May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[BangkokNicky]

2019 is too soon and cant see it happening.. even her speech has so many lies init while i type this now ..  when you look at the news in the past few months or when she was Home Secretary

Edited September 22, 2017 by BangkokNicky

[mommysboy]

I've been keeping a low profile lately in order to see if something positive is going to happen.  I have accepted we must go regardless of what polls now say, and what I see as the general incompetence shown by Brexiteers thus far.  But surely there is a limit.  I ask myself: What is the point of leaving?... when perhaps more than 50% want to remain, and there does not appear, nor has there ever been, a cogent plan that does not threaten the economic security of the nation.  This is a very troubling situation.  I suppose we'll blunder through, as big economies tend to withstrand major blows.  But the life of me I can't see the point based on upholding a very flimsy mandate.  In law of contract, there is a concept of frustration- when something simply can not be reasonably done.  And in politics there is 'heft' which is self explanatory.   I just honestly think this is a no-goer.

 

Nevertheless, having accepted we must leave, I really can't see the point in accepting a compromise position that hampers our attempts to rebuild.  A transition period that prevents us seeking new opportunities is worthless.  It really is a case of in or out.  Ultimately, if we want to uphold democracy, then there is only one path.

Edited September 22, 2017 by mommysboy

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

I've been keeping a low profile lately in order to see if something positive is going to happen.  I have accepted we must go regardless of what polls now say, and what I see as the general incompetence shown by Brexiteers thus far.  But surely there is a limit.  I ask myself: What is the point of leaving?... when perhaps more than 50% want to remain, and there does not appear, nor has there ever been, a cogent plan that does not threaten the economic security of the nation.  This is a very troubling situation.  I suppose we'll blunder through, as big economies tend to withstrand major blows.  But the life of me I can't see the point based on upholding a very flimsy mandate.  In law of contract, there is a concept of frustration- when something simply can not be reasonably done.  And in politics there is 'heft' which is self explanatory.   I just honestly think this is a no-goer.

 

Nevertheless, having accepted we must leave, I really can't see the point in accepting a compromise position that hampers our attempts to rebuild.  A transition period that prevents us seeking new opportunities is worthless.  It really is a case of in or out.  Ultimately, if we want to uphold democracy, then there is only one path.

The current government cannot agree on a final destination , thus the requirement for a minimum 2yr transition .

They reject a EEA/EFTA or Canada model , but want an imaginative and creative agreement, a statement that says we do not know.

 

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, SheungWan said:

They can back down on anything as a transitional arrangement, dressed up or otherwise. At this moment in time that is all business institutions and the markets are expecting. If Theresa May can hold support together both with the Cabinet and the Tory Conference, then there is a chance. Dragging it all down for either Boris or Rees-Mogg or Corbyn is not an attractive option.

Any transitional arrangement can only delay the Article 127 issue, not resolve it. This is exactly why the courts put the case on hold.

They cannot keep dodging the issue forever, sooner or later someone must rule on whether leaving the EU automatically means leaving the EEA. Uncertainty will prevail until there is some resolution.

[rockingrobin]

31 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Any transitional arrangement can only delay the Article 127 issue, not resolve it. This is exactly why the courts put the case on hold.

They cannot keep dodging the issue forever, sooner or later someone must rule on whether leaving the EU automatically means leaving the EEA. Uncertainty will prevail until there is some resolution.

The issue will be complicated by the EU withdrawal bill, and possibly will be resolved at the amendments debate which include Art 127

[melvinmelvin]

On 20.9.2017 at 4:52 AM, sandyf said:

Some being more significant than others. Another government defeat on the horizon?

 

"Labour backbencher Heidi Alexander has already tabled an amendment to the bill that says: “No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise.”

If this or any similar amendment is passed, ministers would be forced to call a vote of Parliament on triggering Article 127 – like they were with Article 50."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-127-brexit-stop-what-is-it-single-market-eu-eea-theresa-may-article-50-a7955806.html

 

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court, last winter, concluded that the Parliament should have

their say re leaving after the "deals" are agreed between the negotiating parties.

If so, the above proposed amendment just steers the way Parliament should go about having their say.

 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Any transitional arrangement can only delay the Article 127 issue, not resolve it. This is exactly why the courts put the case on hold.

They cannot keep dodging the issue forever, sooner or later someone must rule on whether leaving the EU automatically means leaving the EEA. Uncertainty will prevail until there is some resolution.

 

People look somewhat differently upon this issue.

 

In my view leaving the EU means leaving the EEA. UK's only legal qualification for being party

to the EEA comes through her EU membership. Stepping out of the EU and the qualification vanishes.

 

Sure may be ruled upon. But it is certainly not for UK to make a decisive ruling on this.

UK may rule whether they like to leave or like to stay in EEA. But UK courts are NOT the guardian of EEA.

 

For UK to be in EEA after Brexit the by the book way would be along

the lines of;

 

a) Terminate EU membership

Apply for EFTA membership

(if and when EFTA membership is granted)

c) Apply for becoming party to EEA

 

The last bit, c), if accepted by exisiting parties to EEA will involve a treaty modification that needs ratification

by ALL EU memberstates as well as all EFTA memberstates party to EEA.

In other words; time consuming.

 

Now,

there are a whole host of shortcuts and presumptive actions

that can be taken/applied (deviations from the book) provided

that the concerned parties agree,

treaty law is in practice pretty soft and real obstacles are few

and far between

AS LONG AS ALL PARTIES AGREE

Have a nice saturday morning!

I finished my sudoku in record time this morning.

Edited September 23, 2017 by melvinmelvin

[rockingrobin]

21 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

If I remember correctly the Supreme Court, last winter, concluded that the Parliament should have

their say re leaving after the "deals" are agreed between the negotiating parties.

If so, the above proposed amendment just steers the way Parliament should go about having their say.

 

I do recall vaguely that the government did make statements to that effect during its submisions , but the court made no ruling on Parliament having a say on leaving after the agreement is finalised. 

The very fact that the EU withdrawal bill is so wide in scope and power would suggest the opposite

[sandyf]

7 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

People look somewhat differently upon this.

In my view leaving the EU means leaving the EEA. UK's only legal qualification for being party

to the EEA comes through her EU membership. Stepping out the EU, the qualification vanishes.

 

Sure may be ruled upon. But it is certainly not for UK to make a decisive ruling on this.

UK may rule whether they like to leave or like to stay in EEA. But UK cour

Exactly, and therein lies the problem. The government takes the view that the UK's membership of the EEA is based on EU membership and that termination of one automatically terminates the other. The EEA agreement has however its own rules regarding termination to which the UK has obviously agreed so the issue can only be resolved by a legal ruling.

A court case was brought but it was put on hold as until we are within 12 months of leaving the EEA there is effectively no case to answer. I think that you are probably right that if the case does get under way it may well be referred to the ECJ.

All that the amendment put forward will do is try and restrict the government from trying to circumvent due process.

[bert bloggs]

Well as for Mays "tough talks" over Brexit , after her speech yesterday we can see that the E.U told her to jump and she just said how high . wish Maggie had been there instead .

[sandyf]

26 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

People look somewhat differently upon this issue.

 

In my view leaving the EU means leaving the EEA. UK's only legal qualification for being party

to the EEA comes through her EU membership. Stepping out of the EU and the qualification vanishes.

 

Sure may be ruled upon. But it is certainly not for UK to make a decisive ruling on this.

UK may rule whether they like to leave or like to stay in EEA. But UK courts are NOT the guardian of EEA.

 

For UK to be in EEA after Brexit the by the book way would be along

the lines of;

 

a) Terminate EU membership

Apply for EFTA membership

(if and when EFTA membership is granted)

c) Apply for becoming party to EEA

 

The last bit, c), if accepted by exisiting parties to EEA will involve a treaty modification that needs ratification

by ALL EU memberstates as well as all EFTA memberstates party to EEA.

In other words; time consuming.

 

Now,

there are a whole host of shortcuts and presumptive actions

that can be taken/applied (deviations from the book) provided

that the concerned parties agree,

treaty law is in practice pretty soft and real obstacles are few

and far between

AS LONG AS ALL PARTIES AGREE

Have a nice saturday morning!

I finished my sudoku in record time this morning.

Looks like there was an interruption to your post, thought it seemed incomplete.

Just to address what was added, the case has nothing to do with remaining in the EEA, more about how leaving is achieved.

Bottom line is that those behind the legal challenge want a vote in parliament rather than some back door arrangement. Obviously the government would rather not have a vote in parliament.

The last thing the people need is another court case, all money down the drain, but it would appear that when it comes to getting her own way there is an open cheque book.

[sandyf]

12 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Well as for Mays "tough talks" over Brexit , after her speech yesterday we can see that the E.U told her to jump and she just said how high . wish Maggie had been there instead .

 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

People look somewhat differently upon this issue.

 

In my view leaving the EU means leaving the EEA. UK's only legal qualification for being party

to the EEA comes through her EU membership. Stepping out of the EU and the qualification vanishes.

 

Sure may be ruled upon. But it is certainly not for UK to make a decisive ruling on this.

UK may rule whether they like to leave or like to stay in EEA. But UK courts are NOT the guardian of EEA.

 

For UK to be in EEA after Brexit the by the book way would be along

the lines of;

 

a) Terminate EU membership

Apply for EFTA membership

(if and when EFTA membership is granted)

c) Apply for becoming party to EEA

 

The last bit, c), if accepted by exisiting parties to EEA will involve a treaty modification that needs ratification

by ALL EU memberstates as well as all EFTA memberstates party to EEA.

In other words; time consuming.

 

Now,

there are a whole host of shortcuts and presumptive actions

that can be taken/applied (deviations from the book) provided

that the concerned parties agree,

treaty law is in practice pretty soft and real obstacles are few

and far between

AS LONG AS ALL PARTIES AGREE

Have a nice saturday morning!

I finished my sudoku in record time this morning.

The question is does leaving the EU automatically mean leaving the EEA. Whilst the requirement to become a party to the EEA requires EU membership it does not automatically follow the reverse is true.

 

If we apply the principle of no one party can bind a third party to an agreement that they have not been involved with, and take the position leaving the EU equates to also automatic ending of UK participation in the EEA, we are left with unaswered questions.

 

The Art 50 process involves the EU member states and not the non EU EEA members, any agreement reached under Art 50 cannot bind the EEA members who are not in the EU , unless they are invited to participate in the negotations

 

The transition arrangements from the florence speech raises other questions.

 The UK is going to leave March 2019, at which point it is explained that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU , however the existing arrangements will remain for a period , possibly 2 years ,including FOM but no clarity on the EEA and how the FOM of the non EU members of the EEA is going to be implemented.

Of course the UK can unilaterally give this , but it cannot force the members of the EEA  who are not in the EU to do the same, as there will be no agreement with them.

 

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Exactly, and therein lies the problem. The government takes the view that the UK's membership of the EEA is based on EU membership and that termination of one automatically terminates the other. The EEA agreement has however its own rules regarding termination to which the UK has obviously agreed so the issue can only be resolved by a legal ruling.

A court case was brought but it was put on hold as until we are within 12 months of leaving the EEA there is effectively no case to answer. I think that you are probably right that if the case does get under way it may well be referred to the ECJ.

All that the amendment put forward will do is try and restrict the government from trying to circumvent due process.

 

Yes, I am aware of what you say in your 1st paragraph. Below, rockingbird is also touching upon this.

Not sure I agree that "can only be resolved by a legal ruling", when UK exits EU I cannot really see

any protests if she by that also leaves the EEA at the same time (at least not from parties legally concerned - ie the EEA membership).

 

Now, way up in this thread there are links to a handfull of legal elaborations/discussions on this issue.

Some lightfooted and some rather thorough. The more thorough ones seems to conclude that leaving

EU means leaving EEA. But, by all means, views are plentiful.

 

Legal ruling by ECJ?

Right now I cannot remember the composition of ECJ and not the upper

echelons of the EEA treaty. But a conclusive ruling on this must surely involve some EFTA judges.

 

May is heading for a busy/hard autumn, (or should I say fall?).

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

Well as for Mays "tough talks" over Brexit , after her speech yesterday we can see that the E.U told her to jump and she just said how high . wish Maggie had been there instead .

 

You really think that the NO! NO! NO! non compromising lady would do great in arranging a "good" exit for UK?

 

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

You really think that the NO! NO! NO! non compromising lady would do great in arranging a "good" exit for UK?

 

If Maggie was still there we would have been out years ago!

[melvinmelvin]

yes, you are probably right when assuming that

 

[rockingrobin]

12 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Yes, I am aware of what you say in your 1st paragraph. Below, rockingbird is also touching upon this.

Not sure I agree that "can only be resolved by a legal ruling", when UK exits EU I cannot really see

any protests if she by that also leaves the EEA at the same time (at least not from parties legally concerned - ie the EEA membership).

 

Now, way up in this thread there are links to a handfull of legal elaborations/discussions on this issue.

Some lightfooted and some rather thorough. The more thorough ones seems to conclude that leaving

EU means leaving EEA. But, by all means, views are plentiful.

 

Legal ruling by ECJ?

Right now I cannot remember the composition of ECJ and not the upper

echelons of the EEA treaty. But a conclusive ruling on this must surely involve some EFTA judges.

 

May is heading for a busy/hard autumn, (or should I say fall?).

 

 

 

Does this not have implications for trade during the transition period. March 2019 the UK becomes a third country, the transition will be an agreement with the EU, on what basis will the UK be trading with the likes of Norway in regard to the single market.

 

At present I can only see 1 conclusion and that is we are not leaving EEA

[melvinmelvin]

all relevant observations and questions, but so far its all up in the air

 

will there be a transition period?

if there will be such a period - implications for trade ? who knows

the Switzerland <--> EEA trade could serve as a possible model

too many ifs around, about time these negotiations get productive

 

DDavis and his French counterpart is not a good match - they don't produce

somebody should do smth with this

 

fair enough that you can see only one solution,

but do you honestly think that all EEA treaty signatories can only see the same solution?

 

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Yes, I am aware of what you say in your 1st paragraph. Below, rockingbird is also touching upon this.

Not sure I agree that "can only be resolved by a legal ruling", when UK exits EU I cannot really see

any protests if she by that also leaves the EEA at the same time (at least not from parties legally concerned - ie the EEA membership).

 

Under Article 127 of the EEA Agreement the UK must give 12 months notice to terminate the membership, so if the UK is to leave the EU and the EEA on 29th March 2019 then she must give the EEA notice by 29th March 2018.

TM wants to maintain that she does not need to give notice as that would mean a vote in parliament. The people behind the legal challenge are not going to let her get away with it so a legal ruling is almost inevitable.

I suspect she sees a transition period as a bit of a 'get out of jail' card as there would be no reason why the UK could not remain in the EEA during the transition period. She may be more confident of winning a vote in parliament 2 years down the line or possibly see it as someone else's problem.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Under Article 127 of the EEA Agreement the UK must give 12 months notice to terminate the membership, so if the UK is to leave the EU and the EEA on 29th March 2019 then she must give the EEA notice by 29th March 2018.

TM wants to maintain that she does not need to give notice as that would mean a vote in parliament. The people behind the legal challenge are not going to let her get away with it so a legal ruling is almost inevitable.

I suspect she sees a transition period as a bit of a 'get out of jail' card as there would be no reason why the UK could not remain in the EEA during the transition period. She may be more confident of winning a vote in parliament 2 years down the line or possibly see it as someone else's problem.

Articles 127 and 126 of the EEA treaty appear contradictory and can support either argument , one of the issues that may be raised during a transition period is will the EFTA members dispute whether the UK is still  a member of the EEA

[soalbundy]

May has given way in Florence, it's the beginning of the end for Brexit 

[bert bloggs]

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

May has given way in Florence, it's the beginning of the end for Brexit 

Dream on ,we will still leave ,just hope it doesnt cost us to much .

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, bert bloggs said:

Dream on ,we will still leave ,just hope it doesnt cost us to much .

It wont cost me anything as I have cut the umbilical cord to the UK a long long time ago, I just don't want the navy blue passport, I want the burgundy one and to stand to the anthem 'ode to joy'. It's a long time to 2021, attitudes can change, she was rather vague wasn't she, ''around two years'' perhaps three or four or never.

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

Under Article 127 of the EEA Agreement the UK must give 12 months notice to terminate the membership, so if the UK is to leave the EU and the EEA on 29th March 2019 then she must give the EEA notice by 29th March 2018.

TM wants to maintain that she does not need to give notice as that would mean a vote in parliament. The people behind the legal challenge are not going to let her get away with it so a legal ruling is almost inevitable.

I suspect she sees a transition period as a bit of a 'get out of jail' card as there would be no reason why the UK could not remain in the EEA during the transition period. She may be more confident of winning a vote in parliament 2 years down the line or possibly see it as someone else's problem.

 

right,

but the leaving EU=leaving EEA fraternity would probably argue that the notice was already given ultimo March this year

 

legal ruling in the UK on an issue which is not really a UK legal problem?

or do you mean a legal ruling by some EU/EEA body?

 

"as there would be no reason why the UK could not remain in the EEA during the transition period"

???

you will need the agreement of the EEA membership for that

Will there be a transition period?

 

 

[Grouse]

9 hours ago, sandyf said:

Exactly, and therein lies the problem. The government takes the view that the UK's membership of the EEA is based on EU membership and that termination of one automatically terminates the other. The EEA agreement has however its own rules regarding termination to which the UK has obviously agreed so the issue can only be resolved by a legal ruling.

A court case was brought but it was put on hold as until we are within 12 months of leaving the EEA there is effectively no case to answer. I think that you are probably right that if the case does get under way it may well be referred to the ECJ.

All that the amendment put forward will do is try and restrict the government from trying to circumvent due process.

Good to read some serious discussion on here today! ?

[Grouse]

I see the Cons can't hold themselves together for a day! That pantomime dame Rees Mogg is undermining May already. As a counterbalance, the dreadful shadow Home Secretary Abbot was let loose on Any Questions just to confirm, if anyone had any doubt, that Labour are unelectable.

 

We're heading for doom, I tell you, Doom!

[rockingrobin]

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

Under Article 127 of the EEA Agreement the UK must give 12 months notice to terminate the membership, so if the UK is to leave the EU and the EEA on 29th March 2019 then she must give the EEA notice by 29th March 2018.

TM wants to maintain that she does not need to give notice as that would mean a vote in parliament. The people behind the legal challenge are not going to let her get away with it so a legal ruling is almost inevitable.

I suspect she sees a transition period as a bit of a 'get out of jail' card as there would be no reason why the UK could not remain in the EEA during the transition period. She may be more confident of winning a vote in parliament 2 years down the line or possibly see it as someone else's problem.

 

19 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

right,

but the leaving EU=leaving EEA fraternity would probably argue that the notice was already given ultimo March this year

 

legal ruling in the UK on an issue which is not really a UK legal problem?

or do you mean a legal ruling by some EU/EEA body?

 

"as there would be no reason why the UK could not remain in the EEA during the transition period"

???

you will need the agreement of the EEA membership for that

Will there be a transition period?

 

 

The issue of leaving EU automatically equates to leaving the EEA is not a given. Each signatory to the EEA agreement is listed seperately . The articles are ambigous when it comes to distinguishing between the EU and EU member states.

Another point of ambiguity is Art 127 only gives 12 months notice, therefore March 2018 will be the UKs EEA leaving date if Art 50 notification is regarded as art 127 notification

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

If Maggie was still there we would have been out years ago!

The EU would have been changed years ago

[Grouse]

At least we can trust the Cons for economic prudence ?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-florence-speech-uk-credit-rating-moodys-agency-eu-theresa-may-government-alastair-wilson-a7962916.html