Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
712 said:
Sot of. The EU won't negotiate new terms for us staying, and shouldn't have to, but what they can do is negotiate new trading terms for when we leave.

Given this new information, then a second referendum could be held on whether to stay, on existing terms, or leave, and accept the new ones.
Click to expand...

In theory, if you invoke the article 50 you are out. You have two years to find an agreement with the EU and after that they can refuse to discuss with you.
 
712 said:
A proposed UK deal could be a template for anyone wanting to leave. No further action needed. Remember the EU wouldn't be offering anyone new terms for staying, only those for anyone that leaves.
Click to expand...
They will therefore make sure that it deters anyone else from comtemplating leaving. We will get screwed, or as said above, nothing will actually change, except we will be powerless, and the rest will be stuck in the EU.
 
JPRouve said:
In theory, if you invoke the article 50 you are out. You have two years to find an agreement with the EU and after that they can refuse to discuss with you.
Click to expand...

I see that. I reckon there's a good chance a new PM and the EU could meet and agree to negotiate terms before invoking that article.

I might add that it's crucial the new, Brexit-supporting PM would be the one negotiating these terms. They would therefore be Vote Leave negotiated terms, they would have nowhere else to go after a second referendum.
 
Carolina Red said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

http://www.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ng-brexit-lisbon-cameron-sovereign-parliament

http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum/73775/is-the-eu-referendum-result-legally-binding
Click to expand...

Those links don't contradict what I have said. The referendum is not legally binding but its not up to Parliament to decide to trigger article 50. It's up to the Prime Minister.

Parliament has already incorporated the Lisbon Treaty into EU law. The exit mechanism for the UK to leave the EU is to trigger article 50. To do this the Government does not need a vote. The Guardian highlights this. David Cameron, not Parliament, but Cameron as Prime Minister could refuse to trigger article 50. Since it is up to the Prime Minister, as the head of government, to decide whether or not to do so. Parliament has no power over the decision.

Once a British Prime Minister triggers article 50, that's it. Even if Parliament left the European Communities Act, and all the other European acts since, in place it would be meaningless. As meaningless as any laws referring to Britain's colonies. The EU would simply not acknowledge our access to its markets, nor our rights within its jurisdiction.

Minimalist said:
So let me get this straight: you actually believe this is going to end up with no free movement? The fact the leave MPs are now admitting 'free movement' will not be a factor in future trade deals is not an indicator?
Click to expand...

It might but it would be the end of the politicians who promised it, since they sold people on the prospectus of a points based immigration system.

I voted to remain. Lots of people though voted leave, solely to control immigration. Joining the EEA would make the whole thing worthless. If that's where we are headed we should just not trigger article 50. We're in a better place right now than that.
 
But if the EU gives in to any British demands then it would encourage other states to threaten to leave as well in order to get their will. Britain can in no way benefit from the referendum otherwise the whole EU would be severely undermined even if they remain.
 
712 said:
I see that. I reckon there's a good chance a new PM and the EU could meet and agree to negotiate terms before invoking that article.

I might add that it's crucial the new, Brexit-supporting PM would be the one negotiating these terms. They would therefore be Vote Leave negotiated terms, they would have nowhere else to go after a second referendum.
Click to expand...
Yes they would attempt that, but depends if they actually manage to get them. If they don't they will be left with egg on their faces. Depends how much of an example they want to make of us and how it is affecting the other countries in the EU.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
They will therefore make sure that it deters anyone else from comtemplating leaving. We will get screwed, or as said above, nothing will actually change, except we will be powerless, and the rest will be stuck in the EU.
Click to expand...

This depends on whether you believe Leave's 'Germany won't want to stop selling BMWs, they sell more to us than we do to them' arguments.
Personally I don't, but whatever they may actually be people would know them and have more information to base their vote on than they have had up to now.
And if we vote to Leave again, it may be more acceptable democratically.
 
712 said:
I see that. I reckon there's a good chance a new PM and the EU could meet and agree to negotiate terms before invoking that article.

I might add that it's crucial the new, Brexit-supporting PM would be the one negotiating these terms. They would therefore be Vote Leave negotiated terms, they would have nowhere else to go after a second referendum.
Click to expand...

But the EU could refuse to negotiate until the article 50 is triggered, which make sense because negotiating before that point will send a bad message.
 
I still haven't heard anything from the 'leavers' regarding the news (totally expected) freedom of movement will almost certainly remain.

Dress it up all you like: this is the main reason people voted leave. So I'd love to know how they feel about this critical issue being still unresolved in all likelihood.
 
do.ob said:
But if the EU gives in to any British demands then it would encourage other states to threaten to leave as well in order to get their will. Britain can in no way benefit from the referendum otherwise the whole EU would be severely undermined even if they remain.
Click to expand...

Once again, the EU wouldn't be giving in to anything, we would be finding out what the new terms would be if we left, and then making a decision.
 
do.ob said:
But if the EU gives in to any British demands then it would encourage other states to threaten to leave as well in order to get their will. Britain can in no way benefit from the referendum otherwise the whole EU would be severely undermined even if they remain.
Click to expand...
That's why I think Brexit will find it difficult to get what they want without a lot of compromises, most of which their fans likely won't enjoy.
 
JPRouve said:
But the EU could refuse to negotiate until the article 50 is triggered, which make sense because negotiating before that point will send a bad message.
Click to expand...

They could. Personally I believe there is a desire in the EU to find a solution and keep the UK if possible, I think any nastiness will be a last resort.
 
Minimalist said:
I still haven't heard anything from the 'leavers' regarding the news (totally expected) freedom of movement will almost certainly remain.

Dress it up all you like: this is the main reason people voted leave. So I'd love to know how they feel about this critical issue being still unresolved in all likelihood.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine it will be something along the lines of "EU punishing us by making us accept their rules still". Basically, if they can blame the EU rather than reflecting on their own illogical choices, they will.
 
712 said:
Once again, the EU wouldn't be giving in to anything, we would be finding out what the new terms would be, and then making a decision.
Click to expand...

And it's not in the EU interest to let you know anything about the new terms until you trigger the article 50.
 
I definitely don't feel comfortable having Farage being involved and if they are trying to freeze him out, then his hissy fit will be enjoyable.
 
712 said:
Once again, the EU wouldn't be giving in to anything, we would be finding out what the new terms would be, and then making a decision.
Click to expand...

Ah, so I guess I've misunderstood you and you're saying that Britain's politicians would hypothetically negotiate what the post-EU terms would be for them and then decide whether or not they'd actually follow through and invoke article 50?
I'm not sure whether that's possible, there's a reason for the two year period, because those are probably highly complex and lengthy negotiations.
 
712 said:
This depends on whether you believe Leave's 'Germany won't want to stop selling BMWs, they sell more to us than we do to them' arguments.
Personally I don't, but whatever they may actually be people would know them and have more information to base their vote on than they have had up to now.
And if we vote to Leave again, it may be more acceptable democratically.
Click to expand...

On a very serious note, they will sell a part of the BMWs to Iran.
 
do.ob said:
But if the EU gives in to any British demands then it would encourage other states to threaten to leave as well in order to get their will. Britain can in no way benefit from the referendum otherwise the whole EU would be severely undermined even if they remain.
Click to expand...
None of the other member states could because they are tied into the single currency. The pounds losses yesterday were incredibly small. People may say they weren't but it was a fall of 8%, which was actually a lot lot smaller than certain bods hoped for. Britain is in an stupidly strong position to negotiate now. If not then we just don't activate article 50 and leave the whole of the EU in Limbo.
 
JPRouve said:
And it's not in the EU interest to let you know anything about the new terms until you trigger the article 50.
Click to expand...

They may well decide this is so. Or they may not. It's a balance for them between wanting to keep the UK, which I believe they do, and not wanting to encourage others to leave isn't it? The thing is though, supposing we do as you say, article first, then new terms what then? Other potential leavers will have the example before them in any case, it will just have taken a bit longer.
 
712 said:
They could. Personally I believe there is a desire in the EU to find a solution and keep the UK if possible, I think any nastiness will be a last resort.
Click to expand...

First signs are that it is a bit of both, a good cop (Merkel, Hollande), bad cop (Junker, Schaeuble) sort of approach.
 
JPRouve said:
On a very serious note, they will sell a part of the BMWs to Iran.
Click to expand...
Will be interesting how it will actually affect the cost of cars, if at all. We might not be able to afford BMW's anymore. I am sure they will be able to sell them somewhere else.
 
There are a few Labour MPs saying they don't accept the decision and will try to vote it down in the chamber. More than 2/3rds or MPs voted remain.
 
do.ob said:
Ah, so I guess I've misunderstood you and you're saying that Britain's politicians would hypothetically negotiate what the post-EU terms would be for them and then decide whether or not they'd actually follow through and invoke article 50?
I'm not sure whether that's possible, there's a reason for the two year period, because those are probably highly complex and lengthy negotiations.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a problem, I'm just hoping they could, maybe agreeing in principle if not in detail perhaps.
 
Xeno said:
There are a few Labour MPs saying they don't accept the decision and will try to vote it down in the chamber. More than 2/3rds or MPs voted remain.
Click to expand...
If thats true then it can't possibly be voted through then right?
 
Just in case anyone is unclear about the process for withdrawing from the European Union, the British Government has produced a guide (link).

I don't think many people understand how difficult it will be for Britain to get any kind of good deal. Once article 50 is triggered, the terms of negotiation have been agreed by the European Council and the European Parliament. Both bodies have to vote on the EU Commission's proposals. Anyone who saw the reactions of people like Juncker and Schultz to the Brexit vote must understand how hard it will be. Even if the members of the European Council e.g. Merkel, wanted a good deal for Britain, she would have to get it past a majority of the European Council and the European Parliament. The latter body is especially Eurofederalist and will be looking to punish Britain for damaging the so-called European Project.

David Cameron actually got a pretty good deal from his renegotiation, a deal those bodies had agreed to implement if we voted to remain. Now we have left...

Anyone who saw the foreign ministers on TV today will note there is little willingness to show Britain any patience.
 
712 said:
They may well decide this is so. Or they may not. It's a balance for them between wanting to keep the UK, which I believe they do, and not wanting to encourage others to leave isn't it? The thing is though, supposing we do as you say, article first, then new terms what then? Other potential leavers will have the example before them in any case, it will just have taken a bit longer.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the deal will depend on the country, so the actual terms are meaningless to other countries at the exception of France who are comparable but we are in the middle of everything and they need our roads, so even then France are totally different.
The point to invoke the article first is to avoid stupid request from countries who are not really willing to leave unless they get the deal of the century, we need to avoid pointless negotiations.
 
Its seems that the roles have changed after the referendum results. EU wants the UK to leave while the leave camp are back paddling furiously. The 350m a year to the NHS was a lie, the UK won't be able to reduce immigration, they wont activate clause 50 etc.

I bet that if the EU throws Boris a bone he might as well call for a second referendum with him saying that the EU is the best thing since last bread. Farage will probably join the chorus
 
Xeno said:
Well many of those 2/3rds will still vote according to the referendum.
Click to expand...


They don't need to vote on it. The Lisbon Treaty is already British law. We incorporated it years ago.

Parliament cannot stop the Government from triggering article 50 if it wants to, and the Government says it will. As I said above just check out the guide the Government produced: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-process-for-withdrawing-from-the-european-union

This idea that Parliament can stop the Government doing this is a fig leaf.

The only way Parliament could do this is if it votes to bring down the Government before the Government triggers article 50 e.g. table a no confidence motion in the Government and win it before article 50 is triggered.

EDIT: There are very good reasons to believe Parliament won't try a no confidence motion e.g. Loads of the Tory Shires and Labour's heartlands in Wales and the North voted MASSIVELY to leave. If the Government falls there will be a General Election. The MPs that voted to bring down the Government before it could trigger article 50 would then get smashed by the mobilised majority for Leave. UKIP would clean up hugely.
 
Gambit said:
None of the other member states could because they are tied into the single currency. The pounds losses yesterday were incredibly small. People may say they weren't but it was a fall of 8%, which was actually a lot lot smaller than certain bods hoped for. Britain is in an stupidly strong position to negotiate now. If not then we just don't activate article 50 and leave the whole of the EU in Limbo.
Click to expand...


And Britain isn't in limbo if they are expected to leave the EU and no one knows how the new treaties will turn out? I imagine such uncertainty won't exactly encourage potential investors to do projects in the UK.
 
JPRouve said:
The difference is that the deal will depend on the country, so the actual terms are meaningless to other countries at the exception of France who are comparable but we are in the middle of everything and they need our roads, so even then France are totally different.
The point to invoke the article first is to avoid stupid request from countries who are not really willing to leave unless they get the deal of the century, we need to avoid pointless negotiations.
Click to expand...

Of course that's the point, but it's happening despite that. Yes, countries are different, but broad principles like minimum tariffs, minimum percentage GDP payment, and freedom of movement could be agreed, I hope. More to go on then we had last time.
 
Elderly Leave voters tell Newsnight that their grandchildren won't talk to them
 
devilish said:
Its seems that the roles have changed after the referendum results. EU wants the UK to leave while the leave camp are back paddling furiously. The 350m a year to the NHS was a lie, the UK won't be able to reduce immigration, they wont activate clause 50 etc.

I bet that if the EU throws Boris a bone he might as well call for a second referendum with him saying that the EU is the best thing since last bread. Farage will probably join the chorus
Click to expand...
Obviously they never expected to win.

As someone pointed out, it's becoming very clear not much will change in two/three years time. Except Britain will have weakened itself politically in Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.