Brexit (Old)

[pip08456]

Article 8 cannot have anything to do with Article 50 and Brexit negotiations or at least I cannot connect the "respect for family and private life, home and correspondence" to be any part of them.

There is a point about Article 50 (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.

[ianch99]

James O'Brien making a good but slightly mischievous point:

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status...82499246178304

Two simple, rhetorical questions with which to pull down the pants of Brexiters bleating ignorantly about WTO rules:
Who elected the people who run it?
When did we vote to join it?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Article 8 cannot have anything to do with Article 50 and Brexit negotiations or at least I cannot connect the "respect for family and private life, home and correspondence" to be any part of them.

There is a point about Article 50 (2)

For what my opinion is worth, the two join because “future relationship” has Article 8 context.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

James O'Brien making a good but slightly mischievous point:

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status...82499246178304

The simple answer is that the electorate voted to leave. That means we either leave with a deal with the EU which does not impact on our ability to forge new trade deals or we leave under WTO rules. That's how it works. No point in nit-picking, we just have to get on and do it.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I read in a newspaper analysis today(I forget which) something that absolutely chimed with me. It was in relation to the EU breaking Article 8 (and indeed Article 50) by not negotiating with us to bring about a decent agreement.

The article highlighted the difference between the UK which has a flexible unwritten constitution and the rest of the EU that are rules based in their Treaty documents and thus totally inflexible. Aka we look alike but don't think alike.

Put that into the mix with the Guvmin's total bodge job, a Canada style deal is something we should jump at just to get the job done. Except that they want to tie up the £39 billion first and May now cannot give them that scot free and survive.

But the political situation here is so volatile, and the Chequers deal must not be allowed to survive, that it's either going to be a fudge or a political change and a second referendum.

What exactly do you perceive to be wrong with the Chequers deal, or are you just relying on the reaction of the Brexiteers?

The only thing about it that bothers me is the 'common rulebook' because I can't make out if that would only apply to goods to and from the EU or whether it would apply to all trade that we do with other countries as well.

If the former, this is just like any comprehensive trade deal we might enter into with any country. If the latter, it is unacceptable.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The simple answer is that the electorate voted to leave. That means we either leave with a deal with the EU which does not impact on our ability to forge new trade deals or we leave under WTO rules. That's how it works. No point in nit-picking, we just have to get on and do it

OB, you choose to ignore the point made Let me restate it: some people voted Leave because the EU was "undemocratic" and they did not want to have laws/rules imposed by a foreign agency.

The WTO conforms to the same criteria so you must have an objection to following rules made by a foreign, undemocratic institution, right?

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

I know that some will not read this on principle but if you do, you will be glad you did. This is a Twitter thread from a former Tory discussing why some of the "facts" that formed the basis of the Leave campaign are just plainly wrong and more importantly why the promised low tax, free-market Brexit promised land is a simple con trick:

Adam, let me present you with some comparative economics, and then you tell me whether ANY Tory (and I was one) has your interests at heart. I'm going to compare the UK with our partners in Europe. Firstly, we WERE the fifth largest world economy. Remember that.

You may still not wish to change your opinion but at least you would be able to explain to us why this analysis is wrong.

[Carth]

Looks to me like just another 'has been' spouting stuff on a social message board.

Incidentally, it's all old news anyway

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

OB, you choose to ignore the point made Let me restate it: some people voted Leave because the EU was "undemocratic" and they did not want to have laws/rules imposed by a foreign agency.

The WTO conforms to the same criteria so you must have an objection to following rules made by a foreign, undemocratic institution, right?

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

I know that some will not read this on principle but if you do, you will be glad you did. This is a Twitter thread from a former Tory discussing why some of the "facts" that formed the basis of the Leave campaign are just plainly wrong and more importantly why the promised low tax, free-market Brexit promised land is a simple con trick:

Adam, let me present you with some comparative economics, and then you tell me whether ANY Tory (and I was one) has your interests at heart. I'm going to compare the UK with our partners in Europe. Firstly, we WERE the fifth largest world economy. Remember that.

You may still not wish to change your opinion but at least you would be able to explain to us why this analysis is wrong.

The WTO rules apply to trade only the cannot have any effect on laws unlike the EU.

The UK has been a member of the WTO since its inception in 1995 and were members of its predecessor GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) formed in 1947.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by pip08456

The WTO rules apply to trade only the cannot have any effect on laws unlike the EU.

The UK has been a member of the WTO since its inception in 1995 and were members of its predecessor GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) formed in 1947.

Exactly. He's just being perverse.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Exactly. He's just being perverse.

Perverse? Not really, I am pointing out the inconsistency in some of the arguments used to Leave. It is true that some did not like having to follow certain rules made in Brussels but would be happy to follow rules, on trade, made in Geneva.

What is frightening is how so many people can ignore the complexity and lack of preparedness of a No Deal scenario and, actually want it to happen.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Perverse? Not really, I am pointing out the inconsistency in some of the arguments used to Leave. It is true that some did not like having to follow certain rules made in Brussels but would be happy to follow rules, on trade, made in Geneva.

What is frightening is how so many people can ignore the complexity and lack of preparedness of a No Deal scenario and, actually want it to happen.

You cannot surely compare the over-bureaucratic, over-codified rules of the EU with the straight forward rules of WTO! That's what is perverse.

My position is that we should accept Theresa May's 'common rulebook' idea for trading with the EU, but not for trading with the rest of the world. That's in the same way that we might agree on different 'common rulebooks' for each country that we deal with. Enforcement of such rules in relation to EU trade should be similar to the way rules are enforced for trade deals with other countries.

All trade deals have agreed positions on specifications, tariffs, safety, etc, and that's what I mean by a 'common rulebook'.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The simple answer is that the electorate voted to leave. That means we either leave with a deal with the EU which does not impact on our ability to forge new trade deals or we leave under WTO rules. That's how it works. No point in nit-picking, we just have to get on and do it.

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------



What exactly do you perceive to be wrong with the Chequers deal, or are you just relying on the reaction of the Brexiteers?

The only thing about it that bothers me is the 'common rulebook' because I can't make out if that would only apply to goods to and from the EU or whether it would apply to all trade that we do with other countries as well.

If the former, this is just like any comprehensive trade deal we might enter into with any country. If the latter, it is unacceptable.

I accept the analysis that we would be too closely tied as perpetual rule-takers and that the Brussels "I'm not allowed to say what" would continue then turning the screw. I also know that the customs plan won't fly because of the Commission's intransigence.


If we leave with a deal, it won't be bespoke unless they cave in, so Canada's deal, which is on offer as I understand matters, will have to do.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I accept the analysis that we would be too closely tied as perpetual rule-takers and that the Brussels "I'm not allowed to say what" would continue then turning the screw.


I also know that the customs plan won't fly because of the Commission's intransigence.


If we leave with a deal, it won't be bespoke unless they cave in, so Canada's deal, which is on offer as I understand matters, will have to do.

You don't know that, you only know what the EU's argument is. However, being a negotiation, they may well back down, particularly if the UK Government can figure out a way to persuade them.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You cannot surely compare the over-bureaucratic, over-codified rules of the EU with the straight forward rules of WTO! That's what is perverse.

My position is that we should accept Theresa May's 'common rulebook' idea for trading with the EU, but not for trading with the rest of the world. That's in the same way that we might agree on different 'common rulebooks' for each country that we deal with. Enforcement of such rules in relation to EU trade should be similar to the way rules are enforced for trade deals with other countries.

All trade deals have agreed positions on specifications, tariffs, safety, etc, and that's what I mean by a 'common rulebook'.

You obviously didn’t read my earlier post...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...6#post35958246

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You don't know that, you only know what the EU's argument is. However, being a negotiation, they may well back down, particularly if the UK Government can figure out a way to persuade them.

I can't argue with the first part of what you say above. But of one thing I, and most of the nation are certain, this government could figure its way out of a paper bag. If you can argue with that, your credibility is shot.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You obviously didn’t read my earlier post...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...6#post35958246

I think that post is proving a bit of an inconvenient truth.