Brexit (Old)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Andrew, this is a discussion forum and we don't have to justify every statement we make with a link. You can Google this just as much as I can.

However, here's one I agree with.

https://www.capitalandconflict.com/b...ood-bad-trade/

No one said every statement needs to be justified with a link Old Boy. But I'm sure you'll agree that supporting links from a range of sources aid people's understanding of what in your case was a bold statement.

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:30 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

What I would like to see is any remainer or brexiter point me to where article 50 allows for this compromise. I'm willing to be educated.

Article 50 concerns the withdrawal which takes place on 29th March 2019.
Anything from that date onwards is a matter of negotiation between the EU and the Third Country and is outside the scope of Article 50.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Article 50 concerns the withdrawal which takes place on 29th March 2019.
Anything from that date onwards is a matter of negotiation between the EU and the Third Country and is outside the scope of Article 50.

Thank you for confirming what I have said all along. No hard or soft brexit, just brexit.

May I now ask what you and the other remainers in this thread have been wittering on about for months now? No deal could be made before March 2019.
How can parliament have a meaningful vote on a deal that cannot be done until we have left?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Thank you for confirming what I have said all along. No hard or soft brexit, just brexit.

May I now ask what you and the other remainers in this thread have been wittering on about for months now? No deal could be made before March 2019.
How can parliament have a meaningful vote on a deal that cannot be done until we have left?

If you're going to use inflammatory terms like wittering then don't expect an answer from me!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If you're going to use inflammatory terms like wittering then don't expect an answer from me!

Let's not get too over-sensitive, Andrew!

I know Pip's question was a bit awkward for you, but your response would really help us to understand your position.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If you're going to use inflammatory terms like wittering then don't expect an answer from me!

I apologise if I have bruised your ego it was unintentional.

Cool it folks...

Originally Posted by pip08456

Thank you for confirming what I have said all along. No hard or soft brexit, just brexit.

May I now ask what you and the other remainers in this thread have been wittering on about for months now? No deal could be made before March 2019.
How can parliament have a meaningful vote on a deal that cannot be done until we have left?

I don't understand what you mean? The purpose of this offer arranged Friday is trying to reach a deal by March 2019.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't understand what you mean? The purpose of this offer arranged Friday is trying to reach a deal by March 2019.

Then I suggest you read and digest the content of Article 50. http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-50.html

Pay special attention to this which has nothing to do with trade.

That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Article 218(3)

3. The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or the head of the Union's negotiating team.

(my bold)

Originally Posted by pip08456

Then I suggest you read and digest the content of Article 50. http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-50.html

Pay special attention to this which has nothing to do with trade.



Article 218(3)


(my bold)

That second one is only specifying what the 'The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy ' is concerned with.

The link you linked too:

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.

But I'm not a lawyer. However we've been working on the assumption that we can get a deal before the deadline. Even if it's just a transition period while we work out a more complicated one.

[pip08456]

The transition period is already covered in article 50.

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.

I note you only bold the text you think applies to an agreement without regard to the rest.

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.

The part that you chose to bold is dependant on the part I have bolded.

So put simply, any negotiation has to be conducted in accordance with article 218(3). Article 50 is unequivocal in that respect.

Ok but I still don't see the issue since we and the EU are clearly working on getting some agreement done that maintains the trading relationship ahead of the deadline. I am not a lawyer so don't quite know how to parse the Article 50 text but the players in this working in a different direction.

[pip08456]

I see where you're coming from Damien and I respect that. My take on it is that the EU cannot under it's own rules accept any deal on trade put forward by the UK. It can only accept a deal on security, at least that is how I read the articles. I could be totally wrong only time will tell.

I should imagine any trade deal would be done during the transition period.

Edit Come to think about it what's the point of a transition period if a deal has already been done and agreed?

Originally Posted by pip08456

I see where you're coming from Damien and I respect that. My take on it is that the EU cannot under it's own rules accept any deal on trade put forward by the UK. It can only accept a deal on security, at least that is how I read the articles. I could be totally wrong only time will tell.

I should imagine any trade deal would be done during the transition period.

Edit Come to think about it what's the point of a transition period if a deal has already been done and agreed?

Because it would take time to sort out the legal framework, institutions, departments and so on to handle what has been agreed. Even if we had an agreement early on it's unlikely all that could be set up before March 2019.

It just goes to show, the lack of any preparations before the referendum in the event that the country could vote leave, this tells me, leave was never meant to win.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Mick

It just goes to show, the lack of any preparations before the referendum in the event that the country could vote leave, this tells me, leave was never meant to win.

and none of the leave campaign leaders have come up with a plan at all either