the French talking about Euro clearing), but we have these too (e.g. Gidiot talking about the UK becoming a tax haven), but that isn't going to end well, and the nuclear option (Article 7) isn't remotely plausible.

SueEllen
5th July 2016, 13:48
Debatable.

I don't think you are suppose to continually insult other posters. :p

Bee
5th July 2016, 13:51
Technically he has the authority, but he's already said he won't, having previously indicated he would (honour the outcome of the referendum). Only it didn't go quite to plan, so it was toys-out-of-the-pram time and he ran off with the ball.

That's why I used the term "swallow the frog".

CretinWatcher
5th July 2016, 13:52
In terms of triggering Article 50 quickly, that would be stupid. Aside from the consolidation and planning that we need to engage with, it's one of our few bargaining chips. :laugh If the Gov't are willing to bargain with EU citizens living in the UK, they'll most assuredly be willing to use this as a bargaining chip. That the EU institutions are whining so much about us invoking it quickly is evidence of this leverage. They have other mechanisms to encourage us (e.g. the French talking about Euro clearing), but we have these too (e.g. Gidiot talking about the UK becoming a tax haven), but that isn't going to end well, and the nuclear option (Article 7) isn't remotely plausible.

I don't think the EU will need "mechanisms to encourage us", the markets will force our hand well before we're ready :laugh

tomtomagain
5th July 2016, 13:53
But you must remember Cameron is a pathetic coward, and no doubt still hopes he can somehow engineer things to prevent Brexit happening.


You cannot start a negotiation until you know what you want to get out of it. Until you know your "Red-Lines". And have your team in place.

There's zero point starting it now as the UK has none of those in place. Starting when you are not ready is stupid.

Juncker et al can moan and belly-ache as much as they like. But they cannot force the UK to start the process. Juncker is a supposed drunk and seems to be bringing the wrath of other European countries onto himself. Hanging for a bit longer is likely to put more pressure on him. It would be handy if Merkel sacked him before the start of the negotiations.

Nothing will happen until PM T. May is in office. And my guessing is that it wont start until after the French General Election.

Personally I wouldn't start it until I had some trade-agreements lined up with some other countries ( Australia, New Zealand for example ) .

Why would you want to give up your timing-advantage?

jamesbrown
5th July 2016, 13:58
I don't think the EU will need "mechanisms to encourage us", the markets will force our hand well before we're ready :laugh

Market reaction has feck all to do with Article 50 as an administrative procedure and everything to do with the substance of the positions being negotiated. Again, I don't think many of you realise the narrowness of the Article 50 process. It has bugger all to do with trade deals.

Once May is elected, I think you'll see some of the rhetoric about pre-talk talking subside. Afterall, there's nothing the EU institutions like more than a pre-talk talk, especially when the questions are existential ones for them :D

CretinWatcher
5th July 2016, 14:00
o be bringing the wrath of other European countries onto himself. Hanging for a bit longer is likely to puYou cannot start a negotiation until you know what you want to get out of it. Until you know your "Red-Lines". And have your team in place.

There's zero point starting it now as the UKas they like. But they cannot force the UK to start the process. Juncker is a supposed drunk and seems tt more pressur has none of those in place. Starting when you are not ready is stupid.

Juncker et al can moan and belly-ache as much e on him. It would be handy if Merkel sacked him before the start of the negotiations.

Nothing will happen until PM T. May is in office. And

Personally I wouldn't start it until I had some trade-agreements lined up with some other countries ( Australia, New Zealand for example ) .

Why would you want to give up your timing-advantage?

No offence but that's bollux.

You have no clue about:

1. how real life economics (more precisely FDI falling off a cliff and the current account deficit rising sharply) will create increasing pressure on the UK for certainty one way or another
2. how long it takes to negotiate trade deals with other countries - its usual 5-10 years if you're lucky.

HTH, BIKIW.

CretinWatcher
5th July 2016, 14:03
Market reaction has feck all to do with Article 50 as an administrative procedure and everything to do with the substance of the positions being negotiated. Again, I don't think many of you realise the narrowness of the Article 50 process. It has bugger all to do with trade deals.

Once May is elected, I think you'll see some of the rhetoric about pre-talk talking subside. Afterall, there's nothing the EU institutions like more than a pre-talk talk, especially when the questions are existential ones for them :D

I see more hope than reason in your post.
I'm talking about markets and businesses not liking uncertainty and forcing the invocation of Article 50.
It's not something the politicians can delay indefinitely.
There was an editorial by a CBI guy in the Times about this yesterday - he said essentially he was a Remainer, but what is done is done and lets get on with it, as every day there's uncertainty, the economy is damaged.

jamesbrown
5th July 2016, 14:06
I see more hope than reason in your post.

Welcome to my world, SasCretin :D

tomtomagain
5th July 2016, 14:06
No offence but that's bollux.


Well that's your opinion. We'll see how it pans out.

It's also your usual snide, nasty tone. No change there.

CretinWatcher : What you do when you look in the mirror.

CretinWatcher
5th July 2016, 14:09
Well that's your opinion. We'll see how it pans out.

It's also your usual snide, nasty tone. No change there.

CretinWatcher : What you do when you look in the mirror.

I apologise I should have been more polite in pointing out reality to you.

CretinWatcher
5th July 2016, 14:10
Welcome to my world, SasCretin :D

Yes wish I could live in La La land, too.

OwlHoot
5th July 2016, 14:23
I see more hope than reason in your post.
I'm talking about markets and businesses not liking uncertainty and forcing the invocation of Article 50.
It's not something the politicians can delay indefinitely.
There was an editorial by a CBI guy in the Times about this yesterday - he said essentially he was a Remainer, but what is done is done and lets get on with it, as every day there's uncertainty, the economy is damaged.

Must say, there's something in that.

My main concern with delaying invoking this Article 50 is that a new Tory leader, with the collusion of parliament, will try and weasel out of ever doing it.

Let's not forget that the favourite (?) to succeed Cameron, Theresa May or May Not, campaigned for Remain!

CretinWatcher
5th July 2016, 14:29
As Harold Macmillan once pithily said, what does a politician most fear?

"Events, dear boy, events".

And in this scenario, at this time in history, we are not in control of economic events.

jamesbrown
5th July 2016, 14:41
Yes wish I could live in La La land, too.

Along with Lucid Thought Land, Humility Land,...

jamesbrown
5th July 2016, 14:48
My main concern with delaying invoking this Article 50 is that a new Tory leader, with the collusion of parliament, will try and weasel out of ever doing it.

That's a separate point (with which I agree). However, if they really want to do this, they will. The consequences will be severe for their future electoral success, but Parliament is ultimately sovereign (in degree).

Putting aside the trust issue, and focusing on the substance of the countervailing arguments, I haven't heard anyone with detailed knowledge of these matters argue for a swift invocation of Article 50. Several business leaders are arguing for a swift conclusion (reduction in uncertainty), while conflating this with Article 50. In practice, invoking Article 50 will not substantially reduce the uncertainty about our trade arrangements because Article 50 isn't about trade agreements. More importantly, the timing is undeniably are bargaining chip. It's worth watching recent evidence sessions to the Treasury Select Committee on this.

SueEllen
5th July 2016, 14:53
You cannot start a negotiation until you know what you want to get out of it. Until you know your "Red-Lines". And have your team in place.

There's zero point starting it now as the UK has none of those in place. Starting when you are not ready is stupid.

Juncker et al can moan and belly-ache as much as they like. But they cannot force the UK to start the process. Juncker is a supposed drunk and seems to be bringing the wrath of other European countries onto himself. Hanging for a bit longer is likely to put more pressure on him. It would be handy if Merkel sacked him before the start of the negotiations.
<snip>


Merkel can't sack Juncker --- but you already know that as you know how the EU works.

Plus she may not be Chancellor next year as there are German elections in October.

tomtomagain
5th July 2016, 15:17
One thing that could play into this in the short term is the re-run of the Austrian presidential election.

For those who've missed it whilst we've been caught up in our own news .... The Austrians nearly elected a far-right president ( he lost by some 30k votes ).

The far-right guy was ahead in the "real" voting. But lost the postal votes. Turned out that a lot of them were fraudulent ( who'd have thought, postal voting, open to abuse? ) and the result was quashed.

So they are re-running it on October 2nd. He has strong anti-migration views.

Then we have the French and their travails with Mlle Le Penn. She's calling for a Frexit ( and if that happens, the whole thing is shot ). She's doing well in the polls.

Very interesting to see how Brexit impacts on those elections.

And finally we have The Trump. If he is a triumphant Trump on November 9th then whole Brexit thing could look like a mere side-show. He's got some interesting views on whether US taxpayers should continue to fund the defence of Europe.

So "Events, my dear boy, events". But who's events? And who's going to be able to respond the best?

One thing that you can say, is that the UK does form stable, strong governments that can push through decisions quickly. Not so sure you can say that about the EU.

tomtomagain
5th July 2016, 15:20
Merkel can't sack Juncker --- but you already know that as you know how the EU works.

Plus she may not be Chancellor next year as there are German elections in October.

I used "Sacked" as a short-hand for "Uses her power and influence to push him out of his post".

German election : No next to nothing about German politics. Does she have any serious rivals?

Mordac
5th July 2016, 15:28
I used "Sacked" as a short-hand for "Uses her power and influence to push him out of his post".

German election : No next to nothing about German politics. Does she have any serious rivals?
Not sure about serious rivals, but if this poll is to (and others are to) be believed as many as two thirds want shot of her.
Two-thirds of Germans want Merkel out at next election - The Local (http://www.thelocal.de/20160510/major-political-parties-have-never-been-so-unpopular-poll)

Wonder if the migrant crisis might have something to do with that...

tomtomagain
5th July 2016, 15:46
I wonder how much Farage can charge per day as a consultant to Europe's far-right parties?

SueEllen
5th July 2016, 15:47
I wonder how much Farage can charge per day as a consultant to Europe's far-right parties?

He would get more than Tony Blair.

original PM
5th July 2016, 15:51
No offence but that's bollux.

You have no clue about:

1. how real life economics (more precisely FDI falling off a cliff and the current account deficit rising sharply) will create increasing pressure on the UK for certainty one way or another
2. how long it takes to negotiate trade deals with other countries - its usual 5-10 years if you're lucky.

HTH, BIKIW.

Just to bring you down to earth a touch negotiations about anything can take as short or as long as both parties want them to.

The only reason negotiations would take a long time is if one or both parties have a vested interest in dragging the negotiations out.

I think when you talk 5-10 years you are looking at the EU model where the people doing the negotiations are more interested in what they can get out of it ( salary for longer and more time to claim expenses ) so it is in their vested interests to make sure things drag on and on.

If you remove those leeches then things take a lot less time.

shaunbhoy
5th July 2016, 15:57
Just to bring you down to earth a touch negotiations about anything can take as short or as long as both parties want them to.

The only reason negotiations would take a long time is if one or both parties have a vested interest in dragging the negotiations out.

I think when you talk 5-10 years you are looking at the EU model where the people doing the negotiations are more interested in what they can get out of it ( salary for longer and more time to claim expenses ) so it is in their vested interests to make sure things drag on and on.

If you remove those leeches then things take a lot less time.

Exactly. Sorting out a mutually agreeable trade deal between 2 parties is the sort of thing that can be done relatively quickly, particularly when most of the factors that will need to be considered are already pretty much nailed down in almost all circumstances.
It only becomes a grotesquely cumbersome business when you insist upon getting the thoughts and perspectives of 28 disparate bodies each of which possesses a veto, and many of whom have competing self-interests to serve.
Remove that impediment to progress and the whole business can be concluded in months if not a year or two.
Of course the whole 10-12 year guesstimate is based on the most pessimistic figures that could be imagined by the Project Fear "Experts".

AtW
5th July 2016, 15:58
Just to bring you down to earth a touch negotiations about anything can take as short or as long as both parties want them to.

The only reason negotiations would take a long time is if one or both parties have a vested interest in dragging the negotiations out.

No, negotiations take a long time because they involve a very big fook off list of things to agree on - there are lobbyists on both sides fighting with each other.


Exactly. Sorting out a mutually agreeable trade deal between 2 parties is the sort of thing that can be done relatively quickly, particularly when most of the factors that will need to be considered are already pretty much nailed down in almost all circumstances.

Oh that's good news, I was getting worried that it would take a long time but thanks for your input coming from years of high profile trade negotiations selling ice-cream from your van :laugh

original PM
5th July 2016, 16:00
No, negotiations take a long time because they involve a very big fook off list of things to agree on - there are lobbyists on both sides fighting with each other.



Oh that's good news, I was getting worried that it would take a long time but thanks for your input coming from years of high profile trade negotiations selling ice-cream from your van :laugh

Only if you let them.

Remember we voted out to put an end to this ridiculous situation where we have to get everyman and his dog to agree on something.

shaunbhoy
5th July 2016, 16:03
No, negotiations take a long time because they involve a very big fook off list of things to agree on - there are lobbyists on both sides fighting with each other.


Well the USA and Australia agreed a deal in 2 years. Go figure.

AtW
5th July 2016, 16:04
Only if you let them.

Remember we voted out to put an end to this ridiculous situation where we have to get everyman and his dog to agree on something.

Ok, Einstein, explain to me how you'll stop lobbyists on the OTHER side making sure cheap UK exports (due to sterling collapse) don't flood their markets and put them out of business.

AtW
5th July 2016, 16:05
Well the USA and Australia agreed a deal in 2 years. Go figure.

And UK _might_ get a deal with USA in 2 years.

Now how long do you think it will take to get deals with Germany, France, China, India and many other countries?

Are there enough people to run so many SEPARATE negotiations?

shaunbhoy
5th July 2016, 16:06
Ok, Einstein, explain to me how you'll stop lobbyists on the OTHER side making sure cheap UK exports (due to sterling collapse) don't flood their markets and put them out of business.

We don't do "cheap" in the UK. We provide quality. There is a distinct difference which I doubt you will ever grasp.

HTH

:wink

SueEllen
5th July 2016, 16:06
We don't do "cheap" in the UK. We provide quality. There is a distinct difference which I doubt you will ever grasp.

HTH

:wink

Are you being deliberately thick?

shaunbhoy
5th July 2016, 16:07
And UK _might_ get a deal with USA in 2 years.

Now how long do you think it will take to get deals with Germany, France, China, India and many other countries?

Are there enough people to run so many SEPARATE negotiations?

The basic agreements will be very similar in most aspects. A bit of fine tuning and individual tweaking is perfectly feasible for our "nation of shopkeepers".

:laugh

tomtomagain
5th July 2016, 16:08
No, negotiations take a long time because they involve a very big fook off list of things to agree on - there are lobbyists on both sides fighting with each other.


Of course. But surely you would reach an interim agreement very quickly to prevent the loss of trade.

The agreements with the EU might take time because of the political positioning, but other, non-EU countries would presumably be more than happy to get quickly into an agreement, if for no more reason than being able to take market share from their EU competitors.

AtW
5th July 2016, 16:10
The basic agreements will be very similar in most aspects. A bit of fine tuning and individual tweaking is perfectly feasible for our "nation of shopkeepers".

:laugh

Fine tuning? Exact list might be the same but each line will need to be argued separately, that's the whole reason why big trade agreements are done with blocks - makes it a lot easier than bilateral.

MrMarkyMark
5th July 2016, 16:12
He would get more than Tony Blair.

For that maybe, but I bet he can't beat Bliars fee structure.
Blairs worth at least 60 million+, trust involved, of course :eyes

Tony Blair used secret fund to manage multi-million pound fortune (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/15/tony-blair-used-secret-fund-to-manage-multi-million-pound-fortun/)

AtW
5th July 2016, 16:12
Of course. But surely you would reach an interim agreement very quickly to prevent the loss of trade.

You are making a very BIG assumption that the other parties would need trade deal as much as UK does.

It is a very wrong assumption - UK will be desperate for agreements and the other parties would not be in a rush because they'd be able to get much better deal for themselves, protect their market from cheap (due to low GBP) UK products: they would see it as priority in my view because they would know pretty well that low sterling will be preventing them from exporting as much, essentially UK is protecting its internal market with weak currency.

shaunbhoy
5th July 2016, 16:16
Fine tuning? Exact list might be the same but each line will need to be argued separately, that's the whole reason why big trade agreements are done with blocks - makes it a lot easier than bilateral.

The only things that will need to be "argued" are where a dispute arises. Mutually acceptable agreements have been around for centuries. And if it is "easier" to do trade agreements as a block, why does the EU, after more than 40 years, still not have such deals in place with the USA, India, or China?

tomtomagain
5th July 2016, 16:19
We've copied all the necessary documents off the EU Shared-Drive

EU:\\Documents\TradeAgreements

Farage has already run a Search and Replace on them ( 18,043 replacements of "EU" with "UK"! ). He did struggle to replace the European flag with the Union Jack, but Boris is pretty good with Word so he sorted it out.

They are going round our non-EU trading partners asking them to sign them.

The T's & C's are the same. So it's a no-brainer.

It will all be over by Christmas. Simples.

tomtomagain
5th July 2016, 16:20
And if it is "easier" to do trade agreements as a block, why does the EU, after more than 40 years, still not have such deals in place with the USA, India, or China?

Is it all the fault of the protectionist-French?

shaunbhoy
5th July 2016, 16:21
Is it all the fault of the protectionist-French?

You tell me.

AtW
5th July 2016, 16:25
The only things that will need to be "argued" are where a dispute arises. Mutually acceptable agreements have been around for centuries. And if it is "easier" to do trade agreements as a block, why does the EU, after more than 40 years, still not have such deals in place with the USA, India, or China?

Have you seen documents with customs duties on different ranges of products? Those things ain't simple - every line will have some people fighting for or against because in trade agreement it would favour one side or the other.

Now counter parties would know UK is desperate and that UK currency will be low for a long time, why would they allow UK to easily export into their markets? I am sure they'd be happy to allow UK to buy anything from them though, that bit would be easy!

OwlHoot
5th July 2016, 16:26
Of course. But surely you would reach an interim agreement very quickly to prevent the loss of trade. ...

indeed, especially as there is an existing baseline WTO agreement.

What does a fancy new agreement add that isn't in the basic WTO agreement, in exchange of goods at least even if not in services?

Seems to me all this trade agreement talk was largely a ruse to try and scare would-be Brexiters.

AtW
5th July 2016, 16:30
indeed, especially as there is an existing baseline WTO agreement.

What does a fancy new agreement add that isn't in the basic WTO agreement, in exchange of goods at least even if not in services?

Seems to me all this trade agreement talk was largely a ruse to try and scare would-be Brexiters.

Have you ever bought stuff from USA to be delivered into UK? That's done under WTO agreement and your tulip can remain in customs for 45 working days.

Now buy this from EU right now and you can get it delivered next day.

That's the difference between free trade zone and WTO agreement.

Who'd in EU would be buying from UK manufacturers who'd be under massive disadvantage? Might as well order from China.

BlasterBates
5th July 2016, 16:32
Danes inspired by Brexit (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-membership-support-surges-in-denmark-after-brexit-vote-a7120271.html)

:D

Mordac
5th July 2016, 17:32
And it won't be triggered by Liam Fox either...

Mordac
5th July 2016, 17:33
Have you ever bought stuff from USA to be delivered into UK? That's done under WTO agreement and your tulip can remain in customs for 45 working days.

Now buy this from EU right now and you can get it delivered next day.

That's the difference between free trade zone and WTO agreement.

Who'd in EU would be buying from UK manufacturers who'd be under massive disadvantage? Might as well order from China.

If they're ordering something from the UK, chances are it was made in China anyway, so why would they bother? :eyes

OwlHoot
5th July 2016, 17:40
Have you ever bought stuff from USA to be delivered into UK? That's done under WTO agreement and your tulip can remain in customs for 45 working days. ...

I never have any trouble buying books from the US.

But if you're in the habit of buying semi-automatic rifles, or hundredweight sacks of semtex, and suchlike then yes I imagine there will be some customs delays :laugh

Bee
5th July 2016, 18:17
Most of you are suffering from the Brexit Denial Syndrome. :rolleyes:

MrMarkyMark
5th July 2016, 18:51
Most of you are suffering from the Brexit Denial Syndrome. :rolleyes:

At least they all have a valid excuse, whats yours :eyes

SueEllen
5th July 2016, 19:42
Have you ever bought stuff from USA to be delivered into UK? That's done under WTO agreement and your tulip can remain in customs for 45 working days.

Now buy this from EU right now and you can get it delivered next day.

That's the difference between free trade zone and WTO agreement.

Who'd in EU would be buying from UK manufacturers who'd be under massive disadvantage? Might as well order from China.

Oddly enough years ago before I worked in IT I worked in import and exports.

Outside the EU it involved lots of paper work and money normally in the form of bank credits to get stuff released from customs. The people at the bank would often work longer than their set hours to help some customers out and get stuff released from customs.

Anyway not all stuff is worth buying in China especially clothes. There are countries - not just Bangladesh - that are cheaper and other countries who produce better quality products.

OwlHoot
6th July 2016, 12:41
TBH, I think it's rather pointless debating it further on here. There are respected authorities on both sides of this. My personal view (aligned with Lord Lisvane, for example) is that they absolutely can exercise prerogative power, if they wish, but that it would not be politically expedient to do so.

I think that's right, and they could always ask Parliament to retrospectively approve it (which, as you say, wouldn't go down too well as by then it would be an irremediable fait accompli)



In terms of triggering Article 50 quickly, that would be stupid. Aside from the consolidation and planning that we need to engage with, it's one of our few bargaining chips. ..

The other thing to bear in mind that this may not be just between the UK and the EU indefinitely. If continuing uncertainty starts causing domino effects that significantly affect other countries such as the US or China, there may be rapidly increasing pressure to resolve the issue faster than might suit us or the EU.

AtW
6th July 2016, 13:00
I never have any trouble buying books from the US.

Books are 0% VAT rated and I believe no custom duty either.

DaveB
6th July 2016, 13:20
Books are 0% VAT rated and I believe no custom duty either.

It's also based on the value of the items. Anything below £135 attracts no charge.

Most other things will end up in customs waiting for you to pay import duties and VAT before they are released.

https://www.gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/overview

BlasterBates
6th July 2016, 13:33
The main trade barrier if not in the single market will be the bureaucracy associated with selling goods. For example:

Selling food to China - Doing Business in China (http://www.china.doingbusinessguide.co.uk/the-guide/selling-food-to-china/)

AtW
6th July 2016, 14:07
It's also based on the value of the items. Anything below £135 attracts no charge.

Most other things will end up in customs waiting for you to pay import duties and VAT before they are released.

https://www.gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/overview

You have to pay VAT of 20% on much lower thresholds -

" gifts worth more than £34
other goods worth more than £15"

DaveB
6th July 2016, 14:09
You have to pay VAT of 20% on much lower thresholds -

" gifts worth more than £34
other goods worth more than £15"

Thats why I highlighted the "no customs duty either" bit of your post...

:rolleyes:

AtW
6th July 2016, 14:43
Thats why I highlighted the "no customs duty either" bit of your post...

:rolleyes:

You are aware that customs duty might be 0 even on items greater than £135?

There is a very long list of products that have varying levels of duties depending where they come from, VAT is by far more important - 20% and it is taken from very small amount, not for printed books though.

tomtomagain
6th July 2016, 22:47
Books are 0% VAT rated and I believe no custom duty either.

Unless it's an electronic copy. Then it's 20%.

AtW
6th July 2016, 23:12
Unless it's an electronic copy. Then it's 20%.

Electronic copy is not a book!!! :mad

It's like photo of a painting isn't the same as painting.

Mordac
6th July 2016, 23:22
Unless it's an electronic copy. Then it's 20%.

An electronic copy is either a download or sent via email, therefore unenforceable and therefore irrelevant. :eyes

AtW
7th July 2016, 00:53
An electronic copy is either a download or sent via email, therefore unenforceable and therefore irrelevant. :eyes

Why is it unenforceable? Most of money made from downloads are made by a handful of known companies, they had to charge VAT for a long time OR they don't get sales at all.

At least those were EU rules, maybe if UK is on its own then those big companies would not bother...

Mordac
7th July 2016, 02:21
Why is it unenforceable? Most of money made from downloads are made by a handful of known companies, they had to charge VAT for a long time OR they don't get sales at all.

At least those were EU rules, maybe if UK is on its own then those big companies would not bother...

I'm only speaking from personal experience. Buying a shedload of Microsoft MCSE (NT4 - showing my age :o) stuff from Barnes & Noble over the net from the US was about a third of the price compared to buying from the UK. ($200 as opposed to £500+). Factor in the favourable exchange rate at the time (late 90's) it was a no brainer. When it came to MS 2000, I bought the whole lot online, cost me $60. I didn't give a monkey's wotsit whether they charged or paid VAT. If you don't get the whole "dog eat dog" thing, that's fine, but if you feel uncomfortable, maybees you is in the wrong country what has nasty capitalist people in it.

BlasterBates
7th July 2016, 06:42
The UK has the 56th largest economy:

France overtakes Britain as world’s fifth largest economy as Brexit fears hit markets | Home News | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/france-britain-uk-world-s-fifth-largest-economy-brexit-eu-referendum-a7123761.html)

BrilloPad
7th July 2016, 06:46
The UK has the 56th largest economy:

France overtakes Britain as world’s fifth largest economy as Brexit fears hit markets | Home News | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/france-britain-uk-world-s-fifth-largest-economy-brexit-eu-referendum-a7123761.html)

The gnomes of Zurich strike again.

Who cares what the economy is worth in $ terms. Its the overall standard of UK living that is important.

Old Greg
7th July 2016, 06:58
Who cares what the economy is worth in $ terms. Its the overall standard of UK living that is important.

I wonder if there is a relationship between the two.