Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Remember the woman who took the UK government to court over the matter of triggering Article 50 and who has indicated that she would take further such action if necessary to ensure that the government does things properly? Well, I wonder if she would take the European council to court over their clear intent to breach Article 50 They have stated that there will be no discussion on our future relationship with the EU until AFTER the terms of our withdrawal have been settled. However, Article 50 is actually very clear that both terms of withdrawal and future relationship must be negotiated simultaneously. '2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.' " I've re-read that several times and I don't see where it states the two things have to be done concurrently. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Remember the woman who took the UK government to court over the matter of triggering Article 50 and who has indicated that she would take further such action if necessary to ensure that the government does things properly? Well, I wonder if she would take the European council to court over their clear intent to breach Article 50 They have stated that there will be no discussion on our future relationship with the EU until AFTER the terms of our withdrawal have been settled. However, Article 50 is actually very clear that both terms of withdrawal and future relationship must be negotiated simultaneously. '2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.' " if you're bothered, take them to court yourself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Remember the woman who took the UK government to court over the matter of triggering Article 50 and who has indicated that she would take further such action if necessary to ensure that the government does things properly? Well, I wonder if she would take the European council to court over their clear intent to breach Article 50 They have stated that there will be no discussion on our future relationship with the EU until AFTER the terms of our withdrawal have been settled. However, Article 50 is actually very clear that both terms of withdrawal and future relationship must be negotiated simultaneously. '2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.' if you're bothered, take them to court yourself " this.. crowd funding maybe.. not sure which court it would end up in though..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legally we can make our own trade deals now, it's just a kind of gentlemans agreement not to. What they gonna do, kick us out? "No, legally we are still members, and cannot make our own trade deals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legally we can make our own trade deals now, it's just a kind of gentlemans agreement not to. What they gonna do, kick us out? "Great use of the word 'legally' 
Not at all illustrative of the typical brexiter relationship with the truth  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legally we can make our own trade deals now, it's just a kind of gentlemans agreement not to. What they gonna do, kick us out?
No, legally we are still members, and cannot make our own trade deals."We can negotiate our own trade deals which will come into force the day we are no longer members. Don't keep believing the shite that the EU come out with | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I can't understand is that we cannot legally talk to anyone else about our future trade with them, because we are still full members of the EU.... And yet the EU are excluding us from participation in more and more areas because we are leaving. Although everybody on all sides know that we are talking to other countries about future trade deals." Them's the rules, some of us have been quoting them for well over a year now and have been continually told we did'n't have crystal balls so couldn't know what would happen. We have now played our only card, from now on the EU makes all the decisions without our input, they may ask us what we think and let us have a say but as of 29/3 we lost our right to help shape the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can negotiate our own trade deals which will come into force the day we are no longer members. Don't keep believing the shite that the EU come out with" No. We are still in the EU and governed by EU treaties. Of course as a sovereign state we can ignore those treaty obligations, tare them up and do whatever we feel like (as you suggest). However what country in it's right mind would enter into a trade agreement (treaty) with a country that has just unilaterally ripped up 40 years worth of treaties with its largest trading partner? And of course how do you think the EU would react? I know you are totally pro brexit, but do you really think that the EU would just bend over for us to shaft them? Or do you think every non British EU company in the UK would promptly relocate and the EU would impose punitive tariffs on all UK goods entering the EU? Do you think that the French farmers and drivers might decide to blockade the chunnel and ferry ports? Have you noticed how much of our food comes from the EU? How long do you think it would take to empty the supermarkets of fresh fruit, veg and meat? Maybe you would want to retaliate... Do you think that maybe the EU would then turn off the gas that flows through the pipelines that pass through many EU countries and stop supplying the electricity that we import from them? Maybe you would suggest going to war and nuking them... Do you think that maybe the French would return the favour if we did that? I think you really have not given any thought to the ramifications of not playing by the rules and exactly how much the EU can damage us if we piss them off enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legally we can make our own trade deals now, it's just a kind of gentlemans agreement not to. What they gonna do, kick us out? "Be careful remember the almighty EU is the biggest success story ever some in here, it's strange how they choose to ignore all of its failings and how some states only ever do what's best for its citizens. You will never see a German police officer driving a car that isn't manufactured by either VAG or Mercedes. Which when you consider any purchase over £250,000 has to be placed in the European Journal and on Achilles is also mightily strange. You never see the French local authorities using U.K. Or German produced vehicles. I admit it will be a rocky road with a few punctures encountered over the next 2 years, but at least we are leaving and will have the freedom to do as we wish as nation, Its time to put the GREAT back in to Britain and for us to join the world as a player. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I can't understand is that we cannot legally talk to anyone else about our future trade with them, because we are still full members of the EU.... And yet the EU are excluding us from participation in more and more areas because we are leaving. Although everybody on all sides know that we are talking to other countries about future trade deals." I met some Swiss bankers whilst skiing in February, and there view was that UK would do fine, and that negotiations about the future had already started. As they said business is business. Nobody wishes to be stood on the deck as the ships sinks waving the life boars of in to the distance, so I'm sure that many organisations, business's and the government are already doing all that they can to ensure we have as smooth and as profitable transition as is humanly possible | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I can't understand is that we cannot legally talk to anyone else about our future trade with them, because we are still full members of the EU.... And yet the EU are excluding us from participation in more and more areas because we are leaving. Although everybody on all sides know that we are talking to other countries about future trade deals. Them's the rules, some of us have been quoting them for well over a year now and have been continually told we did'n't have crystal balls so couldn't know what would happen. We have now played our only card, from now on the EU makes all the decisions without our input, they may ask us what we think and let us have a say but as of 29/3 we lost our right to help shape the EU. " Ultimately Big business will decide, not Malta which is 8 miles by 18. And whose socialist government mysteriously transferred £2 million to panama | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I met some Swiss bankers whilst skiing in February, and there view was that UK would do fine, and that negotiations about the future had already started. As they said business is business. Nobody wishes to be stood on the deck as the ships sinks waving the life boars of in to the distance, so I'm sure that many organisations, business's and the government are already doing all that they can to ensure we have as smooth and as profitable transition as is humanly possible " How do you know a banker is lying, they are speaking... If being outside the single market is so great how come Switzerland although not in the EU obeys all its regulations and directives to be part of the single market? I am sure bankers all over the world are saying the same as the ones you met while busily planning to get in on the act of carving up the city. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can negotiate our own trade deals which will come into force the day we are no longer members. Don't keep believing the shite that the EU come out with No. We are still in the EU and governed by EU treaties. Of course as a sovereign state we can ignore those treaty obligations, tare them up and do whatever we feel like (as you suggest). However what country in it's right mind would enter into a trade agreement (treaty) with a country that has just unilaterally ripped up 40 years worth of treaties with its largest trading partner? And of course how do you think the EU would react? I know you are totally pro brexit, but do you really think that the EU would just bend over for us to shaft them? Or do you think every non British EU company in the UK would promptly relocate and the EU would impose punitive tariffs on all UK goods entering the EU? Do you think that the French farmers and drivers might decide to blockade the chunnel and ferry ports? Have you noticed how much of our food comes from the EU? How long do you think it would take to empty the supermarkets of fresh fruit, veg and meat? Maybe you would want to retaliate... Do you think that maybe the EU would then turn off the gas that flows through the pipelines that pass through many EU countries and stop supplying the electricity that we import from them? Maybe you would suggest going to war and nuking them... Do you think that maybe the French would return the favour if we did that? I think you really have not given any thought to the ramifications of not playing by the rules and exactly how much the EU can damage us if we piss them off enough." I've given it plenty of thought, have the EU? Leaving the legal jargon aside, the EU have said a member who invokes A50 can discuss future trade agreements with non EU countries but not enter into negotiations with them. What's the difference? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can negotiate our own trade deals which will come into force the day we are no longer members. Don't keep believing the shite that the EU come out with No. We are still in the EU and governed by EU treaties. Of course as a sovereign state we can ignore those treaty obligations, tare them up and do whatever we feel like (as you suggest). However what country in it's right mind would enter into a trade agreement (treaty) with a country that has just unilaterally ripped up 40 years worth of treaties with its largest trading partner? And of course how do you think the EU would react? I know you are totally pro brexit, but do you really think that the EU would just bend over for us to shaft them? Or do you think every non British EU company in the UK would promptly relocate and the EU would impose punitive tariffs on all UK goods entering the EU? Do you think that the French farmers and drivers might decide to blockade the chunnel and ferry ports? Have you noticed how much of our food comes from the EU? How long do you think it would take to empty the supermarkets of fresh fruit, veg and meat? Maybe you would want to retaliate... Do you think that maybe the EU would then turn off the gas that flows through the pipelines that pass through many EU countries and stop supplying the electricity that we import from them? Maybe you would suggest going to war and nuking them... Do you think that maybe the French would return the favour if we did that? I think you really have not given any thought to the ramifications of not playing by the rules and exactly how much the EU can damage us if we piss them off enough. I've given it plenty of thought, have the EU? Leaving the legal jargon aside, the EU have said a member who invokes A50 can discuss future trade agreements with non EU countries but not enter into negotiations with them. What's the difference?" Before you said we can negotiate trade deals now, but now you're saying we can't enter trade deals.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've given it plenty of thought, have the EU? Leaving the legal jargon aside, the EU have said a member who invokes A50 can discuss future trade agreements with non EU countries but not enter into negotiations with them. What's the difference?" Well firstly you really cant just ignore the legal jargon, because the devil is in the detail. But that aside... I suppose discussing future trade agreements is just that. We would like one with you, would you like one with us? We would like it to cover xyz, what would you like it to cover? We can have a team ready to start negotiations on 29/3/19, when would you be ready to open talks? As against, lets get down to brass tack we will give you this if you give us that. Agreed. So: Item 1: WE agree to.... Seems really quite strait forward and understandable to me. Could it be you just don't want to understand? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We can negotiate our own trade deals which will come into force the day we are no longer members. Don't keep believing the shite that the EU come out with No. We are still in the EU and governed by EU treaties. Of course as a sovereign state we can ignore those treaty obligations, tare them up and do whatever we feel like (as you suggest). However what country in it's right mind would enter into a trade agreement (treaty) with a country that has just unilaterally ripped up 40 years worth of treaties with its largest trading partner? And of course how do you think the EU would react? I know you are totally pro brexit, but do you really think that the EU would just bend over for us to shaft them? Or do you think every non British EU company in the UK would promptly relocate and the EU would impose punitive tariffs on all UK goods entering the EU? Do you think that the French farmers and drivers might decide to blockade the chunnel and ferry ports? Have you noticed how much of our food comes from the EU? How long do you think it would take to empty the supermarkets of fresh fruit, veg and meat? Maybe you would want to retaliate... Do you think that maybe the EU would then turn off the gas that flows through the pipelines that pass through many EU countries and stop supplying the electricity that we import from them? Maybe you would suggest going to war and nuking them... Do you think that maybe the French would return the favour if we did that? I think you really have not given any thought to the ramifications of not playing by the rules and exactly how much the EU can damage us if we piss them off enough. I've given it plenty of thought, have the EU? Leaving the legal jargon aside, the EU have said a member who invokes A50 can discuss future trade agreements with non EU countries but not enter into negotiations with them. What's the difference? Before you said we can negotiate trade deals now, but now you're saying we can't enter trade deals. "I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. The EU have said we can't negotiate trade deals but we can discuss them. What's the difference? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. " We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So this is new ground for the EU. I imagine that they didn't ever envisage anyone leaving." New ground, yes. But to say they did not envisage anyone leaving is patently wrong because the codified the method of succeeding from the EU, unlike say the UK where it seems to be up to the PM if she will or will not allow Scotland to decide if it wishes to remain in this union.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states." Bu circumstances have changed and the law allows us to protect our position on leaving. By the way, somewhere in Article 50 it requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Funny, we've not heard much mention of that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Bu circumstances have changed and the law allows us to protect our position on leaving. By the way, somewhere in Article 50 it requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Funny, we've not heard much mention of that" No and no! The treaty of Lisbon can only be changed by another treaty, in the same way as it required the treaty of Lisbon to change the Treaty of Rome. And I don't know how many times I (and others) have posted not only article 50 but also article 49 and it dos not require the EU to seek anything other than our timely exit. What it does do is say that any agreement reached must get a qualified majority in the European Parliament and that should a leaving member seek an extension to the 2 year time period from the EU that must be unanimously agreed by the remaining members, and that having triggered article 50 that member shall play no roll in the deliberations of the remaining members. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states. Bu circumstances have changed and the law allows us to protect our position on leaving. By the way, somewhere in Article 50 it requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Funny, we've not heard much mention of that" You haven't heard much about it because it doesn't exist. Why dont you quote it if it exists? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states. Bu circumstances have changed and the law allows us to protect our position on leaving. By the way, somewhere in Article 50 it requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Funny, we've not heard much mention of that" This is Article 50 " Article 50 Print Email 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. " Where is the mention of the free trade deal because I'm having difficulty finding it no matter how many times I read it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states. Bu circumstances have changed and the law allows us to protect our position on leaving. By the way, somewhere in Article 50 it requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Funny, we've not heard much mention of that This is Article 50 Article 50 Print Email 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. Where is the mention of the free trade deal because I'm having difficulty finding it no matter how many times I read it." What does guidelines of the European Council mean or what does article 218(3) say etc? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legally we can make our own trade deals now, it's just a kind of gentlemans agreement not to. What they gonna do, kick us out? "obviously you know nothing with regards to contractual matters! But yes we could walk away and what sort of message does that send to any other nation with whom we want a "contractual free trade agreement "? Not worth the paper its written on! As for breaking contracts the Govt is just about to pay out £100m for breaking the contract for the decommissioning of the Magnox nuclear power stations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reminds me of the days when hairdressers used to leave a salon, and they used to make them sign a contract to say that they wouldn't approach any of that salon's clients for two years! " actually they still exist, and whats more they are enforceable - especially in financial services industry! First hand experience! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states. Bu circumstances have changed and the law allows us to protect our position on leaving. By the way, somewhere in Article 50 it requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Funny, we've not heard much mention of that This is Article 50 Article 50 Print Email 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. Where is the mention of the free trade deal because I'm having difficulty finding it no matter how many times I read it. What does guidelines of the European Council mean or what does article 218(3) say etc?" I have no idea what other guidelines or articles say, you clearly said Article 50 state's about free trade agreements which it dosen't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reminds me of the days when hairdressers used to leave a salon, and they used to make them sign a contract to say that they wouldn't approach any of that salon's clients for two years! actually they still exist, and whats more they are enforceable - especially in financial services industry! First hand experience! " Really? What happened to EU rules on freedom of trade? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I met some Swiss bankers whilst skiing in February, and there view was that UK would do fine, and that negotiations about the future had already started. As they said business is business. Nobody wishes to be stood on the deck as the ships sinks waving the life boars of in to the distance, so I'm sure that many organisations, business's and the government are already doing all that they can to ensure we have as smooth and as profitable transition as is humanly possible How do you know a banker is lying, they are speaking... If being outside the single market is so great how come Switzerland although not in the EU obeys all its regulations and directives to be part of the single market? I am sure bankers all over the world are saying the same as the ones you met while busily planning to get in on the act of carving up the city." Interesting point actually. The Swill had a decade long recession prior to paying for access to the single market. They paid for access as every single formula and study showed that their economy would be signifigantly better off. Low and behold it did get better. As an economics lecturer said to me a week ago when we spoke, "The Swiss love money and are utterly pragmatic when it comes to it. If they felt that the single market was a relic and a hinderance they would have stopped paying for it the moment they realised this. Ultimately physical geography and reasource distribution, still dictates who you will buy and sell from and too." So why are brexiters upholding, or were upholding The Swiss when the reality is that the single market arguably helped them out of recession. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states." And that is the main problem with the EU! They want to control everything and stop the UK from expanding our markets | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reminds me of the days when hairdressers used to leave a salon, and they used to make them sign a contract to say that they wouldn't approach any of that salon's clients for two years! actually they still exist, and whats more they are enforceable - especially in financial services industry! First hand experience! Really? What happened to EU rules on freedom of trade? " WTF are you going on about?! What has EU freedom of trade got to do with contractual relations between and employer and employee? If you want to clutch at straws you could head more towards the EU protections for workers rights. That might have something to say about limiting the scope and time of non-compete clauses in contracts perhaps. Yeah, those EU protections we voted to leave because 'red tape'. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states. And that is the main problem with the EU! They want to control everything and stop the UK from expanding our markets " No they dont, a key point is that 28 members can get a better deal than a single country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states. And that is the main problem with the EU! They want to control everything and stop the UK from expanding our markets " No, they wanted to keep a level playing field for the member states of the EU. They wanted to ensure that trade deals would benefit all members, and not just a select member. But, hey, we are leaving, so we are forfeiting any right we would have to influence the change of those rules if we wanted to. Now we just have to deal with the problem that we've known about all along, way before the vote even happened, but decided to ignore... that according to the rules we can't negotiate new trade agreements with countries outside the EU. So we are going to either have to: 1) break the rules and demonstrate to any future partners that we can't be trusted, and also further piss off the closest, biggest trading bloc to us, and start negotiating with other countries now. or 2) Suck it up and have a period once we leave the EU where we don't have the benefits of EU membership and trade, but haven't yet negotiated a trade deal with anyone outside the EU. Could be a few years. We don't even have enough time to negotiate our separation from the EU in 2 years let alone anything else anyway. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE'" Yes. What's your point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I said legally we can negotiate if we wanted to, not enter. We can't, the treaty of Lisbon specifically prohibits any member state from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the single market or negotiations for such. Only the commission can enter into any trade negotiations with non EU states. And that is the main problem with the EU! They want to control everything and stop the UK from expanding our markets No they dont, a key point is that 28 members can get a better deal than a single country. " But they don't | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point?" I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt" Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left" No. Nothing in the rules at all. In the 'words' as you put it, well yes, they have said they stand 'resolute to initiate work towards... yadda yadda'. But that is no more concrete than Theresa May saying that she is seeking 'the best possible outcome' of the negotiations. It means fuck all. I stood resolutely to to stop biting my nails this year. Still fucking do it. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left No. Nothing in the rules at all. In the 'words' as you put it, well yes, they have said they stand 'resolute to initiate work towards... yadda yadda'. But that is no more concrete than Theresa May saying that she is seeking 'the best possible outcome' of the negotiations. It means fuck all. I stood resolutely to to stop biting my nails this year. Still fucking do it. -Matt" Like I said I can't be arsed to trawl through the rules to find it but it's there. And do you think they would have used those 'words' if it wasn't? The words mean fuck all. In your opinion. Just a thought, are the EU allowed to enter into trade negotiations with none EU countries before the UK leaves? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left No. Nothing in the rules at all. In the 'words' as you put it, well yes, they have said they stand 'resolute to initiate work towards... yadda yadda'. But that is no more concrete than Theresa May saying that she is seeking 'the best possible outcome' of the negotiations. It means fuck all. I stood resolutely to to stop biting my nails this year. Still fucking do it. -Matt Like I said I can't be arsed to trawl through the rules to find it but it's there. And do you think they would have used those 'words' if it wasn't? The words mean fuck all. In your opinion. Just a thought, are the EU allowed to enter into trade negotiations with none EU countries before the UK leaves?" Even if you could be arsed, would wouldn't be able to find something that doesn't exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left No. Nothing in the rules at all. In the 'words' as you put it, well yes, they have said they stand 'resolute to initiate work towards... yadda yadda'. But that is no more concrete than Theresa May saying that she is seeking 'the best possible outcome' of the negotiations. It means fuck all. I stood resolutely to to stop biting my nails this year. Still fucking do it. -Matt Like I said I can't be arsed to trawl through the rules to find it but it's there. And do you think they would have used those 'words' if it wasn't? The words mean fuck all. In your opinion. Just a thought, are the EU allowed to enter into trade negotiations with none EU countries before the UK leaves?" No I understand, you can't be arsed. That is fine. But that doesn't mean you can just make shit up. Or if you do, then be prepared to be told you are wrong if you can't support your statements. Are the EU allowed to enter trade negotiations with non-EU countries before the UK leaves?! Of course if fucking is! Stop with thinking the UK is a special snowflake here. The UK leaving is not going to stop the EU from doing what it does. It has negotiated trade deals with 3rd parties whilst the UK has been a member... how the fuck do you think it got the 3rd party trade deals it currently has?! Sorry for all the swearing, but really... do you actually think through what you post before you post it? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left No. Nothing in the rules at all. In the 'words' as you put it, well yes, they have said they stand 'resolute to initiate work towards... yadda yadda'. But that is no more concrete than Theresa May saying that she is seeking 'the best possible outcome' of the negotiations. It means fuck all. I stood resolutely to to stop biting my nails this year. Still fucking do it. -Matt Like I said I can't be arsed to trawl through the rules to find it but it's there. And do you think they would have used those 'words' if it wasn't? The words mean fuck all. In your opinion. Just a thought, are the EU allowed to enter into trade negotiations with none EU countries before the UK leaves? No I understand, you can't be arsed. That is fine. But that doesn't mean you can just make shit up. Or if you do, then be prepared to be told you are wrong if you can't support your statements. Are the EU allowed to enter trade negotiations with non-EU countries before the UK leaves?! Of course if fucking is! Stop with thinking the UK is a special snowflake here. The UK leaving is not going to stop the EU from doing what it does. It has negotiated trade deals with 3rd parties whilst the UK has been a member... how the fuck do you think it got the 3rd party trade deals it currently has?! Sorry for all the swearing, but really... do you actually think through what you post before you post it? -Matt" Err yes, do you? If the EU are currently negotiating trade deals with 3rd parties then they are negotiating on our behalf aren't they as we are still a member? They can only do deals that apply equally to all members. So when we have left, will those negotiated trade terms still apply to the UK or will they be void because we are no longer a member? Or could we just veto them? Now even if they are allowed to negotiate, it's a bit of a waste of time until we've left isn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reminds me of the days when hairdressers used to leave a salon, and they used to make them sign a contract to say that they wouldn't approach any of that salon's clients for two years! actually they still exist, and whats more they are enforceable - especially in financial services industry! First hand experience! Really? What happened to EU rules on freedom of trade? WTF are you going on about?! What has EU freedom of trade got to do with contractual relations between and employer and employee? If you want to clutch at straws you could head more towards the EU protections for workers rights. That might have something to say about limiting the scope and time of non-compete clauses in contracts perhaps. Yeah, those EU protections we voted to leave because 'red tape'. -Matt" Whoa, steady on! I was just going back in time there and was just wondering if those rules were still in place and enforceable After all, if you can turn a thread about a bank into one about badger baiting, then at least my comment did have some relevance  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i just love the way everyone picks on Gina Miller when it was 2 people (a leaver and a remainer) that went after the article 50 case...... sometimes i think there are more sinister reasons (the normal daily mail/daily express ones) as to why they go after her, than go after him..... that other person being a white british male.... hmmmmmmmmm" Maybe it's just because she put her head up above the parapet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i just love the way everyone picks on Gina Miller when it was 2 people (a leaver and a remainer) that went after the article 50 case...... sometimes i think there are more sinister reasons (the normal daily mail/daily express ones) as to why they go after her, than go after him..... that other person being a white british male.... hmmmmmmmmm Maybe it's just because she put her head up above the parapet?" So she deserves what she gets then if she uses the legal system to hold the government to account? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i just love the way everyone picks on Gina Miller when it was 2 people (a leaver and a remainer) that went after the article 50 case...... sometimes i think there are more sinister reasons (the normal daily mail/daily express ones) as to why they go after her, than go after him..... that other person being a white british male.... hmmmmmmmmm Maybe it's just because she put her head up above the parapet? So she deserves what she gets then if she uses the legal system to hold the government to account? " Not at all. She did what she thought was right. Even now, it's "the woman that brought the Brexit case ". If she was the spokesperson, then fine but why are the rest of them hiding in.the shadows? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left No. Nothing in the rules at all. In the 'words' as you put it, well yes, they have said they stand 'resolute to initiate work towards... yadda yadda'. But that is no more concrete than Theresa May saying that she is seeking 'the best possible outcome' of the negotiations. It means fuck all. I stood resolutely to to stop biting my nails this year. Still fucking do it. -Matt Like I said I can't be arsed to trawl through the rules to find it but it's there. And do you think they would have used those 'words' if it wasn't? The words mean fuck all. In your opinion. Just a thought, are the EU allowed to enter into trade negotiations with none EU countries before the UK leaves? No I understand, you can't be arsed. That is fine. But that doesn't mean you can just make shit up. Or if you do, then be prepared to be told you are wrong if you can't support your statements. Are the EU allowed to enter trade negotiations with non-EU countries before the UK leaves?! Of course if fucking is! Stop with thinking the UK is a special snowflake here. The UK leaving is not going to stop the EU from doing what it does. It has negotiated trade deals with 3rd parties whilst the UK has been a member... how the fuck do you think it got the 3rd party trade deals it currently has?! Sorry for all the swearing, but really... do you actually think through what you post before you post it? -Matt Err yes, do you? If the EU are currently negotiating trade deals with 3rd parties then they are negotiating on our behalf aren't they as we are still a member? They can only do deals that apply equally to all members. So when we have left, will those negotiated trade terms still apply to the UK or will they be void because we are no longer a member? Or could we just veto them? Now even if they are allowed to negotiate, it's a bit of a waste of time until we've left isn't it?" Wait.... what?! So let's answer your questions point by point. 1) If the EU are currently negotiating trade deals with 3rd parties then they are negotiating on our behalf aren't they as we are still a member? Yes. If they negotiate a deal now then it applies to all members. We are still a member of the EU until such a point that we leave. 2) So when we have left, will those negotiated trade terms still apply to the UK or will they be void because we are no longer a member? What do you think? No, of course those trade terms will not still apply to the UK. Once we leave, the UK will not be a member of the EU, and so the trade deals the EU has worked out for it's members will not be available to us. Unless we happen to negotiate a replacement deal with those 3rd parties. Which of course, we can't until we have left. 3) Yes, if wanted to Veto trade deals that the EU is negotiating then I guess we could. I've no idea what the rules on those deals are and if they require unanimous consent from all members. Article 50 does states: " 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it." I'm not sure if that means that the UK can not participate in discussions and/or votes on things like trade arrangements with 3rd party countries after A50 is triggered. And so even if we could veto them... what exactly are you suggesting? That we just sit there pissing around vetoing trade deals just to spite the EU? Are you really that childish? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left No. Nothing in the rules at all. In the 'words' as you put it, well yes, they have said they stand 'resolute to initiate work towards... yadda yadda'. But that is no more concrete than Theresa May saying that she is seeking 'the best possible outcome' of the negotiations. It means fuck all. I stood resolutely to to stop biting my nails this year. Still fucking do it. -Matt Like I said I can't be arsed to trawl through the rules to find it but it's there. And do you think they would have used those 'words' if it wasn't? The words mean fuck all. In your opinion. Just a thought, are the EU allowed to enter into trade negotiations with none EU countries before the UK leaves? No I understand, you can't be arsed. That is fine. But that doesn't mean you can just make shit up. Or if you do, then be prepared to be told you are wrong if you can't support your statements. Are the EU allowed to enter trade negotiations with non-EU countries before the UK leaves?! Of course if fucking is! Stop with thinking the UK is a special snowflake here. The UK leaving is not going to stop the EU from doing what it does. It has negotiated trade deals with 3rd parties whilst the UK has been a member... how the fuck do you think it got the 3rd party trade deals it currently has?! Sorry for all the swearing, but really... do you actually think through what you post before you post it? -Matt Err yes, do you? If the EU are currently negotiating trade deals with 3rd parties then they are negotiating on our behalf aren't they as we are still a member? They can only do deals that apply equally to all members. So when we have left, will those negotiated trade terms still apply to the UK or will they be void because we are no longer a member? Or could we just veto them? Now even if they are allowed to negotiate, it's a bit of a waste of time until we've left isn't it? Wait.... what?! So let's answer your questions point by point. 1) If the EU are currently negotiating trade deals with 3rd parties then they are negotiating on our behalf aren't they as we are still a member? Yes. If they negotiate a deal now then it applies to all members. We are still a member of the EU until such a point that we leave. 2) So when we have left, will those negotiated trade terms still apply to the UK or will they be void because we are no longer a member? What do you think? No, of course those trade terms will not still apply to the UK. Once we leave, the UK will not be a member of the EU, and so the trade deals the EU has worked out for it's members will not be available to us. Unless we happen to negotiate a replacement deal with those 3rd parties. Which of course, we can't until we have left. 3) Yes, if wanted to Veto trade deals that the EU is negotiating then I guess we could. I've no idea what the rules on those deals are and if they require unanimous consent from all members. Article 50 does states: " 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it." I'm not sure if that means that the UK can not participate in discussions and/or votes on things like trade arrangements with 3rd party countries after A50 is triggered. And so even if we could veto them... what exactly are you suggesting? That we just sit there pissing around vetoing trade deals just to spite the EU? Are you really that childish? -Matt" No, but the EU are aren't they? And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28? I can actually see the EU being sued by 3rd parties for not doing enough to keep the 28 members together or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, but the EU are aren't they? And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28? I can actually see the EU being sued by 3rd parties for not doing enough to keep the 28 members together or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic?" The EU are what? Veto'ing trade deals? How can they veto their own trade deals?! As for "And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28" What are you saying? That all treaties and deals that the EU enters into become void if a member leaves or joins? Seriously?! What crack are you smoking? I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read any of the agreements in detail and say that they unlikely to have a clause in them that voids them on cessation of a member. "... or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic?". Realistic? Perhaps in your fantasy world. But in the world in which I live in, reality, a significant part of the the bloc has *not* left. So I'd say that is not realistic. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, but the EU are aren't they? And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28? I can actually see the EU being sued by 3rd parties for not doing enough to keep the 28 members together or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic? The EU are what? Veto'ing trade deals? How can they veto their own trade deals?! As for "And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28" What are you saying? That all treaties and deals that the EU enters into become void if a member leaves or joins? Seriously?! What crack are you smoking? I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read any of the agreements in detail and say that they unlikely to have a clause in them that voids them on cessation of a member. "... or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic?". Realistic? Perhaps in your fantasy world. But in the world in which I live in, reality, a significant part of the the bloc has *not* left. So I'd say that is not realistic. -Matt" You might want to check on that one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Live in the real world people, behind closed doors its happening and probably has been for months.
S | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, but the EU are aren't they? And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28? I can actually see the EU being sued by 3rd parties for not doing enough to keep the 28 members together or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic? The EU are what? Veto'ing trade deals? How can they veto their own trade deals?! As for "And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28" What are you saying? That all treaties and deals that the EU enters into become void if a member leaves or joins? Seriously?! What crack are you smoking? I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read any of the agreements in detail and say that they unlikely to have a clause in them that voids them on cessation of a member. "... or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic?". Realistic? Perhaps in your fantasy world. But in the world in which I live in, reality, a significant part of the the bloc has *not* left. So I'd say that is not realistic. -Matt You might want to check on that one" Check on which bit? That "a significant chunk of the bloc has left."? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, but the EU are aren't they? And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28? I can actually see the EU being sued by 3rd parties for not doing enough to keep the 28 members together or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic? The EU are what? Veto'ing trade deals? How can they veto their own trade deals?! As for "And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28" What are you saying? That all treaties and deals that the EU enters into become void if a member leaves or joins? Seriously?! What crack are you smoking? I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read any of the agreements in detail and say that they unlikely to have a clause in them that voids them on cessation of a member. "... or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic?". Realistic? Perhaps in your fantasy world. But in the world in which I live in, reality, a significant part of the the bloc has *not* left. So I'd say that is not realistic. -Matt You might want to check on that one Check on which bit? That "a significant chunk of the bloc has left."? -Matt" No, that bit is obvious. The bit where other countries have threatened to pull out of deals or renegotiate them if the UK leaves | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the end of the day we will be negotiating deals with non EU countries already & the day after we leave they will be signed, sealed & delivered. You can call everything up to that point whatever the hell you like to get around some ruling that was not designed for a country leaving the EU it was more to stop unscrupulous countries offering better terms within it than their 'partners'. You know like offering companies massive tax breaks so they move HQ's or factories from one EU country to another, I mean no one does that surely?
Live in the real world people, behind closed doors its happening and probably has been for months.
S"Exactly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left No. Nothing in the rules at all. In the 'words' as you put it, well yes, they have said they stand 'resolute to initiate work towards... yadda yadda'. But that is no more concrete than Theresa May saying that she is seeking 'the best possible outcome' of the negotiations. It means fuck all. I stood resolutely to to stop biting my nails this year. Still fucking do it. -Matt Like I said I can't be arsed to trawl through the rules to find it but it's there. And do you think they would have used those 'words' if it wasn't? The words mean fuck all. In your opinion. Just a thought, are the EU allowed to enter into trade negotiations with none EU countries before the UK leaves? Even if you could be arsed, would wouldn't be able to find something that doesn't exist." Couldn't find what I was looking for but try Article 3(5) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, but the EU are aren't they? And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28? I can actually see the EU being sued by 3rd parties for not doing enough to keep the 28 members together or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic? The EU are what? Veto'ing trade deals? How can they veto their own trade deals?! As for "And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28" What are you saying? That all treaties and deals that the EU enters into become void if a member leaves or joins? Seriously?! What crack are you smoking? I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read any of the agreements in detail and say that they unlikely to have a clause in them that voids them on cessation of a member. "... or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic?". Realistic? Perhaps in your fantasy world. But in the world in which I live in, reality, a significant part of the the bloc has *not* left. So I'd say that is not realistic. -Matt You might want to check on that one Check on which bit? That "a significant chunk of the bloc has left."? -Matt No, that bit is obvious. The bit where other countries have threatened to pull out of deals or renegotiate them if the UK leaves" Yes, that bit is obvious. Obviously complete false, like much of your argument so far. As for countries threatening to pull out or renegotiate deals with the EU if the UK leaves... you got anything to back that up? Or have you just made that up too? I've had a quick look about online and can't find anything to back that up. I see that Canada went ahead and signed CETA despite the UK voting to leave the EU. So who might be China? India? Vietnam? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, but the EU are aren't they? And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28? I can actually see the EU being sued by 3rd parties for not doing enough to keep the 28 members together or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic? The EU are what? Veto'ing trade deals? How can they veto their own trade deals?! As for "And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28" What are you saying? That all treaties and deals that the EU enters into become void if a member leaves or joins? Seriously?! What crack are you smoking? I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read any of the agreements in detail and say that they unlikely to have a clause in them that voids them on cessation of a member. "... or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic?". Realistic? Perhaps in your fantasy world. But in the world in which I live in, reality, a significant part of the the bloc has *not* left. So I'd say that is not realistic. -Matt You might want to check on that one Check on which bit? That "a significant chunk of the bloc has left."? -Matt No, that bit is obvious. The bit where other countries have threatened to pull out of deals or renegotiate them if the UK leaves Yes, that bit is obvious. Obviously complete false, like much of your argument so far. As for countries threatening to pull out or renegotiate deals with the EU if the UK leaves... you got anything to back that up? Or have you just made that up too? I've had a quick look about online and can't find anything to back that up. I see that Canada went ahead and signed CETA despite the UK voting to leave the EU. So who might be China? India? Vietnam? -Matt" So if losing a country that makes up almost 20% of EU GDP is not losing a significant chunk then what is?
Carry on looking but here's a tip - the EU is incapable of doing deals with economies the size of China or India | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, but the EU are aren't they? And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28? I can actually see the EU being sued by 3rd parties for not doing enough to keep the 28 members together or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic? The EU are what? Veto'ing trade deals? How can they veto their own trade deals?! As for "And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28" What are you saying? That all treaties and deals that the EU enters into become void if a member leaves or joins? Seriously?! What crack are you smoking? I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read any of the agreements in detail and say that they unlikely to have a clause in them that voids them on cessation of a member. "... or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic?". Realistic? Perhaps in your fantasy world. But in the world in which I live in, reality, a significant part of the the bloc has *not* left. So I'd say that is not realistic. -Matt You might want to check on that one Check on which bit? That "a significant chunk of the bloc has left."? -Matt No, that bit is obvious. The bit where other countries have threatened to pull out of deals or renegotiate them if the UK leaves Yes, that bit is obvious. Obviously complete false, like much of your argument so far. As for countries threatening to pull out or renegotiate deals with the EU if the UK leaves... you got anything to back that up? Or have you just made that up too? I've had a quick look about online and can't find anything to back that up. I see that Canada went ahead and signed CETA despite the UK voting to leave the EU. So who might be China? India? Vietnam? -Matt So if losing a country that makes up almost 20% of EU GDP is not losing a significant chunk then what is?
Carry on looking but here's a tip - the EU is incapable of doing deals with economies the size of China or India"But May is going to get all all these great trade deals when we leave isn't she? Come on, make up your mind. OK, so the current trade deal negotiations between China and the EU have completed something like 12 rounds and still in progress and India looks like it has stalled after similar number of rounds... but hey, these things are easy right? Boris should have them all sorted in the next couple of years right? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, but the EU are aren't they? And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28? I can actually see the EU being sued by 3rd parties for not doing enough to keep the 28 members together or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic? The EU are what? Veto'ing trade deals? How can they veto their own trade deals?! As for "And on paragraph 2, if any deal does not apply to the UK then why would it apply to any other member if the terms were negotiated for 28" What are you saying? That all treaties and deals that the EU enters into become void if a member leaves or joins? Seriously?! What crack are you smoking? I'm going to go out on a limb here, as I've not read any of the agreements in detail and say that they unlikely to have a clause in them that voids them on cessation of a member. "... or some deals that they do already have being cancelled now that a significant chunk of the bloc has left. Is that being childish or realistic?". Realistic? Perhaps in your fantasy world. But in the world in which I live in, reality, a significant part of the the bloc has *not* left. So I'd say that is not realistic. -Matt You might want to check on that one Check on which bit? That "a significant chunk of the bloc has left."? -Matt No, that bit is obvious. The bit where other countries have threatened to pull out of deals or renegotiate them if the UK leaves Yes, that bit is obvious. Obviously complete false, like much of your argument so far. As for countries threatening to pull out or renegotiate deals with the EU if the UK leaves... you got anything to back that up? Or have you just made that up too? I've had a quick look about online and can't find anything to back that up. I see that Canada went ahead and signed CETA despite the UK voting to leave the EU. So who might be China? India? Vietnam? -Matt So if losing a country that makes up almost 20% of EU GDP is not losing a significant chunk then what is?
Carry on looking but here's a tip - the EU is incapable of doing deals with economies the size of China or India
But May is going to get all all these great trade deals when we leave isn't she?
Come on, make up your mind.
OK, so the current trade deal negotiations between China and the EU have completed something like 12 rounds and still in progress and India looks like it has stalled after similar number of rounds... but hey, these things are easy right? Boris should have them all sorted in the next couple of years right?
-Matt"One of the main points in leaving really. The reason the EU deals are at stages into double figures is that everyone has to sign them off even those smaller countries within the EU that the deal will have little or no impact on. What then happens is Machiavellian levels of inter Eu negotiations to sweeten someone's signature on the dotted line. Basically its stinks & always has done.. So yes Boris will probably get a deal done with India & China before the EU, however the very act of our leaving may well wake up the EU ministers & backhand deal makers to sort themselves out. But I for one am not holding my breath. S | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Bu circumstances have changed and the law allows us to protect our position on leaving. By the way, somewhere in Article 50 it requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Funny, we've not heard much mention of that No and no! The treaty of Lisbon can only be changed by another treaty, in the same way as it required the treaty of Lisbon to change the Treaty of Rome. And I don't know how many times I (and others) have posted not only article 50 but also article 49 and it dos not require the EU to seek anything other than our timely exit. What it does do is say that any agreement reached must get a qualified majority in the European Parliament and that should a leaving member seek an extension to the 2 year time period from the EU that must be unanimously agreed by the remaining members, and that having triggered article 50 that member shall play no roll in the deliberations of the remaining members." Why give a fuck on anything the EU says, tell them bollocks. If they want to move forward and do a deal great, if not say la vi What's comes round comes around, they will soon want to sell their cars wine acetto balsamico Lettuce tatties cars etc to us, if they give shit give it back Simples | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why give a fuck on anything the EU says, tell them bollocks. If they want to move forward and do a deal great, if not say la vi What's comes round comes around, they will soon want to sell their cars wine acetto balsamico Lettuce tatties cars etc to us, if they give shit give it back Simples" I have heard this argument so many times... I have one question for you, who do you think will break first the EU who will have too much food and too many cars, or the UK who can barely grow 45% of the food required to feed it's population? My bet is that if it comes to an all out trade blockade on all EU goods, as you seem to be suggesting, that the millions who will have no food in this country will force our government back down long before any EU worker is even laid off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i just love the way everyone picks on Gina Miller when it was 2 people (a leaver and a remainer) that went after the article 50 case...... sometimes i think there are more sinister reasons (the normal daily mail/daily express ones) as to why they go after her, than go after him..... that other person being a white british male.... hmmmmmmmmm" I've mentioned this a few times and always draws a total blank none reply from the very ones slagging Miller off saying she was trying to stop Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why give a fuck on anything the EU says, tell them bollocks. If they want to move forward and do a deal great, if not say la vi What's comes round comes around, they will soon want to sell their cars wine acetto balsamico Lettuce tatties cars etc to us, if they give shit give it back Simples I have heard this argument so many times... I have one question for you, who do you think will break first the EU who will have too much food and too many cars, or the UK who can barely grow 45% of the food required to feed it's population? My bet is that if it comes to an all out trade blockade on all EU goods, as you seem to be suggesting, that the millions who will have no food in this country will force our government back down long before any EU worker is even laid off." Worlds biggest grower of tatties is china, and they give a hoot who they deal with, so that's the roasties and chips sorted Italy is as corrupt as can be and exports more home produced virgin olive than they actually mamanage to make even for their own consumption, so guess that's the balsamic vinegar and olive oil sorted I'm guessing all of the lettuce growers will still actually want a market for there produce, so I'm sure we will have plenty of them Jaguar have built a ginormous engine plant along side the M54 and a huge new assembly plant behind fort Dunlop so that's the cars sorted Most TV,s lap tops phone etc are made in China so again they don't care who they sell to. And most of our gas comes ashore via the isle of grain in LNG, or via the Norwegian interconnection so gas isn't really a problem. And as Leeds will soon be the 1st city to have hydrogen as its fuel source that reliance will diminish | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Quite right. How dare they try to sell us things we need and want." Sell and buy, buy and sell commodities raw materials and needs will drive the negotiations not Tusk or Merkel Merkel has an election looming does she really want to upset her car workers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our two tier economy will get worse under brexit for those at the bottom. Most of the people in the U.K. who buy German cars will still buy them, so the Germans wont be that affected. Food prices will go up for us. " Don't rich people eat then,? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our two tier economy will get worse under brexit for those at the bottom. Most of the people in the U.K. who buy German cars will still buy them, so the Germans wont be that affected. Food prices will go up for us. Don't rich people eat then,? "No not really. Thin people are the 1% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can't be arsed to trawl through all the legal stuff but this is what the EU Council said in response to the Article 50 letter - 'the EU Council stands resolute to initiate work towards an ambitious free trade agreement to be finalised and concluded ONCE THE UK IS NO LONGER A MEMBER STATE' Yes. What's your point? I guess the ambiguity here is whether 'once the uk is no longer a member state' applies to just the latter clause of that sentence, ie. 'finalised and concluded'. Or if it applies to the whole sentence, ie. including 'initiate work'. ie. are they saying they intend to initiate the talks before we leave, and conclude them once we are no longer a member. Or are they saying they will wait until we are no longer a member before initiating the negotiations? -Matt Whenever but that's not the point I was trying to make. Somewhere in their own rules/words they are obliged to seek a free trade deal with a member that has left No. Nothing in the rules at all. In the 'words' as you put it, well yes, they have said they stand 'resolute to initiate work towards... yadda yadda'. But that is no more concrete than Theresa May saying that she is seeking 'the best possible outcome' of the negotiations. It means fuck all. I stood resolutely to to stop biting my nails this year. Still fucking do it. -Matt Like I said I can't be arsed to trawl through the rules to find it but it's there. And do you think they would have used those 'words' if it wasn't? The words mean fuck all. In your opinion. Just a thought, are the EU allowed to enter into trade negotiations with none EU countries before the UK leaves? Even if you could be arsed, would wouldn't be able to find something that doesn't exist. Couldn't find what I was looking for but try Article 3(5) " "In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter." What is this supposed to prove? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Our two tier economy will get worse under brexit for those at the bottom. Most of the people in the U.K. who buy German cars will still buy them, so the Germans wont be that affected. Food prices will go up for us. " That will help me with my red and green weeks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
