Support NeoGAF

[Kuros]

We're not allowed to negotiate trade deals until we've left. It isn't Australia.

We can negotiate all we want. We can't sign a deal until we leave.

 

[Kabouter]

We can negotiate all we want. We can't sign a deal until we leave.

Right, it wouldn't surprise me if there are finished or near-finished trade agreements ready to be signed the second the UK officially leaves the EU.

 

[Maledict]

We can negotiate all we want. We can't sign a deal until we leave.

No we can't. We were slapped down last week for it. We aren't allowed to conduct negotiations whilst in the EU, because the EU does that for all member states. It's why we don't have any trade negotiators and haven't had for decades - they all work in the EU now.

Negotiations are literally the thing we aren't allowed to do.

 

[oti]

Right, it wouldn't surprise me if there are finished or near-finished trade agreements ready to be signed the second the UK officially leaves the EU.

How can you come up with a deal with a third party during negotiations with the EU? Wouldn't the third party want to know the results of those EU negotiations before playing their card?

 

[Kabouter]

How can you come up with a deal with a third party during negotiations with the EU? Wouldn't the third party want to know the results of those EU negotiations before playing their card?

I imagine that as negotiations with the EU progress, that a clearer picture of what is likely to be the relationship with the EU will gradually emerge.

 

[jelly]

Wouldn't it be wiser to let the UK leave the EU first because hashing out a trade deal afterwards would give you all the power over the UK as they are desperate and will take anything. Hell, aren't we borrowing negotiators from these countries.

 

[kmag]

I imagine that as negotiations with the EU progress, that a clearer picture of what is likely to be the relationship with the EU will gradually emerge.

The trade deal with the EU will not be negotiated until after the UK is a 3rd party. There's no legal competency for the EU negotiate a trade deal with a member. The exit negiotation is not about trade, it's about how the current responsibilities and costs are split up, and what diplomatic and cooperative relationship (think Interpol, security exchange, repatriation of data etc)

 

[*Splinter]

The trade deal with the EU will not be negotiated until after the UK is a 3rd party. There's no legal competency for the EU negotiate a trade deal with a member. The exit negiotation is not about trade, it's about how the current responsibilities and costs are split up, and what diplomatic and cooperative relationship (think Interpol, security exchange, repatriation of data etc)

The same thing happened with Greenland, it left and then after 5 torturous years they had an agreement on fish.

The discussion was about negotiations with non-EU countries I think. It started with Australia at least.

 

[kmag]

The discussion was about negotiations with non-EU countries I think. It started with Australia at least.

No country is going to be able to sign an FTA with the UK without knowing what access the UK has (and therefore their companies have) to the EU market.

 

[Kuros]

No we can't. We were slapped down last week for it. We aren't allowed to conduct negotiations whilst in the EU, because the EU does that for all member states. It's why we don't have any trade negotiators and haven't had for decades - they all work in the EU now.

Negotiations are literally the thing we aren't allowed to do.

If you honestly think the UK gov would give a monkeys about that given that we're going to be leaving I have a bridge to sell you...

 

[kmag]

If you honestly think the UK gov would give a monkeys about that given that we're going to be leaving I have a bridge to sell you...

Doesn't matter. The UK government and the countries they are looking to do a deal with need to know what the trading relationship with the UK and the EU is.

Canada have said it, the US have said it and the Australians have said it. Although in the case of Canada and Australia they both said it pre-referendum.

 

[Starwolf_UK]

So remember the petition that got over 4 million signitures. The debate finally happened...at the same time David Davis was saying much to do about nothing in the main house of commons (resulting in many people turning up late).
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-09-05/debates/1609058000001/EUReferendumRules
Well that was a whole lot said. Some interesting points like minimum turnout actually encourages abstinence and that a supermajority suggests some votes are worth more than others (what, and first past the post doesn't do that already by rendering most votes worthless).

I though what Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) said near the end was interesting:

...
One of the ills of the politics that we are now seeing come to fruition is that we are far too quick to criticise people’s integrity and question their motives just because they have views that differ strongly from our own. I welcome the contributions that have been made on both sides of the debate, even though I felt that some of them showed poor analysis and I could not possibly agree with them.

I shall pick up on one or two key points. A Labour Member made an interesting intervention early in the debate—I am sorry, but I cannot remember who it was and whether they are still present—suggesting that the demand for a second referendum is damaging to our democracy. No, the demand for a second referendum is a strong symptom of the fact that our democracy is already severely, if not fatally, damaged. A fundamental test of any democratic process should always be that the losers accept that the contest was fair. In this case, a substantial number of the losers do not believe that. If they are honest about it, a substantial number of the winners are probably also not happy about the way in which the contest was won.

...

There has been a lot of discussion about the nature of the wildly untrue statements and promises that were made during the referendum campaign. It genuinely scares me that Members of Parliament—honourable Members of Parliament—can sit here in an open forum and say, “Yeah, but people tell lies in general elections and council elections. It is just part of the system.” It should never be part of the system. It is appalling that a Member of this Parliament was found by a court of law to have told a blatant lie, but the law does not provide for that person to be forced to seek re-election through a by-election. There is something fundamentally wrong if the political system not only tacitly but now explicitly accepts that telling lies is an accepted part of the political process. If this whole shambolic affair does nothing more than create a situation in which lies and politics and public life are no longer allowed to coexist, perhaps the cloud will have a bit of a silver lining.

Regarding integrity. The constituency I'm in and the neighboring one both voted over 70% to remain while the local MPs campaigned for leave. There were petitioned to resign over this and the council met and voted against that (something like 60-40 split). While you perceive that indeed as a critiscism of their integrity there is a bit of local people fed up of them as MPs (for example one of them had to stand down from a charity as their position was unattainable due to how they voted in the commons). Though some of this frustration is the areas in mind are Tory (and have been for ages; a boundary change made one Labour briefly) but could be something else if it wasn't for non-Tory votes being split (which could make 2020 very interesting if Labour MPs refuse to stand in certain areas).

Their conduct following the referendum was not great either. One of them had little to say (as usual *sigh*) while the other one came out first quoting someone who said something about "MP should be representatives of the people; not delegates" (a representative does what they think is best while a delegate does what the people want...always remember that when voting for an MP you're voting for the former), then hearing what the local council said went on and attacked the Lib Dems even accusing them of being hypocrites as many of their MPs are in the same position (I don't think the Lib Dems started the petition...but since they have the most to gain from a resignation; a 9th MP, gotta attack) and then came to this debate late to say it was okay leave were wrong about the £350 million figure because the £200 million figure didn't change anyone's mind (he spoke before the person quoted above).

As for why there wasn't minimum turnout or supermajority in the first place? A Labour MP claims Labour tried to get these things added but were rejected...guess it didn't matter much in the end to the Labour Party if the final passing of the Bill was six to one.

My brain hurts reading Leave voters comment on Facebook.

I honestly can't wait to laugh at their complaints when we do actually leave.

While I'd prefer no Brexit I do have to admit getting some delight out of a Brexit that Brexiteers can not tolerate...sadly it might mean another 20 years of UKIP existing and leeching votes from parties that actually get MPs elected (plus the last UKIP manifesto I looked at read more like a monster raving loony party one).

 

[Audioboxer]

fuck

Sturgeon shelves plan for quick second Scottish independence referendum

Not really, it was always going to be slow and take time.

Sturgeon is smart and actually knows how to do a good job. She wants to win independence, not be the next in line to have to step down after the Scottish people shoot themselves in the foot, again. I mean people can say we never shot ourselves in the foot the first time around, but I just put forward the vow and Brexit. Those who said no did so believing the same muppets in charge who lied about the vow, caused Brexit (after saying vote NO to stay in the EU) and are also still the party in charge of the country (even with May coming in/some staff shuffled around). So yeah, IMO, the left foot was shot first time around, next time we don't want the right foot with a bullet in it as well.

Scotland with two shot up feet = Scotland who will be the bitch slapped dragged along brother of London/the Tories for the rest of our generation (another no to independence really does fuck all of us in our lifetimes).

 

[Camp Freddie]

No country is going to be able to sign an FTA with the UK without knowing what access the UK has (and therefore their companies have) to the EU market.

Exactly. Non-EU countries will want to know:

1) What happens if we want to move our stuff from the UK into the EU?
2) How does our access to the UK market compare to the access rights for our EU competitors?

Non-EU countries will have informal talks with us about what sort of deals might be possible, but proper negotiation on a deal can't begin until the terms of the EU deal are clear.

May seems to be trying to re-negotiate Cameron's EU agreement to get a kind of Brexit-lite. Maybe we can keep some access if we keep freedom of labour, while putting some restrictions on freedom of movement for those that can't support themselves. After all, there's quite a lot of grey area in what constitutes 'free movement'.
Honestly, Cameron didn't do nearly enough to show the benefits of his agreement.
He should have been shouting from the rooftops about how he had agreed reforms that would prevent EU immigrants from accessing our welfare state.

 

[hodgy100]

Exactly. Non-EU countries will want to know:

1) What happens if we want to move our stuff from the UK into the EU?
2) How does our access to the UK market compare to the access rights for our EU competitors?

Non-EU countries will have informal talks with us about what sort of deals might be possible, but proper negotiation on a deal can't begin until the terms of the EU deal are clear.

May seems to be trying to re-negotiate Cameron's EU agreement to get a kind of Brexit-lite. Maybe we can keep some access if we keep freedom of labour, while putting some restrictions on freedom of movement for those that can't support themselves. After all, there's quite a lot of grey area in what constitutes 'free movement'.
Honestly, Cameron didn't do nearly enough to show the benefits of his agreement.
He should have been shouting from the rooftops about how he had agreed reforms that would prevent EU immigrants from accessing our welfare state.

Well to be fair, It hadn't been ratified yet.

 

[Kuros]

fuck

Sturgeon shelves plan for quick second Scottish independence referendum

She's not stupid. The polls haven't shifted since the last referendum and the oil price slump has weakened the case, whilst the EU referendum has strengthened it.

She knows that another loss would mean no independence in her lifetime and it's not helped by members of the SNP arguing how undemocratic a second referendum on the EU would be in the house yesyerday.

 

[Biggzy]

Well to be fair, It hadn't been ratified yet.

Even if it was, the deal was still ridiculed by pretty much all of the press, so I doubt if it would have made any difference.

 

[Jezbollah]

She's not stupid. The polls haven't shifted since the last referendum and the oil price slump has weakened the case, whilst the EU referendum has strengthened it.

She knows that another loss would mean no independence in her lifetime and it's not helped by members of the SNP arguing how undemocratic a second referendum on the EU would be in the house yesyerday.

Indeed. I also think she'll be in a better position to call for (and win) a referendum when she knows what kind of deal we have with the EU and if it's counter productive to the self interests of Scotland

 

[Par Score]

A pretty good bit of writing on the current state of this shambles.

The underlying legitimacy of the referendum remains contested. While it’s nice that many more people are coming round to the view that an uncodified constitution is not really any way to underpin a modern state, it doesn’t change the fact that when people have to talk about procedural aspects, they undermine the integrity of the decision.

To be clear, this isn’t so much about the ire of the 48%, but about the lack of clear relationship between the vote and the rest of the political system: parliamentary approval(s), the hierarchy of dominance between the people and parliament and general sense that we’re making it up as we go along (which we are, largely). The various legal challenges now in train are thus inevitable and there’s a non-negligible chance that one or more of them with succeed, causing further uncertainty.

The lack of process on both sides is compounded by the lack of positions.

The UK government evidently doesn’t know what it wants to achieve, beyond leaving the EU. Theresa May does speak of making sure that free movement of people is curtailed (rather than stopped), but also of ensuring as much market access as possible. While we have to suppose that the former will be privileged over the latter, this does still not amount to a plan of action.

This in turn drives delay in notification. May knows enough to see that once inside Art.50, the UK gets very little say on things, so it makes complete sense to pursue as much as possible pre-notification. However, it’s exactly for that reason that the EU27 want to get to notification as soon as possible.

While the UK indecision is much discussed, it’s also important to recognise that the EU27 themselves don’t agree on what to do. The Ventotene meeting of Merkel, Hollande and Renzi produced nothing more than some warm words about Altiero Spinelli, while the coming Bratislava summit is unlikely to advance matters. While Germany wants a close relationship, Italy wants to mark a clean break, France is caught up in limiting concessions that can be used by Marine Le Pen in the presidential elections, Ireland fears for its economy and security, Hungary sees opportunities to pursue more ‘eurorealism’ and Poland toys with its increasing isolation. And that’s before we even get to a European Parliament that looks set to be a complete pain in the neck about any Art.50 deal that undermines the EU’s core ideas.

I recommend reading it all, if only for a clearer sense of why nothing seems to have happened, be happening, or is going to happen soon.

 

[Audioboxer]

Indeed. I also think she'll be in a better position to call for (and win) a referendum when she knows what kind of deal we have with the EU and if it's counter productive to the self interests of Scotland

Bingo! We all ready do have to wait for this slog that article 50 is going to be. Holding indyref2 right now would just be met with "Better Together" saying we have an amazing exit deal planned, leave at your own peril Scotland. As even if they don't the public will lap that up and if indyref2 was then shot down whatever comes next means fuck all. All that is important is preventing Scotland going and then the reality of the Brexit deal cannot be sidestepped by Scotland just fucking off and staying in the EU.

So yeah, we need to see the car wreck that is article 50/Brexit play out till it's later stages and then hopefully jump off the burning ship when we can say to our people "look at this fucking mess!". If the UK somehow gets a decent deal, then it will depend on the finer points of the deal to see if there is enough scope to say, okay deal, but much better us staying in the EU on our own than putting up with all these minor inconveniences.

The whole thing between Scotland and the UK is a long game of chess, and to see if we can manage a checkmate. Not a leap through a burning ring of fire with our fingers crossed. As someone who was pro-independence in 2014 I can honestly say I would lose my rag at losing another vote so shortly afterwards, let alone losing one which means needing to follow the UK out of the EU and into a future where a bunch of utter fucks run this country all by themselves. Yes we would still have our Scottish parliament but the stress involved in constantly seeing our parliament have to battle Tory reign in a solitary UK is something I really cba living with.

 

[Hazzuh]

Corbyn aide says Labour don't want to stay in 'damaging' EU single market - just wants 'full access' for British goods + services

Labour source refuses to say Jeremy Corbyn wants Britain to remain a member of the single market post-Brexit. Significant.

Asked what Corbyn meant by "free trade dogma", Lab source: Jeremy opposes key "components" of single market. eg state aid rules.

Labour source adds that Corbyn backs other parts of single market:"Lab would support *access* to goods and services"

Corbyn's aides have repeatedly refused to rule out backing Britain leaving Single Market, in a post PMQs briefing - is this Labour policy?

Posted in another thread but it looks like Corbyn now opposes single market membership...

 

[Audioboxer]

Posted in another thread but it looks like Corbyn now opposes single market membership...

In other news

"Corbyn has no fucking idea what he is doing other than making the Tories chokehold on the UK more damaging".

 

[Dougald]

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems have announced their post EU plans

Sounds like they don't want to re-run the referendum, but do want to ensure whatever deal we do get is voter-approved.

Everything else reads like they want as soft a Brexit as possible, unsurprising. Probably the only way they'll get everything on that list is if we actually don't leave, though

 

[*Splinter]

Posted in another thread but it looks like Corbyn now opposes single market membership...

So what's the argument against single market access? Preferential treatment to local business?

 

[Kuros]

Posted in another thread but it looks like Corbyn now opposes single market membership...

SMH

 

[HazySaiyan]

Posted in another thread but it looks like Corbyn now opposes single market membership...

It's almost as if he was bullshitting about being pro-EU.

 

[Audioboxer]

It's almost as if he was bullshitting about being pro-EU.

Oh hold on there, Corbyn's enthusiasm and excitement for the EU was overwhelming. I mean we couldn't stop the guy from defending the EU and rallying the Labour party in a united front to stand for Europe.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems have announced their post EU plans

Sounds like they don't want to re-run the referendum, but do want to ensure whatever deal we do get is voter-approved.

Everything else reads like they want as soft a Brexit as possible, unsurprising. Probably the only way they'll get everything on that list is if we actually don't leave, though

One interesting thing from there: Should Parliament vote on triggering Art. 50?

I'd actually forgotten about that whole debate. Was there any clear constitutional answer to that question? My first instinct is to say that it does need to be voted on by MPs.

 

[Kuros]

One interesting thing from there: Should Parliament vote on triggering Art. 50?

I'd actually forgotten about that whole debate. Was there any clear constitutional answer to that question? My first instinct is to say that it does need to be voted on by MPs.

Whichever way that goes it'll be going to the supreme court first.

 

[Dougald]

One interesting thing from there: Should Parliament vote on triggering Art. 50?

I'd actually forgotten about that whole debate. Was there any clear constitutional answer to that question? My first instinct is to say that it does need to be voted on by MPs.

Agreed. No parties seem to be saying they'll outright ignore the result, but there are many ways we could satisfy the referendum question and Parliament needs to have input on that. The ballot didn't ask if you want to keep freedom of movement, access to the single market, banking passports, whatever. That needs to be discussed rather than have the cabinet do whatever they like

 

[jufonuk]

So Brexit means Brexit, any fucking idea what Brexit means?

Maybe that's the Beauty of Brexit it can mean anything to anyone.

 

[Dougald]

So Brexit means Brexit, any fucking idea what Brexit means?

Maybe that's the Beauty of Brexit it can mean anything to anyone.

A lot of people seem to have very specific ideas, but really it means nothing beyond specifically no longer being a member of the EU, because that was what was on the ballot paper

I would wager nobody in power has a bloody clue

 

[jufonuk]

A lot of people seem to have very specific ideas, but really it means nothing beyond specifically no longer being a member of the EU, because that was what was on the ballot paper

I would wager nobody in power has a bloody clue

Even not being in the EU is vague .. Not in it how? Like all the way out of it or just not dealing with some stuff. We want to be out but work with everyone still. confusing times

 

[KingSnake]

Posted in another thread but it looks like Corbyn now opposes single market membership...

It will be a beautiful thing if Tories manage to get UK out of the single market and blame that on the Labour for the next elections.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Corbyn aide says Labour don't want to stay in 'damaging' EU single market - just wants 'full access' for British goods + services

Posted in another thread but it looks like Corbyn now opposes single market membership...

Wait wait, does he mean he wants british goods + services having full access into the EU, without guaranteeing that EU goods + services have full access into the UK? (so a unilateral access)
Because if not, he is basically saying "We don't want to stay in the single market, we just want to be in the single market" which... doesn't make any sense. And if it is what he is saying, it's straight up bonkers.

 

[*Splinter]

Wait wait, does he mean he wants british goods + services having full access into the EU, without guaranteeing that EU goods + services have full access into the UK? (so a unilateral access)
Because if not, he is basically saying "We don't want to stay in the single market, we just want to be in the single market" which... doesn't make any sense. And if it is what he is saying, it's straight up bonkers.

Isn't it bonkers either way? What are the chances of unilateral access?

 

[Dougald]

Even not being in the EU is vague .. Not in it how? Like all the way out of it or just not dealing with some stuff. We want to be out but work with everyone still. confusing times

All I can guarantee is that no matter what the result is, people who voted for both remain and leave will be pissed

 

[JonathanEx]

Wait wait, does he mean he wants british goods + services having full access into the EU, without guaranteeing that EU goods + services have full access into the UK? (so a unilateral access)
Because if not, he is basically saying "We don't want to stay in the single market, we just want to be in the single market" which... doesn't make any sense. And if it is what he is saying, it's straight up bonkers.

Schrödinger's Market.

Not sure if it's stupidity or trying to hide the lack of a policy. Or both, probably.

All I can guarantee is that no matter what the result is, people who voted for both remain and leave will be pissed

We'll end up going from some people being happy to nobody being happy, futher destroying public trust and enagement with politics properly, well done all

 

[Jisgsaw]

Isn't it bonkers either way? What are the chances of unilateral access?

Less than none.
So this sentence is either completely unrealistic, or manages to contradict itself in less than 140 characters. Hats off.

 

[Camp Freddie]

Posted in another thread but it looks like Corbyn now opposes single market membership...

I think this was already implied in his 7/10 (Would not bang. Nice worker protections but the capitalism is well ugly).

 

[chadskin]

Both Davis and Corbyn seemingly don't want to be a part of, but still want to have access to the EU single market.

In other words, a FTA between the EU and the UK, similar to the EU-US (TTIP) and EU-Canada (CETA) FTAs.

Which means trade would be done on WTO rules for years until a new FTA has been agreed upon and implemented, a rather optimistic approach in this anti-TTIP, anti-CETA climate.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Fuck you Corbyn. It's pretty clear that he secretly wanted to leave the EU now.

 

[*Splinter]

Fuck you Corbyn. It's pretty clear that he secretly wanted to leave the EU now.

Secretly?

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Isn't it bonkers either way? What are the chances of unilateral access?

Just as bonkers as polls saying that a majority of Brits want free movement into the EU for themselves but no free movement for EU citizens into the UK. Having your cake and eating it defined.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Corbyn really is a clueless cunt. Being against even the single market is fucking insane. What does he think would make up the difference? Finding a meteorite of the worlds most valuable and unique fucking ore?

It feels like he wanted out of the EU more than Boris and his cronies even. Thats how insane this is. Fuck me. And people will still blindly follow him?

 

[jufonuk]

Just as bonkers as polls saying that a majority of Brits want free movement into the EU for themselves but no free movement for EU citizens into the UK. Having your cake and eating it defined.

Lol yeah
Suspecting Sun and Mail readers are being polled

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Corbyn should have went out and campaigned for leave then rather than sabotaging remain.

 

[Halph n Halph]

Both Davis and Corbyn seemingly don't want to be a part of, but still want to have access to the EU single market.

In other words, a FTA between the EU and the UK, similar to the EU-US (TTIP) and EU-Canada (CETA) FTAs.

Which means trade would be done on WTO rules for years until a new FTA has been agreed upon and implemented, a rather optimistic approach in this anti-TTIP, anti-CETA climate.

Would Eu business leaders want to revert to WTO rules? It would seem to me that it just creates a lose/lose scenario.
And for what,to teach the UK a lesson? I can see why the EU commission would like it for political reasons but not companies who like to make money.

 

[*Splinter]

Would Eu business leaders want to revert to WTO rules? It would seem to me that it just creates a lose/lose scenario.
And for what,to teach the UK a lesson? I can see why the EU commission would like it for political reasons but not companies who like to make money.

It's not a case of wanting to trade under those rules, it's just that a new trade deal will take years to negotiate and in the meantime we have to use WTO as a kind of default ruleset.

It's got nothing to do with "punishing" the UK -.-

 

[Halph n Halph]

It's not a case of wanting to trade under those rules, it's just that a new trade deal will take years to negotiate and in the meantime we have to use WTO as a kind of default ruleset.

It's got nothing to do with "punishing" the UK -.-

A new trade deal would only need to be negotiated if the existing one was ripped up. Surely a more sensible approach would be to work out a new deal on the foundation of the old one.