Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

  • Thread starter Thread starter blueinsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because the Appeaser has backed down on all her red lines already - immigration,transition phase,ECJ,timescales- she is preparing her big climb down already - no room for walk away in that scenario. Powers that be have had a word in her shell like.

Unlike the EU appointed Presidents, the Prime Minister is elected and she may want to carry out your wet dream, but what she can't do, if she does, is get re-elected. So in reality you need to brace yourself for her walking away from the EU with no deal. Let's call it Brexit, it's a new verb and it means To Leave.

WTO RULES OK!
 
Len - Nothing here:

http://news.sky.com/brexit

Or here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/uk_leaves_the_eu

Or even here:

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Hot+Topics/Brexit

So am left wondering just how 'earth-shattering' this news you find so wonderful actually is or are you reading far to much into some 'nothing story' to fuel your desperate need
But Teresa May is 'backpeddaling'. Surely you can see that from the articles you linked. It's in the headline; MAY AND TUSK URGE POSITIVE BREXIT TONE. It's so clear.

She's saying Article 50 will be revoked by the end of the month! ;)
 
As I have previously pointed out it is in the EU's interests to drag things out and we need a 'game-changer' option.

We need to be able to put the walk-away option on the table in a manner that makes them realise that we will actually do it. The Remain cheerleaders will then really see what back-peddling looks like

Have you seen the gov projections for hard brexit walking away?

Not a chance.

You're living in a film like fog. This isn't about statements like the one you posted. The hero calling the bluff and the cavalry rush over the hill.

Whoever it was you quoted is obviously been watching way too many Chuck Norris movies.

That kind of bravado is such bullshit when even Mayday Mayday shat herself.

Reality approaches and I guarantee what you hoped for will crash and burn .

Immigration backtrack, leaving timescale back track. Politically rudderless with a boat with more hikes than your arguments.

Buckle up Brexuteers and see everything you wanted and were promised turn to shit.
 
MP - you clearly have no idea about how the UK, or the EU for that matter, will be preparing for serious negotiations.

IMO, you simply blather on from the very narrow perspectives of your personal prejudices.

So please do not be offended if I choose to not feel the slightest bit disappointed that you reject the views I put forward.
 
Len - Nothing here:

http://news.sky.com/brexit

Or here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/uk_leaves_the_eu

Or even here:

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Hot+Topics/Brexit

So am left wondering just how 'earth-shattering' this news you find so wonderful actually is or are you reading far to much into some 'nothing story' to fuel your desperate need
Oh ,ok then I'll do your homework.
A few days ago May admitted that the deal would require a unanimous vote of all 27 EU states - that is a tacit admission that the deal can only be ratified once we have left the EU , because within the two year period of Article 50 it is only a majority decision required. This was covered by all the mainstream media ( apart from the usual right wing suspects) and I referred to it in a post a few days ago. When May was questioned on this she did not disagree trying to deflect the argument by referring to an 'implementation period', but essentially accepting an extension to Article 50. i.e. no agreement within two years as was promised by May and the Brexiters in the phoney war and an extension to the two years of Article 50.MAJOR CLIMB DOWN.
Next immigration.If you are saying that there has been no rowing back on that you must have been living in a cave the last few weeks. All of a sudden 'reduce' has been replaced by 'control'.David Davies has said that there may be increases in immigration. May has not sought to contradict him. MAJOR CLIMB DOWN.
In her Article 50 letter to the EU May accepted that trading with the EU would require accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ. MAJOR CLIMB DOWN.
Enough for now. I could go on.
 
Reality approaches and I guarantee what you hoped for will crash and burn .

Immigration backtrack, leaving timescale back track. Politically rudderless with a boat with more hikes than your arguments.

You can provide evidence that this is the direction and options the UK Government is currently entertaining, yes?
 
Oh ,ok then I'll do your homework.
A few days ago May admitted that the deal would require a unanimous vote of all 27 EU states - that is a tacit admission that the deal can only be ratified once we have left the EU , because within the two year period of Article 50 it is only a majority decision required. This was covered by all the mainstream media ( apart from the usual right wing suspects) and I referred to it in a post a few days ago. When May was questioned on this she did not disagree trying to deflect the argument by referring to an 'implementation period', but essentially accepting an extension to Article 50. i.e. no agreement within two years as was promised by May and the Brexiters in the phoney war and an extension to the two years of Article 50.MAJOR CLIMB DOWN.
Next immigration.If you are saying that there has been no rowing back on that you must have been living in a cave the last few weeks. All of a sudden 'reduce' has been replaced by 'control'.David Davies has said that there may be increases in immigration. May has not sought to contradict him. MAJOR CLIMB DOWN.
In her Article 50 letter to the EU May accepted that trading with the EU would require accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ. MAJOR CLIMB DOWN.
Enough for now. I could go on.


Of FFS - so it was simply you reading far to much into things to fuel your desperate need

Thanks for causing me to waste a few mins
 
Just some points from the letter of withdrawal; I see nothing about accepting that the ECJ will continue to have presidence over the UK Supreme Court. Nothing about accepting immigration laws as a result of our leaving the organisation.

We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.

That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.

ii. We should always put our citizens first. There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.

iii. We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement. We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.


iv. We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible. Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.


v. In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.


vi. We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges. Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.


vii. We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values. Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.


The task before us


As I have said, the Government of the United Kingdom wants to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens. Likewise, Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Weakening our cooperation for the prosperity and protection of our citizens would be a costly mistake. The United Kingdom’s objectives for our future partnership remain those set out in my Lancaster House speech of 17 January and the subsequent White Paper published on 2 February.


We recognise that it will be a challenge to reach such a comprehensive agreement within the two-year period set out for withdrawal discussions in the Treaty. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. We start from a unique position in these discussions – close regulatory alignment, trust in one another’s institutions, and a spirit of cooperation stretching back decades. It is for these reasons, and because the future partnership between the UK and the EU is of such importance to both sides, that I am sure it can be agreed in the time period set out by the Treaty.


The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.
 
Sad day for you then, because that is the one thing you don't actually have.

Well, we seem to have gotten to the bottom of the mystery and it appears that there is indeed no breaking news and the glee Len and yourself show is just you reading what you want to into a couple of recent news articles. Articles that in no way state that the UK is prepared to accept a bad deal and also do not state that there are not any circumstances that could lead to the UK walking away from the negotiations.

FWIW, I do not want the UK to walk away - I would much prefer a sensible negotiated settlement that allows both sides to be content, but which from the UK side ensures that we have full control over our borders, laws and money. My eyes are on the outcome - that we leave the EU and I have even said that we should offer a funded transition phase if it gave us certainty of leaving and a TA.

I frequently mention the need to have a viable walk-away option in anticipation of EU intransigence that will lead to them playing hardball until that threat is placed on the table.

I would love to be wrong and it not be needed - but from a POV of managing negotiations it is important to have the option in the back-pocket,
 
Oh ,ok then I'll do your homework.
A few days ago May admitted that the deal would require a unanimous vote of all 27 EU states - that is a tacit admission that the deal can only be ratified once we have left the EU , because within the two year period of Article 50 it is only a majority decision required. This was covered by all the mainstream media ( apart from the usual right wing suspects) and I referred to it in a post a few days ago. When May was questioned on this she did not disagree trying to deflect the argument by referring to an 'implementation period', but essentially accepting an extension to Article 50. i.e. no agreement within two years as was promised by May and the Brexiters in the phoney war and an extension to the two years of Article 50.MAJOR CLIMB DOWN.
Next immigration.If you are saying that there has been no rowing back on that you must have been living in a cave the last few weeks. All of a sudden 'reduce' has been replaced by 'control'.David Davies has said that there may be increases in immigration. May has not sought to contradict him. MAJOR CLIMB DOWN.
In her Article 50 letter to the EU May accepted that trading with the EU would require accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ. MAJOR CLIMB DOWN.
Enough for now. I could go on.

Jackafcukingnory.
 
Would these be any better outside the EU? Greece has never had any industry, Italy has had net emigration since the 1850s and Spain are still recovering from the Franco years.
Spain are still recovering from the Franco years....... yes it takes at least 330 years, Christ, straw clutching at its finest
 
Just some points from the letter of withdrawal; I see nothing about accepting that the ECJ will continue to have presidence over the UK Supreme Court. Nothing about accepting immigration laws as a result of our leaving the organisation.

We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.

That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.

ii. We should always put our citizens first. There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.

iii. We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement. We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.


iv. We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible. Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.


v. In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.


vi. We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges. Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.


vii. We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values. Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.


The task before us


As I have said, the Government of the United Kingdom wants to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens. Likewise, Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Weakening our cooperation for the prosperity and protection of our citizens would be a costly mistake. The United Kingdom’s objectives for our future partnership remain those set out in my Lancaster House speech of 17 January and the subsequent White Paper published on 2 February.


We recognise that it will be a challenge to reach such a comprehensive agreement within the two-year period set out for withdrawal discussions in the Treaty. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. We start from a unique position in these discussions – close regulatory alignment, trust in one another’s institutions, and a spirit of cooperation stretching back decades. It is for these reasons, and because the future partnership between the UK and the EU is of such importance to both sides, that I am sure it can be agreed in the time period set out by the Treaty.


The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.
There is reference in the letter that we will have to abide by EU laws if we trade with them.
Add onto that all the other issues like air travel regs, harmonization of qualifications and regulations and there is no way that we can deal,in these areas without an overriding court. That would have to be the ECJ in the transition phase , after that you would have to set up a separate supranational court - unlikely.
May and her cohorts are not going to admit straight away that their red lines are being withdrawn, they will simply row back bit by bit.
That is what is happening at the moment on 'no deal' ( recent statements by Davies, Fox and Hammond),immigration ( control not reduce - might even go up), transition phase ( unacceptable before, now tacitly accepted as an 'implementation period' ) and acceptance of ECJ.
It's the steady drip feed of climb down happening day by day.
 
There is reference in the letter that we will have to abide by EU laws if we trade with them.
Add onto that all the other issues like air travel regs, harmonization of qualifications and regulations and there is no way that we can deal,in these areas without an overriding court. That would have to be the ECJ in the transition phase , after that you would have to set up a separate supranational court - unlikely.
May and her cohorts are not going to admit straight away that their red lines are being withdrawn, they will simply row back bit by bit.
That is what is happening at the moment on 'no deal' ( recent statements by Davies, Fox and Hammond),immigration ( control not reduce - might even go up), transition phase ( unacceptable before, now tacitly accepted as an 'implementation period' ) and acceptance of ECJ.
It's the steady drip feed of climb down happening day by day.
Then it's just your interpretation based on your own sentiments of hope that accepting a deal for access to the single market would be seen by 'brexiteers' of backpeddling or a comedown. Single Market access does not entail being a member of the EU which is what we voted against. If it becomes clear that access to the Single Market means retaining EU citizen immigration rights then it does not still mean the UK will be bound to the political union of the EU.

China, Canada, Mexico et al all have access to the Single Market for example. It entails, quote: "Access to the single market requires acceptance of all four EU freedoms — of movement of goods, capital, services, and people. The single market is predicated on the belief that these four freedoms drive prosperity." Personally this does not bother me nor would I consider it a 'soft brexit' if the UK Government agreed to these principles if it continued to want access to the Single Market. I was one before the referendum advocating that once we left we re-negotiated for ETFA rules on trade as being our future relationship with Europe. Yes there are some who advocated having nothing to do with the EU at all, trade or otherwise. That doesn't mean we were different in our objectives when we voted; a complete clean slate. End all current associations with the EU and then renegotiate afterwards.

For me, the freedom to make trade deals with other blocs and nations without the EU glaring over our decisions is what I wanted. There is absolutely nothing to suggest Fox, Davis, Hammond or May, are currently 'failing' to deliver on that promise, despite the hopes of those who are taking every soundbite, passing comment or fart as being examples of failed brexit policy and evidence of disaster. Note that today Germany's Mittelstand fears Britain not being given access to the Single Market as it would lose them and us billions in Euros; a scenario many remainers stated was just hearsay and had no basis in reality. http://www.cityam.com/262559/germanys-mittelstand-wants-avoid-hard-brexit-fear-harm-eu. The pride of the EU and it's politicians will ultimately result in it's downfall; that's what we've been trying to point out. Remember that the referendum would have been avoided in it's entirety had they entertained our request for EU reform. They didn't and now we are where we are.

We wanted to end the political aspect of our association with the EU; if they state that having access to the Single Market means continuing the political association with the EU (something that does not apply to any nation that trades with the EU) we're saying we should walk away from any deal, in spite of any financial hardships which we could rectify by establishing new deals with the other trading blocs around the world. May take a few years but we've suffered recessions before and gone without. What's so unreasonable about that? Not everything in life is about money, and that's coming from someone considered to be living on a 'poverty wage'.
 
Last edited:
Gosh, that's like being savaged by a dead sheep.
Don't let me embarass you by bringing up your "Leicester City'' faux pas.

I said I wanted them to win the league because it would never be replicated. They did and I was happy for them. That's not a faux pas, that's not being an arrogant rag ****.

But you continue on in your little world of self delusion. You seem to have your entire world figured out which is a great indicator of how small it is.
 
Spain are still recovering from the Franco years....... yes it takes at least 330 years, Christ, straw clutching at its finest

Error

Franco died in 1975.
Spain became a democracy shortly after.
Up til then it had been a fascist dictatorship for decades.

It has only been a democracy for 42 years.
 
Spain are still recovering from the Franco years....... yes it takes at least 330 years, Christ, straw clutching at its finest

what has always baffled me is that countries like Spain Greece and Italy have never been industrial. What they do have to see is the weather - in the form of holidays that they sell to the Northern Europeans every year. Now after the crash and seeing that Europe needs energy and clean renewable is the holy grail why have they never smothered the countryside in solar panels put a huge cable up through France and sold the sun from the south t the rest of us in the form of electricity?

Would save smothering houses over here in solar panels and blighting the landscape with bloody windmills surely? At the same time it would help their economies and help cut dependence on oil and gas from places we can't always trust to supply us.
 
You can provide evidence that this is the direction and options the UK Government is currently entertaining, yes?

What we are getting is the drip of not so good news re brexit as everybody is realising this is calamitous to go hard brexit.

As the months go on more will emerge. What we will end up with is a halwY house of fudge that puts us in the shit of not delivering what brexiteers wanted and tariffs. No trade deals allowed until we are out etc.

It's unraveling and it will continue to do so because it doesn't add up to anything other than fudge.

And not nice fudge either.
 
What we are getting is the drip of not so good news re brexit as everybody is realising this is calamitous to go hard brexit.

As the months go on more will emerge. What we will end up with is a halwY house of fudge that puts us in the shit of not delivering what brexiteers wanted and tariffs. No trade deals allowed until we are out etc.

It's unraveling and it will continue to do so because it doesn't add up to anything other than fudge.

And not nice fudge either.

11215168.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top