Put your cards on the table, EU makes last Brexit call to Britain

[vogie]

 

Post removed

Edited July 21, 2018 by vogie
Misquote

[sandyf]

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

 

Try and avoid those misquotes, you have quoted me as saying what you said in post No 2012.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

Try and avoid those misquotes, you have quoted me as saying what you said in post No 2012.

My apologies, it was meant to be my quote.

[candide]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I might be daft - but don't really understand what you say.

EEA model? You mean UK accessing EU/Single market through EEA?

Would in my view require, as a start, an UK EFTA membership of EFTA, not sure UK would be welcome in EFTA.

Assuming UK in EFTA would still require the agreement of ALL EU member states to see UK in EEA.

 

Mind you, when UK pisses off in March next year she also opts out of EEA.

 

 

 

I used the word "model" which also means that the agreement with UK can be something "similar to". As for joining EFTA, it may not be a bad idea, as it would give both UK and previous EFTA members a better negotiating power.

Anyway, I think that for reasons of consistency (among others), the EU will not diverge significantly from these models. Of course, UK may decide that none of these models are acceptable and choose the dry WTO model instead.

Edited July 21, 2018 by candide

[sandyf]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

My apologies, it was meant to be my quote.

No apology necessary, never thought it was intentional, I know its easy done.

[Jip99]

30 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I cannot understand why people choose to ignore this statement from Article 50.

"That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. "

 

When the UK invoked article 50 they did so in the knowledge that the negotiations would be related to the Functioning of the European Union, not the functioning of the UK.

Those that want to leave seem to have the idea that it is the other way round, no more so than TM who seems to think rules are only for someone else. She thought she could circumvent parliament and look how that panned out, trying to do the same with the EU.

 

While Article 50 governs a country’s departure from the bloc, Article 218 describes how the EU makes agreements with “third countries or international organizations.” So while Article 50 will get the U.K. out the door — the indisputably crucial first step — experts on EU law say an agreement on the future relationship between the U.K. and the EU can only be brokered under Article 218, once Britain returns to third country status.

https://www.politico.eu/article/forget-article-50-heres-article-218/

 

 

 

As Minister for Commonsense I would like to think that the two could be concurrent.....

 

 

After all future trade is equally important to both parties.

[whatsupdoc]

25 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I cannot understand why people choose to ignore this statement from Article 50.

"That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. "

 

When the UK invoked article 50 they did so in the knowledge that the negotiations would be related to the Functioning of the European Union, not the functioning of the UK.

Those that want to leave seem to have the idea that it is the other way round, no more so than TM who seems to think rules are only for someone else. She thought she could circumvent parliament and look how that panned out, trying to do the same with the EU.

 

While Article 50 governs a country’s departure from the bloc, Article 218 describes how the EU makes agreements with “third countries or international organizations.” So while Article 50 will get the U.K. out the door — the indisputably crucial first step — experts on EU law say an agreement on the future relationship between the U.K. and the EU can only be brokered under Article 218, once Britain returns to third country status.

https://www.politico.eu/article/forget-article-50-heres-article-218/

I do not get your point. First a Withdrawal Agreement (or at least enough progress on it) and later discuss future trade relationship. That was mutually agreed from the beginning.

And discussing the future and signing an agreement (and implementation of it) is not the same.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

 

As Minister for Commonsense I would like to think that the two could be concurrent.....

 

 

After all future trade is equally important to both parties.

No it's not. The loss of trade on a per capita basis will be much less for the EU than it will be for the UK.

[roobaa01]

thats wrong germany alone will loose 9 % of its export volumne..

 

wbr

roobaa01

[candide]

15 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

I do not get your point. First a Withdrawal Agreement (or at least enough progress on it) and later discuss future trade relationship. That was mutually agreed from the beginning.

And discussing the future and signing an agreement (and implementation of it) is not the same.

My understanding (not sure if it's sandyf's point), is that implementing article 50 is relatively easy as it only requires a qualified majority in the Council.

With article 2018, it is likely that unanimous majority will be required, plus consultation of Parliament, plus approval by the Court. It practically means that EU negotiators can only have a very limited autonomy and flexibility on this matter, as they must make sure that all member states are likely to approve the deal.

This article is more precise about it:

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/article-218-the-new-article-50/

 

Q

[whatsupdoc]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

My understanding (not sure if it's sandyf's point), is that implementing article 50 is relatively easy as it only requires a qualified majority in the Council.

With article 2018, it is likely that unanimous majority will be required, plus consultation of Parliament, plus approval by the Court. It practically means that EU negotiators can only have a very limited autonomy and flexibility on this matter, as they must make sure that all member states are likely to approve the deal.

This article is more precise about it:

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/article-218-the-new-article-50/

 

Q

Thank you for the clarification. But that all parliaments (EU, national and regional) have to agree unanimously with the final deal was widely known, wasn't it?

And yes, obviously that has limited the negotiating space of Mr. Barnier and makes the Chequers white paper all the more a desperate attempt to square a circle.

I cannot understand why the UK could not see this right from the beginning. So much time wasted with unrealistic proposals and infighting.... Unless the UK government actually wants a no deal but seeks to blame the EU for it...

[aright]

34 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No it's not. The loss of trade on a per capita basis will be much less for the EU than it will be for the UK.

Why do you regard the per capita basis as important? The figure does not represent the feelings of the major players. Do you think Mercedes or Languedoc -Roussillon wines having lost access or having a more costly access to their major European export market resulting in diminished sales are going to turn round and say it doesn't really matter because on an EU per capita basis it's small or not important. Loss of sales do not go down well with share holders . Barnier will be listening far more to the whales than the minnows.

[The Renegade]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

I cannot understand why people choose to ignore this statement from Article 50.

"That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. "

For the same reason that people cannot understand this

 

Quote

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.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

 

No negotiation is actually required to leave the EU.

 

And if you actually read Article 218(3) it relates specifically to '' Common Foreign and Security Policy ''

 

Quote

3. The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, 

Article 218 applies to 3rd Countries and International Organisations. Therefore, currently does not apply as the UK is still a member of the EU

[whatsupdoc]

4 minutes ago, aright said:

Why do you regard the per capita basis as important? The figure does not represent the feelings of the major players. Do you think Mercedes or Languedoc -Roussillon wines having lost access or having a more costly access to their major European export market resulting in diminished sales are going to turn round and say it doesn't really matter because on an EU per capita basis it's small or not important. Loss of sales do not go down well with share holders . Barnier will be listening far more to the whales than the minnows.

I guess it will be a lot easier for EU exporters to find alternative markets than it would be for their counterparts in the UK.

For the EU all the existing trade deals will still be in place as well, not so for the UK...

[sandyf]

47 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

 

As Minister for Commonsense I would like to think that the two could be concurrent.....

 

 

After all future trade is equally important to both parties.

There is no disputing the point of view but then reality must kick in.

One of the main problems with the EU is Treaties, nobody has been brave enough to try and get one amended as they are so complex there is no way of knowing where it could end up. There was a glimmer of hope when Macron came to power, one of the first things he proposed but that seems to have gone quiet.

The EU is bound up in treaties and commonsense has little place in the reality. There is little point jumping up and down and shouting intransigence when the answers are effectively cast in stone.

The negotiations in respect of the withdrawal agreement were intended to deal with administrative arrangements, trying to change the workings of the EU was never on the table.

Although future trade is vitally important it is not actually part of the withdrawal agreement, something TM has tried to dispute since day one. Article 218 would indicate that the withdrawal agreement must be concluded prior to any trade relationship being established, something the EU has said since day one, the difference being they have a treaty behind them.

[The Renegade]

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

 

As Minister for Commonsense I would like to think that the two could be concurrent.....

 

 

After all future trade is equally important to both parties.

This might become more apparent after Trump hands Juncker his @rse on a plate next Wednesday

 

Quote

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker will head to Washington next week with proposals to stave off the introduction of import tariffs on cars, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday.

https://www.politico.eu/article/merkel-juncker-will-seek-to-diffuse-trumps-trade-war/

[sandyf]

23 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Thank you for the clarification. But that all parliaments (EU, national and regional) have to agree unanimously with the final deal was widely known, wasn't it?

And yes, obviously that has limited the negotiating space of Mr. Barnier and makes the Chequers white paper all the more a desperate attempt to square a circle.

I cannot understand why the UK could not see this right from the beginning. So much time wasted with unrealistic proposals and infighting.... Unless the UK government actually wants a no deal but seeks to blame the EU for it...

My previous point was to highlight the fact that the negotiations were subject to a treaty on the operation of the EU. Your last point is perfectly valid, they must have known from the beginning. We will probably never know why TM chose to embark on a course of action that conflicted with the workings of the EU.

[stephenterry]

6 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

This might become more apparent after Trump hands Juncker his @rse on a plate next Wednesday

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/merkel-juncker-will-seek-to-diffuse-trumps-trade-war/

Headline: - Juncker is taken for a ride by Trump.

[The Renegade]

Look on the brightside all you doomers & gloomers

 

April 2016

 

Quote

Leaving the EU would cost UK households £4,300 a year making them “permanently poorer”, chancellor George Osborne said on Monday,

https://www.ft.com/content/a7739ec4-04c2-11e6-a70d-4e39ac32c284

 

July 2018

 

Quote

Quitting the EU could leave British households up to 960 pounds ($1,260) worse off each year, according to a report.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-households/quitting-eu-could-hit-uk-households-by-up-to-960-pounds-a-year-report-idUSKBN1KA23W

 

In the space of 2 years ( and we have not left yet ) every household is already £3400 better off than Osborne claimed ??

[stephenterry]

The TUC and the Trade Justice Movement have expressed concerns that the government is again – as with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill – seeking to introduce legislative change without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Central to this would be the power given to the government at the expense of parliament when it comes to negotiating trade deals.

Claims that Brexit will allow power to be taken back from Brussels to Westminster, therefore, needs a far higher degree of scrutiny. The UK outside of the EU will still operate in a global economy characterised by trade deals, through which governments have ceded (or even abdicated) responsibility for economic management to the investment strategies of transnational corporations.

This means that any new trade deals which follow recent practice will lack democratic safeguards. And safeguards already appear to be excluded from the government’s central legislation in this area, the Trade Bill.

 

https://theconversation.com/post-brexit-trade-deals-will-expose-the-myth-of-taking-back-control-91940

[The Renegade]

1 minute ago, stephenterry said:

https://theconversation.com/post-brexit-trade-deals-will-expose-the-myth-of-taking-back-control-91940

I suppose it would be too much to ask, to actually wait until a post Brexit trade deal is actually struck before getting hysterical over what might happen ??

 

Nah, some people can already tell the future or have great crystal balls ??

[bristolboy]

52 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

thats wrong germany alone will loose 9 % of its export volumne..

 

wbr

roobaa01

German total exports for 2017 in dollars: $1,401,000,000,000

9% of german exports = $110,348,100,000

UK total exports for 2017 in dollars: $436,500,000,000

43% of UK exports = $187.695,000,000

$187.695,000,000> $110,348,100,000

If you like here's link so you can do the math hourself. That is, if you know what links are and what real evidence looks like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports

And when you consider that the population of germany is about 25% greater, and it's economy about 30% bigger, the numbers for the UK look even worse.

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

10 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Look on the brightside all you doomers & gloomers

 

April 2016

 

https://www.ft.com/content/a7739ec4-04c2-11e6-a70d-4e39ac32c284

 

July 2018

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-households/quitting-eu-could-hit-uk-households-by-up-to-960-pounds-a-year-report-idUSKBN1KA23W

 

In the space of 2 years ( and we have not left yet ) every household is already £3400 better off than Osborne claimed ??

Perhaps you should have included this section of the report as well.

 

The most costly scenario was predicted to be a deal where the UK reverted to World Trade Organisation (WTO) most-favored nation (MFN) import tariffs, leaving the EU Customs Union and its Single Market.

 

Consumer prices could be affected further by a devaluation of the pound and the likelihood that free trade deals with non-EU countries would fail adequately to mitigate the impact on households, the report said.

 

Two months ago, a report by the House of Lords European Union Committee said food prices are likely to rise after Brexit if no trade agreement with the EU is reached, and that there could be shortages of some products.

[sandyf]

The concept of a "no deal" scenario is a misnomer, the UK cannot leave the EU without making a string of deals.

The bottom line is they either do it as a withdrawal agreement or piecemeal after the event.

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

I suppose it would be too much to ask, to actually wait until a post Brexit trade deal is actually struck before getting hysterical over what might happen ??

 

Nah, some people can already tell the future or have great crystal balls ??

Read the article - it explains the post Brexit process that would need to be followed. No ballshit.

[stephenterry]

4 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

 

duplicate -apologies

Edited July 21, 2018 by stephenterry
duplicate

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, stephenterry said:

Perhaps you should have included this section of the report as well.

 

The most costly scenario was predicted to be a deal where the UK reverted to World Trade Organisation (WTO) most-favored nation (MFN) import tariffs, leaving the EU Customs Union and its Single Market.

 

Consumer prices could be affected further by a devaluation of the pound and the likelihood that free trade deals with non-EU countries would fail adequately to mitigate the impact on households, the report said.

 

Two months ago, a report by the House of Lords European Union Committee said food prices are likely to rise after Brexit if no trade agreement with the EU is reached, and that there could be shortages of some products.

And it isn't just about tariffs. Why would large manufacturers invest in the UK if a hard brexit occurs. It will become way too expensive to do business there thanks to strangled supply lines. Over time, large scale manufacturing operations in the UK will wither away.

[The Renegade]

2 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Perhaps you should have included this section of the report as well.

What this one ?

 

Quote

The report by consulting firm Oliver Wyman focused on five different Brexit scenarios, where the size of the annual economic impact would vary between 245 and 960 pounds depending on whether the UK avoids EU tariffs.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-households/quitting-eu-could-hit-uk-households-by-up-to-960-pounds-a-year-report-idUSKBN1KA23W

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

What this one ?

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-households/quitting-eu-could-hit-uk-households-by-up-to-960-pounds-a-year-report-idUSKBN1KA23W

That's very reassuring - an added Brexit 'tax'.

[sandyf]

4 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Perhaps you should have included this section of the report as well.

 

The most costly scenario was predicted to be a deal where the UK reverted to World Trade Organisation (WTO) most-favored nation (MFN) import tariffs, leaving the EU Customs Union and its Single Market.

 

Consumer prices could be affected further by a devaluation of the pound and the likelihood that free trade deals with non-EU countries would fail adequately to mitigate the impact on households, the report said.

 

Two months ago, a report by the House of Lords European Union Committee said food prices are likely to rise after Brexit if no trade agreement with the EU is reached, and that there could be shortages of some products.

A hypothetical scenario as the UK cannot revert to WTO tariffs unless it does a deal with the EU on the use of the EU schedule. There is not the time for the UK to write its own and get it approved before March.