Puppet Shadow
Member
Ya, that pisses me off too. It's as though they have to add labels for idiots. This works just as well, and makes for a better cartoon:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Brexit: May Set to Defy EU by Opening Pre-Brexit Trade Talks With Others
- Thread starter AHA-Lambda
- Start date
- Status
Phantast2k
Member
How do you know the men in the back are muscled? Only 3 men in this cartoon are muscled.
You lose.
killer rin
Member
To the detriment of the UK, it is in every other countries best interest to wait until the UK formally invokes Article 50. No need to anger the EU, and we even get an added bonus of negotiating with a UK desperate for trade agreements
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
So, fuck legal agreements you don't like? Sounds like Brexit in a nutshell.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well that kinda depends on your wider views. If they consider the UK getting a good deal to be potentially greatly increasing the chances of breaking up the EU (and that this is the biggest thing they need to avoid) then you're right it might. But that's not necessarily the case, and I think that people who point at percentages of trade etc are missing the point slightly too. Obviously the UK represents a much smaller total proportion of trade (both imports and exports) to the EU than the other way around, but it doesn't in absolute terms nor in terms of the number of people negatively affected by new trade barriers. If such barriers cost UK businesses X billion and it costs EU businesses roughly the same, that's roughly the same number of people whose quality of life will be getting worse and the EU has an obligation to avoid that as much as they can. It's a matter of choosing which is worse which, for them I guess, will come down to how likely they think a favourable deal will make anti-EU sentiment grow.
BlastProcessing
Member
Let's role play how negotiations will go.
UK: Hey we want to make a deal?
Other Countries: How do we know you will stick to any agreement you sign?
UK: We're totally good for it! A true country of honor.
Other Countries: You do realize that the very act of speaking to us directly violates your last agreement right?
UK: ...
aaaaaaaaand scene.
Your muscles don't matter as much when you become completely untrustworthy. It's very hard to see why anyone would be champing at the bit to enter any sort of pact with such a capricious nation.
jakonovski
Member
Have they hired any negotiators for the UK? The last time they had like five people or something.
Sure.
QuicheFontaine
Member
As Bahamut says above the "very act of speaking" to other countries doesn't violate the agreement. Neither the letter nor, given the reality of the circumstances, the spirit either I'd argue.
Linkstrikesback
Member
Talking from.My ass but I imagine any retribution would be along the lines of they'll put sanctions on the uk or something. Fucking Teresa may will be fine, destroying the economy will never affect her or the other MPs because they'll just have big enough pay raises to offset it.
None of which matters. What matters is whether the EU and other countries perceive this as acting in bad faith - especially given the UK government's failures regarding activating article 50.
The EU won't sanction the U.K. for leaving, as that would hurt the EU as well, but they probably won't give them special treatment and they shouldn't.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Uh...the government has literally been working as quickly as it possibly can within our system to activate Art. 50. It tried to do so without parliamentary approval even! Now it's facing a legal challenge and will activate it with parliamentary approval if needs be. I don't know what else you want them to do here. Seems like good faith so far to me.
SymbiantXenos
Member
America will only offer export only trade deals.
Just watch.
Just watch.
Not even that. America has the biggest stick, we have twig so bend over UK. The US is not going to give us a good deal at all. We will accept what we are given.
charliebear
Neo Member
But on the other side, isn't this the sensible thing? Would it be better to do no talks until the treaties end? To have less of a negotiating situation?
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Hah, the legal challenge came long after they delayed triggering from right after the vote, as promised, to fall and then when they are ready.
Some folks in Brussels were pondering whether they could force Britain to invoke for some time.
Because the UK is already flush as it is in terms of negotiating power.
But sure, keep showing your potential partners how much of an unreliable chucklefuck you are. Not that they probably want to annoy the EU by negotiating with the UK before it's due time anyway.
Yep, our Prime Minister is an idiot and cares more about staying in power than the future of Britain.
Well they did vote in the premise that things were better "back in the days" and failing to realise that;
A: The world has changed since then.
B: The world is a much smaller place than it used to be back then so we are more connected.
Which is why the younger generation are frustrated by them as their future is screwed thanks to them as they will have to deal with it for years.
Absolutely. There's no point negotiating concrete terms with a party that hasn't clarified its own status. Salient points like whether or not the UK remains in the single market will be critical pieces of information for third parties.
The legal question as pertains to Brexit is also going to kill any serious negotiation in the short term because who would bother negotiating a deal with a party that hasn't fully figured out its legal and political status.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Who is "they"? David Cameron said he'd do it the day after the referendum results, but that was likely a promise that he couldn't even have carried out (we'll know as soon as the Supreme Court delivers their verdict on the government's appeal).
In any case, he instead resigned immediately triggering a leadership contest in the Tory party. I suppose you can blame Dave personally for the "delay until fall" if you want, but it's hard to see how the current government hasn't gone hell for leather towards activating Art. 50 in my opinion.
That was before May. She made it clear from the outset that it would be early 2017, and then confirmed March 2017 soon after.
The whole point of free trade is to import things, no matter how much politicians try to sell it by promising exports. So say America offers an export only trade deal, what exactly do they hope to receive in payment for their exports if the UK can't sell things to the US? British pounds, yes, but what use do Americans have for pounds other than to buy things from the UK, or to sell them to someone who intends to buy things from the UK.
That said, Trump very well might try to make deals where America only exports.
Cameron claimed he would activate art.50 the day after the result, then resigned. Theresa May then attempted to circumvent the sovereignty of Parliament in what was a blatantly unconstitutional move that would be rejected, and then even had the gall to appeal the outcome during a period where they should be focused on actually getting their house in order for activation.
Meanwhile she publicly goads the EU for her base after assigning a man sacked for publishing lies about the EU in national newspapers to the post of foreign secretary. None of this indicates acting in good faith for either the EU or the best interests of the electorate.
This entire narrative about "choosing" hard Brexit is a complete farce too. The EU have outlined since before the referendum that the 4 freedoms are non-negotiable, and a hard Brexit is inevitable if the UK's red line is limiting freedom of movement. The Tories are merely trying to spin the narrative that crashing out of the single market was the plan all along.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
May is not the government she's just the most important position of it.
The government when the decision was made and while the leadership changed it's still the same government. You didn't exactly hold another election.
Phantast2k
Member
Bolded: The EU and especially Euro are practically a matter of life &
Why are you even looking at absolute numbers? That number of people whose life is getting worse will be proportionally greater in UK. The percentage of (tax) revenue shortfall due to trade barriers will also be greater for UK. Only Ireland is somewhat near that level of pain.
And that's also ignoring effects like corporate flight. And not just foreign corporations which used UK as a springboard into EU or banks / financial services. Lots of UK corporations whose market is mainly in the EU could take that route. Here is a legal precedent:
Brexit prompts corporate merger first | News | Law Society Gazette
The EU frequently ignores it's own rules when it is convenient (France and Germany disregarded rules on deficits, they pretended the 2010 Greek bailouts were disaster relief because the bailouts weren't actually legal) so I find it hard to be outraged about the UK negotiating trade deals if it wants to tbh.
Huw_Dawson
Member
The spirit is something to quibble on - I don't think most EU rules were written with a nation leaving in mind, so there's no spirit of the law at all, really.
I have a few obvious concerns about this plan of attack:
1. The EU deciding that such action is unfair, and refusing to negotiate unless Britain ceases negotiation with 3rd parties. That's a risk - the EU, after all, hold all the cards here.
2. Trade deals still taking ages to create.
3. Our trade negotiation team being split between more than one negotiation
4. The Brexit-voting public going mental over any of these trade deals if they weaken immigration rules for said countries (e.g. lots of Americans coming to the UK and taking IT jobs).
5. Negotiating with Trump IN GENERAL seems like a bad idea.
Because the UK is already flush as it is in terms of negotiating power.
But sure, keep showing your potential partners how much of an unreliable chucklefuck you are. Not that they probably want to annoy the EU by negotiating with the UK before it's due time anyway.
US hand is too big.
Phantast2k
Member
Greek bailouts as disaster relief? What? More like bailout of own banks.
The EU also gave the UK a rebate and opt-outs for Schengen and the Euro.
AHA-Lambda
Member
At first I just groaned and facepalmed as is more or less the norm with what Theresa May does these days, but reading a bit more into this...
I can understand the UK being prohibited from negotiating deals with other countries prior to actually triggering Article 50.
But this article seems to imply that there are at least elements within the EU saying that the UK is not allowed to even begin negotiating trade deals until after the full 2 year period from Article 50 being triggered? Is that right?
If that were the case then I can begin to understand why she'd defy the EU on it. It certainly wouldn't be hard to get a lot of sympathy from both outside and inside the EU that it was trying to unfairly punish the UK by not allowing it to have any trade deals ready to go, or even in progress, at the end of the 2 year period.
I can understand the UK being prohibited from negotiating deals with other countries prior to actually triggering Article 50.
But this article seems to imply that there are at least elements within the EU saying that the UK is not allowed to even begin negotiating trade deals until after the full 2 year period from Article 50 being triggered? Is that right?
If that were the case then I can begin to understand why she'd defy the EU on it. It certainly wouldn't be hard to get a lot of sympathy from both outside and inside the EU that it was trying to unfairly punish the UK by not allowing it to have any trade deals ready to go, or even in progress, at the end of the 2 year period.
What about this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-uk-surpreme-court-judges-verdict-theresa-may-plan-eu-deal-article-50-european-a7541451.html
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will likely rule against May to trigger article 50 on her own without a vote in parliament. Not only that but there's also this detail:
"However, as the new material from Northern Ireland has now been allowed to be considered, it is possible that the Supreme Court could also rule that the devolved parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must also get a say on whether to trigger Article 50, by approving a Legislative Consent Motion. This raises the possibility that the devolved administrations could block or delay Brexit, as a majority of people in Northern Ireland and Scotland both voted Remain."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-uk-surpreme-court-judges-verdict-theresa-may-plan-eu-deal-article-50-european-a7541451.html
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will likely rule against May to trigger article 50 on her own without a vote in parliament. Not only that but there's also this detail:
"However, as the new material from Northern Ireland has now been allowed to be considered, it is possible that the Supreme Court could also rule that the devolved parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must also get a say on whether to trigger Article 50, by approving a Legislative Consent Motion. This raises the possibility that the devolved administrations could block or delay Brexit, as a majority of people in Northern Ireland and Scotland both voted Remain."
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
There is no point in not allowing the uk to negotiate other deals at the same time
There is however a point in ensuring the uk doesnt get a good deal.
There is however a point in ensuring the uk doesnt get a good deal.
I had seen that part talked about, but I don't think any of the Devolved Parliaments/Assemblies actually expect to be granted any kind of Veto powers. Scotland at the very least more or less openly acknowledged that they wouldn't have any ability to veto a brexit vote and made no argument in favour of one as I recall.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Can't wait until they get the fuck out of the EU.
Can't stand this shitshow anymore.
You can't unfairly punish someone who agreed to those terms.
Can't stand this shitshow anymore.
You can't unfairly punish someone who agreed to those terms.
Huw_Dawson
Member
NI might not matter if power sharing is not restored. Stormont needs to be seated to vote on Brexit.
Scotland would be the rub, certainly, and would HORRENDOUSLY embarrass May if that happened. Sturgeon would almost certainly block any Brexit-related deal that didn't give Scotland the right to remain in the EU (and, obviously, de-facto independent)
It won't happen though. Westminister voted to join the EEC, not Holyrood or elsewhere. The legal debate is if it's right that May can use royal powers to overthrow Parliament legislation - she can't and it isn't.
Thing is, it's beginning to sound like these terms weren't explicitly defined. Very little about Article 50 seems to be explicit.
Can it be revoked once triggered? Seems to be down to interpretation, there is no explicit answer.
When can trade negotiations of an outgoing nation begin? Seems to be down to interpretation, there is no explicit answer.
Article 50 seems to have been written with zero expectation that anybody would actually be stupid enough to use it, so relatively little thought went into it for a diplomatic treaty.
I don't think driving a really hard bargain will make much difference. Anti-EU sentiment is strongly on the rise. And to be clear, this isn't anti-people-in-other-EU-countries, it's anti EU project.
If anything being obviously harsh will just reinforce the belief that the project exists as a prison. If you polled the French today, they'd be gone in a heartbeat.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'd still question how they could have done things much quicker than they have, given Dave's resignation and the legal challenge. I honestly don't see any reluctance or dilly dallying.
Doubtful.
All polling suggests that support for Scottish Independence among people in Scotland has actually dropped.
Sturgeon isn't going to call another referendum unless she's absolutely 100% certain she can win. If she calls another one and loses a second time even with everything that's going on it'll more or less destroy any idea of Scottish independence for at least a century.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
If you're doing a hard Brexit with essentially zero chance of a free trade deal being worked out in 2 years (which you need goodwill for) then you kind of have to do this. You can't leave without anything to fall back on, whether the EU likes it or not.
Even more significant is that any free trade deal is likely not bilateral, instead it would have to be ratified by all member states (apparently), we know this since the EU essentially changed the rules to that at the end of the CETA negotiations with Canada.
The polls show that Brexit barely moved the dial. One act of economic self-harm should not undue over 300 years of effective union for even more self-harm.
As for veto powers, that seems unlikely. England has 84 percent of the population, so it would be politically untenable for regions with 3-8 percent of the population to be able to veto legislation. Far better if nothing comes up that's as divisive as Brexit ever again, and Labour gets its act together (by dumping you-know-who).
Even more significant is that any free trade deal is likely not bilateral, instead it would have to be ratified by all member states (apparently), we know this since the EU essentially changed the rules to that at the end of the CETA negotiations with Canada.
The polls show that Brexit barely moved the dial. One act of economic self-harm should not undue over 300 years of effective union for even more self-harm.
As for veto powers, that seems unlikely. England has 84 percent of the population, so it would be politically untenable for regions with 3-8 percent of the population to be able to veto legislation. Far better if nothing comes up that's as divisive as Brexit ever again, and Labour gets its act together (by dumping you-know-who).
Actually, while she /won't/ get the right, she should be entitled to it. It's arguable that we joined illegally in the first place, with the public having been 1) denied a referendum in 1970 and then 2) lied to in 1975, with regards to the effects on sovereignty.
Agree with your first point: there's too much of an open interpretation on whether it is irrevocable or not.
However, I disagree with the second. Just because there's no explicit provision, that doesn't mean there can be more than one (valid) interpretation.
Article 50 says that all Treaties will still apply during the period after a Member State notifies the Union of its withdrawal and said withdrawal. Thus, the UK needs to act in accordance to the TFEU.
Checking the TFEU shows that the Union only has exclusive competence for concluding agreements and putting them into effect. Since there is no explicit mention of an exclusive competence to draft and negotiate agreements, the UK is allowed to do those things so long as they don't sign on them.
Legally, they're allowed to do it even now, before triggering Article 50.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
His resignation and the delay was the dilly dallying. The legal challenge hasn't been in effect for 5 months past the vote.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I strongly suspect that the ruling will be in favour of parliamentary sovereignty, giving parliament the vote on when and if to trigger Article 50. I'm sure they'll trigger it anyways so it's primarily a matter of making it clear that parliament has the final say on these matters, as it should.
As for joining the EEC, the holding of a referendum was irrelevant because there had never been a referendum, or indeed any concept of a referendum in any part of the UK prior to the Northern Ireland Unity referendum (which saw a rejection) in 1973. Without a written constitution ruling by custom is the norm, and there was no precedent to any referendum, so I'm calling bullshit on "joined illegally."
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Yeah it's clearly vague but I think some point can objectively be inferred.
Regarding the potential revoking since it's mentioned that after the 2 year period the leaving member will be out of the EU with or without a deal between the two in place i'm pretty sure that once it's triggered there's no going back (unless you try to enter again afterwards of course).
- Status