Brexit (Old)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Dave42

it would what about medicines security planes ect we leave every treaty OB as says in article 50 and we be only country in world with zero trade deals too and there no withdrawal agreement at all with a no deal Brexit OB

All of these fears have been bumped up out of all proportion, Dave.

We will not see medicines not being available and we will not see planes falling out of the sky. There is a mutual desire to achieve reciprocal arrangements - Europe is heavily dependent on British holidaymakers and visitors, for example.

Trade deals are being worked on behind the scenes ready to be signed when or shortly after we leave. Once again, I would make the point that you don't have to agree a trade deal in order to trade.

We have already been assured that an application to join the trading bloc including Australia, New Zealand and Japan would be welcome.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The "interim" agreement goes on constantly about having to obey EU rules. I should imagine France wants UK waters to be remain part of the Common Fisheries Policy, where of course we would continue to have no say. If it was anything else there would be no reason for the French to be so antagonistic about it.

If we need to adhere to common rules, managing ultimately a scare resource in the North Sea, in exchange for a trade deal surely we should consider whether it’s worthwhile rather than dismiss it simply because it’s French? I’m quite sure fish don’t recognise borders when their populations move.

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

All of these fears have been bumped up out of all proportion, Dave.

We will not see medicines not being available and we will not see planes falling out of the sky. There is a mutual desire to achieve reciprocal arrangements - Europe is heavily dependent on British holidaymakers and visitors, for example.

Trade deals are being worked on behind the scenes ready to be signed when or shortly after we leave. Once again, I would make the point that you don't have to agree a trade deal in order to trade.

We have already been assured that an application to join the trading bloc including Australia, New Zealand and Japan would be welcome.

Can you evidence any of these imminent trade deals? If they are imminent why is Theresa May desperate to have a interim arrangement criticised on all sides instead of no deal?

An application and agreement are two different things.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

I for on will NEVER have any coins or notes in my pocket of that currency. The excption being any work competions that I enter and get a winning pay out. This will be paid ASAP in to my account.

What if you’re in Europe?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

If we need to adhere to common rules, managing ultimately a scare resource in the North Sea, in exchange for a trade deal surely we should consider whether it’s worthwhile rather than dismiss it simply because it’s French? I’m quite sure fish don’t recognise borders when their populations move.

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------



Can you evidence any of these imminent trade deals? If they are imminent why is Theresa May desperate to have a interim arrangement criticised on all sides instead of no deal?

An application and agreement are two different things.

Why any need for common rules for fishing? We can set the rules and quotas for UK waters and the EU can set them for their own waters.

For its part, the European Commission’s Article 50 Taskforce led by Michel Barnier argues that EU vessels must continue to be allowed unfettered access to fish in UK waters if London wants to continue selling its products into the EU market.
...
The UK’s environment minister has told the Danish fishing industry that boats from EU countries will still be able to operate in British waters after Brexit, as the UK does not have enough capacity to catch and process all its fish alone. EURACTIV’s partner The Guardian reports.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Why any need for common rules for fishing? We can set the rules and quotas for UK waters and the EU can set them for their own waters.

Because if either overfishes in their own waters then the whole sea is at risk? Fish don’t turn back at the boundary. Unregulated fishing, or where the regulations complement each other threatens the fish population of the entire sea.

It’s in both parties interests for the long term sustainability of fishing full stop.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Damien

What if you’re in Europe?

Will never go there, I don't have a passport and no plans to get one.

[Pierre]

I’m looking forward to seeing the deal voted down in Parliament.

As that is what will happen.

After that we’re in uncharted territory, nobody can say what will happen with any certainty.

All we know is, as things stand, is that there will be vote ( which is looking like the Gov will lose). Then in March 2019 we will leave the EU.

So we have a four month window where absolutely anything , or nothing, could happen.

Four months, including Christmas week, is not a lot of time to do anything.

A bill usually takes several months, up to a year, to be enacted.

I cannot see, in any scenario, where parliament would vote to repeal A50 without a referendum.

Therefore a whole new plan, and potentially a new law not even proposed yet would have to get agreement and go through the process in less than four months.

I don’t see it, happening.

Yet, everyone says parliament won’t allow no deal.

That is a paradox I can’t wait to see play out.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Because if either overfishes in their own waters then the whole sea is at risk? Fish don’t turn back at the boundary. Unregulated fishing, or where the regulations complement each other threatens the fish population of the entire sea.

It’s in both parties interests for the long term sustainability of fishing full stop.

It's not as if we're going to be totally reckless with quotas. We might want to impose stricter limits.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m looking forward to seeing the deal voted down in Parliament.

As that is what will happen.

After that we’re in uncharted territory, nobody can say what will happen with any certainty.

All we know is, as things stand, is that there will be vote ( which is looking like the Gov will lose). Then in March 2019 we will leave the EU.

So we have a four month window where absolutely anything , or nothing, could happen.

Four months, including Christmas week, is not a lot of time to do anything.

A bill usually takes several months, up to a year, to be enacted.

I cannot see, in any scenario, where parliament would vote to repeal A50 without a referendum.

Therefore a whole new plan, and potentially a new law not even proposed yet would have to get agreement and go through the process in less than four months.

I don’t see it, happening.

Yet, everyone says parliament won’t allow no deal.

That is a paradox I can’t wait to see play out.

Missing from your analysis is the possibility of an extension, which doesn’t require approval of Parliament and buys the time for the rest.

[Carth]

Would I be right in thinking this 'extension' would mean we are still in the EU, still playing by their rules, and still paying them money?

Originally Posted by Pierre

A bill usually takes several months, up to a year, to be enacted.

I cannot see, in any scenario, where parliament would vote to repeal A50 without a referendum.

Therefore a whole new plan, and potentially a new law not even proposed yet would have to get agreement and go through the process in less than four months.

I don’t see it, happening.

Yet, everyone says parliament won’t allow no deal.

That is a paradox I can’t wait to see play out.

As mentioned before though if Parliament wants to do so it can rush a bill though. The time it will physically take to pass something isn't the problem, finding a solution is.

As you said though what that would be is unknown.

I think the final option is May's deal comes back as is or ever-so-slightly changed. Ahead of that you'll have Parliament pushing first for an election which, with the backing the DUP, might be possible. Alternatively you could have Parliament pushing for another vote, again who knows how that would go. That probably would require the EU allowing us to delay Article 50 and a quick bill to update the existing Parliamentary law to delay it should the EU have agreed. You also have the 'Norway for Now' option some Conservatives are pushing.

I think they will come to May's deal eventually unless the Tories backing 'Norway for Now' get some tractions....

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

Would I be right in thinking this 'extension' would mean we are still in the EU, still playing by their rules, and still paying them money?

Yes, however that’s irrelevant to whether it’s possible or not.

Treaty negotiations are an executive function, not a Parliamentary one. So the extension wouldn’t require primary legislation.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes, however that’s irrelevant to whether it’s possible or not.

Treaty negotiations are an executive function, not a Parliamentary one. So the extension wouldn’t require primary legislation.

just the first word would have sufficed, no need for a story (I'm a simple man, yes or no is all it takes)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

just the first word would have sufficed, no need for a story (I'm a simple man, yes or no is all it takes)

The danger with short answers is that people can infer you mean one thing when you actually mean another. I prefer attention to detail myself.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

The danger with short answers is that people can infer you mean one thing when you actually mean another. I prefer attention to detail myself.

lol it's usually when getting into details I find things start going askew