A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Quite. If they started listening to their people then where would they be?
Er... Trump, Wienstein, student falls off cliff... Yes I can see Germany is in absolute chaos
those are also our headlines
But how does that prove Germany is "more unstable" than Britain?
When I challenged you on that you pointed me at the German papers. They have some of the same (not particularly German-centric) stories as our but we also have the added spice of 'Tory Rebels Stall Brext Bill', 'Chaos as EU talks Deadlocked', oh and a 'Saboteur' chancellor who apprently needs to be sacked...
So please don't try to tell me that Germany's less stable than Britain at the moment and use their papers to prove it.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
I for one shall be writing a jolly firm letter to Messrs Barnier and Juncker to give them a good ticking off.
If only someone had thought to warn us that leaving the EU would cause uncertainty and we couldn't just cherry pick all the good bits...
Mr. Recidivist, if Euratom were separate then we wouldn't be leaving it necessarily due to leaving the EU.
The EU is interested in empire-building but only for its own sake. It is the institutional format of Gordon Brown.
Whether or not the EU is interested in empire building is a matter of opinion. But surely a continent wide authority looking after radioactive materials is a good idea, indeed probably an essential one. And isn't the EU the most logical body to run it? I am completely mystified by how this has come to be controversial.
Er... Trump, Wienstein, student falls off cliff... Yes I can see Germany is in absolute chaos
those are also our headlines
But how does that prove Germany is "more unstable" than Britain?
When I challenged you on that you pointed me at the German papers. They have some of the same (not particularly German-centric) stories as our but we also have the added spice of 'Tory Rebels Stall Brext Bill', 'Chaos as EU talks Deadlocked', oh and a 'Saboteur' chancellor who apprently needs to be sacked...
So please don't try to tell me that Germany's less stable than Britain at the moment and use their papers to prove it.
Somebody tell Faisal Islam that Switzerland is a member of Euratom.
Switzerland isn't a member of Euratom. It has a number of co-operation agreements with it. Bit similar to "access to Single Market", eg USA versus EU Member
Since 2014, Switzerland has participated in Euratom programmes as an associated state.[1]
As of 2016, the community had co-operation agreements of various scopes with eight countries: the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and South Africa.[10]
Strictly speaking, the reference the Wikipedia article links to explains Switzerland is NOT an associated country. (It has legal implications).
Only Prime Minister Gove, Johnson, or Davis could revoke Article 50.
That would certainly be one scenario under which it could be revoked.
The other one is the approach of the cliff edge causing political and economic chaos, grounding of flights, shortages of essential goods, lack of nuclear fuel for power stations etc etc. If this happened then any outcome is possible, including a reversal of the entire Brexit process.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
If they make it clear up front that's how they are going to negotiate and explain the process in detail and our side agrees to negotiate on those terms, is that really bad faith?
Yes, of course, since the Treaty doesn't provide for them to do that. On the contrary, it explicitly says they should take account of the future relationship.
I would tease out two points from your comment. Firstly " taking account of the future relationship" is very vague. Deciding there wasn't going to be a future relationship could be taking account of it. The EU in any case say discussion of the future relationship will come in good time, they want to sort the other stuff out first. Claiming the EU is acting contrary to Article 50 is a massive stretch in my view.
But they could be in accordance with the Article but still acting in bad faith, hence my question. People can certainly question the effectiveness of sequencing the negotiations in this way from their point of view, which is the only point of view that counts. But if they are clear about how they are doing it and get our agreement for that process, is it actually bad faith?
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
I'm not sure that analogy is a good one, given the article you spent a thread header analysing... "...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…"
No, they'll do deranged cretins who got you into this mess".
"we'rone"
cant see that working myself
The time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people wilabout. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next eBritain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a ant imagine a different future.
Brexit dwarfs everythinguble whammy.
What utter guff.
It excites the political anoraks nobody else. And for remainers it get worse as the answer can only ever be Armageddon.
anecdote
it was a quiz night in my village hall on Saturday and I had two remainers on my team doing the gloom scenario, UK is worst place in the world laughing stock etc
Me: so youre saying we're a bigger laughing stock than Trunps USA ? Them : well no, don't be stupid Me: so youre saying we're more unstable than Germany which currently doesn't have a government and where Merkel is in the poo Them: well no Me : Are we less stable than Spain ? Them: no have you see Catalonia Me: Italy ? Them: laughter Me: France where the president is less popular than Hollande and where 2 in 5 electors vote neo fascist ? Them: well France has always been a mess Me: so really everywhere is in a bit of turmoil and where just in with the pak Them: yeah suppose so
Point of order on Macron - his popularity ratings are improving; two union-called national days of action against his reforms have been damp squibs.
It does look (from a distance) that Macron has managed to achieve some sensible labour reforms without triggering the expected huge industrial and civil action.
Something that plenty of French presidents and PMs have failed to do over the past few decades.
Yes, it also seems to be disappointing an awful lot of people on the left and right.
If you’re upsetting both sides, you’re probably doing good as a centrist politician.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
If they make it clear up front that's how they are going to negotiate and explain the process in detail and our side agrees to negotiate on those terms, is that really bad faith?
Yes, of course, since the Treaty doesn't provide for them to do that. On the contrary, it explicitly says they should take account of the future relationship.
I would tease out two points from your comment. Firstly " taking account of the future relationship" is very vague. Deciding there wasn't going to be a future relationship could be taking account of it. The EU in any case say discussion of the future relationship will come in good time, they want to sort the other stuff out first. Claiming the EU is acting contrary to Article 50 is a massive stretch in my view....
"in good time..." A50 specifies that we leave after 24 months. There isn't much 'good time' left.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
I'm not sure that analogy is a good one, given the article you spent a thread header analysing... "...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…"
It's an odd one though, isn't it?
How do you compel somebody to negotiate? 'OK, it's yours for £500,000m....and you have to let me come back and use it whenever I feel like it.'
'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…' is not the current EU negotiating stance in breach of this. How can it reach a withdrawal settlement without taking account of its future relationship which currently it refused to discuss?
For something comprising so few words, Article 50 is remarkably puzzling. The more you look at it, the more holes in it you see.
For example: "[The agreement] shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
What happens if the European Parliament doesn't give its consent?
Default position. No withdrawal agreement. All treaties lapse.
The Article 50 withdrawal agreement isn't the be-all-and-end-all. It's an opportunity to agree stuff while the leaving party is still a member and on a simplified and accelerated agreement schedule. If we have an agreement we will continue to negotiate; if we don't have one we will still need to negotiate. The more stuff that we can get into the withdrawal agreement, the better. It reduces the cliff edge and saves us some of the negotiation down the line.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
I'm not sure that analogy is a good one, given the article you spent a thread header analysing... "...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…"
It's an odd one though, isn't it?
How do you compel somebody to negotiate? 'OK, it's yours for £500,000m....and you have to let me come back and use it whenever I feel like it.'
It is indeed.
However, A50 clearly implies that the 'framework for its future relationship' be in existence before the 'arrangements for withdrawal' can be put in place, so whatever the political reality, saying that the EU are not negotiating in good faith isn't exactly a stretch.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
I'm not sure that analogy is a good one, given the article you spent a thread header analysing... "...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…"
The content of that agreement is not dictated. "Fine, bye, close the door on the way out" would satisfy it. The fact that Britain might want more doesn't oblige the EU to accommodate Britain or even talk about things that it isn't going to offer.
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law.
"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…"
"shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
The German car and Italian wine lobbies will be on the phone any day now and we'll get whatever deal we ask for from Barnier.
Keep the faith, and top up the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
If we leave the EU, then arguably Italian wine will become cheaper as there will be no customs duty to pay.
Surely Italian wine will be the same price, as we pay no tariffs now, only U.K. Excise duty charged on all wine sold in U.K? The change in wine prices will be all the new world wines, which will get a lot cheaper if we don’t charge tariffs on their import.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
But this is not a buyer/seller arrangment. It is more akin to the EU being mandated to sort out the terms of a compulsory purchase order on your flat. If they keep offering you "£1...." - is that good faith?
Mr. rkrkrk, it's a long term prediction of mine, due to the diametrically opposing drives of national interest and a relentless push to integrate and harmonise.
I might be wrong. It'd be interesting if I am. But if I'm not, the sooner the EU ends, the better. It might be the difference between civil disturbance and bitterness, and war.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
I'm not sure that analogy is a good one, given the article you spent a thread header analysing... "...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…"
The content of that agreement is not dictated. "Fine, bye, close the door on the way out" would satisfy it. The fact that Britain might want more doesn't oblige the EU to accommodate Britain or even talk about things that it isn't going to offer.
We were discussing 'good faith', not quibbling about interpretation of the small print. I entirely recognise that the EU is in a position to watch us swing in the wind, if they so desire.
Deeming such behaviour even acceptable, let alone admirable, is quite another matter.
And is 'fine, close the door..' really a negotiation in your view ?
Well, the main headlines in Bild are currently Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO and Harvey Weinstein. There seems to be very little about internal German politics, so it doesn't really support your contention that Germany is less stable than the UK at all.
Perhaps you should consider reading a more upmarket paper. Die Zeit or the Frankfurter Allgemeine, perhaps?
I normally do, FAZ and Die Welt, which is where I quote the Merkel in trouble stories
BPs question was was there any German paper worse than the DMail
I sent him Bild
According to the latest surveys on ARD, 75% of Germans would support a Jamaica coalition, 61% find it good or very good for Merkel to have a fourth term, and 63% are satisfied with her work. Those are hardly figures for a politician in trouble!
Seehofer is about to get a good kicking from his own party Jamaica is the only game in town and greens and FDP are at opposite ends of the political spectrum - Merkel has shakier partners than May and the DUP Nobody in the CDU is celebrating an electoral victory The AfD have one seventh of the vote East Germany dislikes Merkel and wont vote for her Diesel scandal
if you think all is sweetness and light in Germany good luck
Merkel is Theresa May with a 6 month delay
I didn't say all is sweetness and light in Germany. You claimed that it is less stable than the UK, which is patent nonsense. Merkel remains a popular leader (certainly compared to May) and most are confident that she'll be able to form a coalition with the FDP and Greens. Coalition governments are, of course, the norm in Germany and, while a coalition including both the FDP and Greens will be interesting, both parties have long experience as junior coalition partners and have pragmatists who will be keen to make it work.
The German car and Italian wine lobbies will be on the phone any day now and we'll get whatever deal we ask for from Barnier.
Keep the faith, and top up the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
If we leave the EU, then arguably Italian wine will become cheaper as there will be no customs duty to pay.
Surely Italian wine will be the same price, as we pay no tariffs now, only U.K. Excise duty charged on all wine sold in U.K? The change in wine prices will be all the new world wines, which will get a lot cheaper if we don’t charge tariffs on their import.
Excise duty is a UK tax due on all alcohol imported into the UK (or for what is referred to a ‘released for consumption’) regardless of where it is from, whereas Customs Duty is a European tax on alcohol imported from outside the European Union. For example, on a wine imported from Spain excise duty would have to be paid but not customs duty, but on a wine imported from Australia both excise duty and customs duty have to be paid.
But it is not 100% clear whether UK excise duty includes EU customs duty. I don't buy enough of (any) non-EU wines so can't tell you exactly. Perhaps Robert, or any other PB boozer (ie everyone here) can help?
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
If they make it clear up front that's how they are going to negotiate and explain the process in detail and our side agrees to negotiate on those terms, is that really bad faith?
Yes, of course, since the Treaty doesn't provide for them to do that. On the contrary, it explicitly says they should take account of the future relationship.
I would tease out two points from your comment. Firstly " taking account of the future relationship" is very vague. Deciding there wasn't going to be a future relationship could be taking account of it. The EU in any case say discussion of the future relationship will come in good time, they want to sort the other stuff out first. Claiming the EU is acting contrary to Article 50 is a massive stretch in my view.
But they could be in accordance with the Article but still acting in bad faith, hence my question. People can certainly question the effectiveness of sequencing the negotiations in this way from their point of view, which is the only point of view that counts. But if they are clear about how they are doing it and get our agreement for that process, is it actually bad faith?
It could be argued that deliberately refusing to talk about trade until the last minute is creating significant business uncertainty in the UK and encouraging British companies to partially relocate to other EU countries, then that is acting in bad faith.
We need to put an early deadline on the trade talks so that we can prepare for an organised WTO ‘no-deal’ scenario, whereas they would prefer to keep up the pretence of trade negotiations until 29th March 2019 and have us either crash out or bend over. I would say that’s also acting in bad faith.
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law.
"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…"
"shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
And what could the ECJ do? Throw Barnier into gaol?
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law.
"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…"
"shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
The irony of the UK taking the EU to the hated ECJ for not allowing it to dictate separation terms ... A case that the UK would absolutely be guaranteed to lose, not least because the next clause makes it clear there is no requirement for a withdrawal agreement. It's an option if all parties agree.
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law.
"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…"
"shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
Agreed. The ECJ is hardly an uninterested party, though! Hard to see the politics of them siding with 1 leaving member against 27 continuing members. And their timeline might run into years, not months.
The negotiations are a complete mess because the Treaty framework is a complete mess.
"we're not these deranged cretins who got you into this mess, we're the whack job ideologues who'll get you in to an even bigger one"
cant see that working myself
The second part will convince Brexit headbangers who believe simply on the basis of time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people will be worried about housing, cost of living, NHS and all the other things ordinary people worry about. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next election is likely to be dominated by the question: "do you think things have got better since Britain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a mad call, there are so many other things which can change. Basing everything on the Brexit prism is myopic. It's simply the product of a mindset that cant imagine a different future.
Indeed.
Some remainers are incandescent; but I
I was thinking about all the 'disaster is certain' predictions during my life:
Nuclear war Nuclear disaster eg Chernobyl New ice age Global warming Various other ecological disasters - birds dying, bees dying, oceans dying Oil running out The Middle Eastern oil fields being set alight in 1991 AIDS, BSE, bird flu etc The year 2000 computer problem The gazillions of finanical derivatives in 2008 Project Fear's predictions of a Leave vote
I'm sure I've forgotten many more.
I thought BSE's campaign was pretty unpleasant but I wouldn't go as far as grouping them with AIDS and Bird Flu.
What's happening with BSE/V.CJD?
About 10-15 years ago there was talk that hundreds of thousands of people could potentially die from V.CJD in the next 2-3 decades... Now you never hear anything about it and I think the total number of victims remains exceedingly low (fewer than 200) ?
I think they all migrated to PB and only ever discuss Brexit
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
If they make it clear up front that's how they are going to negotiate and explain the process in detail and our side agrees to negotiate on those terms, is that really bad faith?
Yes, of course, since the Treaty doesn't provide for them to do that. On the contrary, it explicitly says they should take account of the future relationship.
I would tease out two points from your comment. Firstly " taking account of the future relationship" is very vague. Deciding there wasn't going to be a future relationship could be taking account of it. The EU in any case say discussion of the future relationship will come in good time, they want to sort the other stuff out first. Claiming the EU is acting contrary to Article 50 is a massive stretch in my view.
But they could be in accordance with the Article but still acting in bad faith, hence my question. People can certainly question the effectiveness of sequencing the negotiations in this way from their point of view, which is the only point of view that counts. But if they are clear about how they are doing it and get our agreement for that process, is it actually bad faith?
It could be argued that deliberately refusing to talk about trade until the last minute is creating significant business uncertainty in the UK and encouraging British companies to partially relocate to other EU countries, then that is acting in bad faith.
We need to put an early deadline on the trade talks so that we can prepare for an organised WTO ‘no-deal’ scenario, whereas they would prefer to keep up the pretence of trade negotiations until 29th March 2019 and have us either crash out or bend over. I would say that’s also acting in bad faith.
Theresa May's Article 50 letter sets out the future framework - the UK outside the single market and customs union. Nothing in Article 50 compels the union to create some unprecedented new structure to accommodate a relationship as close as possible to membership.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Wow. Just wow.
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
If they make it clear up front that's how they are going to negotiate and explain the process in detail and our side agrees to negotiate on those terms, is that really bad faith?
Yes, of course, since the Treaty doesn't provide for them to do that. On the contrary, it explicitly says they should take account of the future relationship.
I would tease out two points from your comment. Firstly " taking account of the future relationship" is very vague. Deciding there wasn't going to be a future relationship could be taking account of it. The EU in any case say discussion of the future relationship will come in good time, they want to sort the other stuff out first. Claiming the EU is acting contrary to Article 50 is a massive stretch in my view.
But they could be in accordance with the Article but still acting in bad faith, hence my question. People can certainly question the effectiveness of sequencing the negotiations in this way from their point of view, which is the only point of view that counts. But if they are clear about how they are doing it and get our agreement for that process, is it actually bad faith?
It could be argued that deliberately refusing to talk about trade until the last minute is creating significant business uncertainty in the UK and encouraging British companies to partially relocate to other EU countries, then that is acting in bad faith.
We need to put an early deadline on the trade talks so that we can prepare for an organised WTO ‘no-deal’ scenario, whereas they would prefer to keep up the pretence of trade negotiations until 29th March 2019 and have us either crash out or bend over. I would say that’s also acting in bad faith.
Fair comment in your first para. Second para is for the fairies unfortunately. There is no organised WTO ‘no-deal’ scenario. Which is why talk of Hammond coughing up cash for no deal contingencies is entirely for domestic consumption. The EU will rightly pay not the slightest attention.
The German car and Italian wine lobbies will be on the phone any day now and we'll get whatever deal we ask for from Barnier.
Keep the faith, and top up the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
If we leave the EU, then arguably Italian wine will become cheaper as there will be no customs duty to pay.
Surely Italian wine will be the same price, as we pay no tariffs now, only U.K. Excise duty charged on all wine sold in U.K? The change in wine prices will be all the new world wines, which will get a lot cheaper if we don’t charge tariffs on their import.
Excise duty is a UK tax due on all alcohol imported into the UK (or for what is referred to a ‘released for consumption’) regardless of where it is from, whereas Customs Duty is a European tax on alcohol imported from outside the European Union. For example, on a wine imported from Spain excise duty would have to be paid but not customs duty, but on a wine imported from Australia both excise duty and customs duty have to be paid.
But it is not 100% clear whether UK excise duty includes EU customs duty. I don't buy enough of (any) non-EU wines so can't tell you exactly. Perhaps Robert, or any other PB boozer (ie everyone here) can help?
The EU Customs Duty is charged only on imports *into* the EU Customs Union. We currently pay this on wine of non-EU origin.
When we leave the Customs Union, we won’t have to charge it on any wines.
It’s a protectionist EU measure to make French and Italian wines comparatively cheaper than Chilean and South African wines.
Excise Duty is what the Chancellor talks about in the Budget, and is charged on all wines sold in the U.K. irrespective of origin. (Including wines produced in the U.K.)
Mr. rkrkrk, it's a long term prediction of mine, due to the diametrically opposing drives of national interest and a relentless push to integrate and harmonise.
I might be wrong. It'd be interesting if I am. But if I'm not, the sooner the EU ends, the better. It might be the difference between civil disturbance and bitterness, and war.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
Yep - it's a point I have made a few times on here. If the UK government had invested a little time and effort in reaching out to voter sin the EU27 member states, the UK might have a bit more leverage. As it is - as AlanBrooke correctly observes - Brexit is a second-tier issue across Europe. Very few people are watching, very few people care. There is no link to Brexit and their futures, as far as they can see. That suits EU27 governments perfectly. If (when) things go wrong, it will just be the British playing games and wanting their cake and eating, yet again - the same old story.
What few commentators, and no PB Brexiters have considered is what our attitude would be if any other EU country decided to leave. We would think...good luck to them...looking forward to being kept in touch....hope we can do some kind of deal...they want WHAT???? NO WAY...How dare they try to dictate terms to us, they are the ones leaving...etc..etc
You're wrong. That woukd be an instinctive rection but there woukd be those calling for calm and hoping our political leaders were reasonable not punitive. How do I know it is wrong? Because such a scenario was possible with Sindy and while there were people calling for near hostile Madrid style reactions in the event yes won , others did say wed hope for reasonable and amicable talk after the initial emotional reaction. The EU is meant to he a noble organisation after all, they can certainly look past emotional hurt.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Wow. Just wow.
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
It's precisely because what the people think does matter that it behoves responsible leaders not to put stupid ideas in their heads.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Wow. Just wow.
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
It's precisely because what the people think does matter that it behoves responsible leaders not to put stupid ideas in their heads.
Mr. Recidivist, reduces the chance of getting a breeze block to the head.
That's what happens in your metaphor. I was talking about real life. If the EU is on the brink of collapse then why not just let matters take their course.
A50 does not discuss negotiating the future framework of the relationship between the UK and the EU, it takes it into account. This suggests that A50 assumes that the future framework is a given and that the agreement between the UK and the EU, which is solely about withdrawal (note the use of commas) only takes it into account. Can the future framework be a one sided decision?
What happens if there is no future framework? Can it be inferred that A50 can only be exercised legally if a decision to leave the EU has been taken and a future framework decided by the leaving state?
The negotiations are a complete mess because the Treaty framework is a complete mess.
The negotiations are a complete mess because we don't really want to leave.
You are quite mad.....
Silly me. We 'just' want a deep and special partnership, security and defence cooperation, membership of Europol, frictionless trade, no border infrastructure...
The negotiations are a complete mess because the Treaty framework is a complete mess.
The negotiations are a complete mess because we don't really want to leave.
You are quite mad.....
Silly me. We 'just' want a deep and special partnership, security and defence cooperation, membership of Europol, frictionless trade, no border infrastructure...
We would never get all we want. It doesn't mean every single thing we want is unreasonable or would cause some terrible chain reaction.
If they make it clear up front that's how they are going to negotiate and explain the process in detail and our side agrees to negotiate on those terms, is that really bad faith?
Yes, of course, since the Treaty doesn't provide for them to do that. On the contrary, it explicitly says they should take account of the future relationship.
I would tease out two points from your comment. Firstly " taking account of the future relationship" is very vague. Deciding there wasn't going to be a future relationship could be taking account of it. The EU in any case say discussion of the future relationship will come in good time, they want to sort the other stuff out first. Claiming the EU is acting contrary to Article 50 is a massive stretch in my view.
But they could be in accordance with the Article but still acting in bad faith, hence my question. People can certainly question the effectiveness of sequencing the negotiations in this way from their point of view, which is the only point of view that counts. But if they are clear about how they are doing it and get our agreement for that process, is it actually bad faith?
It could be argued that deliberately refusing to talk about trade until the last minute is creating significant business uncertainty in the UK and encouraging British companies to partially relocate to other EU countries, then that is acting in bad faith.
We need to put an early deadline on the trade talks so that we can prepare for an organised WTO ‘no-deal’ scenario, whereas they would prefer to keep up the pretence of trade negotiations until 29th March 2019 and have us either crash out or bend over. I would say that’s also acting in bad faith.
Fair comment in your first para. Second para is for the fairies unfortunately. There is no organised WTO ‘no-deal’ scenario. Which is why talk of Hammond coughing up cash for no deal contingencies is entirely for domestic consumption. The EU will rightly pay not the slightest attention.
There’s a huge difference between a ‘no deal’ scenario that we have 18 months to plan for, and one that happens overnight.
If the EU side have no intention of concluding the trade talks, purely in order to leave us with Hobson’s choice to either crash out or bend over at one minute to midnight, then we should just accept now that there’s not going to be a deal and get on with planning for life without it. That’s what I mean by the EU acting in bad faith.
When we leave the Customs Union, we won’t have to charge it on any wines.
It’s a protectionist EU measure to make French and Italian wines comparatively cheaper than Chilean and South African wines.
The EU tariff on Chilean wines is ... wait for it .. 0. As is the EU tariff on around half of South African wines.
Tariffs for wine from countries which don't have a trade deal are a whopping ... wait for it .. 8.5p or 10p a bottle, depending on the alcoholic strength.
I think we can all agree that Lord Kerr was bloody awful at drafting treaties.
Let's wait until the legal decision is made.
But yes, whilst I am not a lawyer - if you draft a treaty and it turns out to mean the opposite of what you thought - I'd suggest another line of work...
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law. "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…" "shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
Just asking...... The word "shall" is used in the English version of the treaty, and this is interpreted by our lawyer friends as obligatory. If the treaty has said "will", would the obligation still be there?
I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
My other half, a thoughtful remainer who wrestled a lot with what she was
“They (the EU) can’t hold us to ransom like this. They’ve rather proved your point”.
The rain may be falling outside but above the clouds the sun is shining this morning, I feel.
Agreed.
When it comes down to it, the British demos will always support the British government if it is clear they're being pushed around
I'm not sure how far that feeling extends, and I don't think it the EU offer, and the EU acts like it.
I'd say that's more like it.
trace.
You suggest Labour stand on a platform of "we would have ignored the referendum result " ?
That would be brave.
No, they'll do exactly what they're doing now and stand on a platform of "we're not these deranged cretins who got you into this mess".
"we're not these deranged cretins who got you into this mess, we're the whack job ideologues who'll get you in to an even bigger one"
cant see that working myself
The second part will convince Brexit headbangers who believe simply on the basis of time for a change.
Or more likely by the time an election comes people will be worried about housing, cost of living, NHS and all the other things ordinary people worry about. See GE 2017
Only political anoraks are fighting Brexit, nobody else cares much
Which brings me right back to my original point. The next election is likely to be dominated by the question: "do you think things have got better since Britain voted to Leave?" The public are results merchants.
5 years out that's a mad call, there are so many other things which can change. Basing everything on the Brexit prism is myopic. It's simply the product of a mindset that cant imagine a different future.
It is barely 4.5 years now and that assumes that the Government can survive that long.The potential for by election reverses make that uncertain - never mind the attitude of the DUP.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Wow. Just wow.
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
It's precisely because what the people think does matter that it behoves responsible leaders not to put stupid ideas in their heads.
I’ll get right on the phone to Leanne Wood. I’m sure she’ll agree with you and with a bit of nifty footwork Plaid Cymru should be all wrapped up by late afternoon in time to all do down the pub and reflect they’ve been putting silly ideas in the people’s heads all this time, they had no right to do so, and they should be jolly ashamed of themselves, because their ideas were bonkers la la insanity.
Doubtless the SNP will fold in sympathy too tomorrow.
Or maybe just maybe, though I might think they are wrong, I actually believe in their right to peacefully put forward their views.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Wow. Just wow.
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
It's precisely because what the people think does matter that it behoves responsible leaders not to put stupid ideas in their heads.
You are truly amazing.
He is - each comment a bigger and bigger hole in democracy.
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
I'm not sure that analogy is a good one, given the article you spent a thread header analysing... "...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…"
The content of that agreement is not dictated. "Fine, bye, close the door on the way out" would satisfy it. The fact that Britain might want more doesn't oblige the EU to accommodate Britain or even talk about things that it isn't going to offer.
We were discussing 'good faith', not quibbling about interpretation of the small print. I entirely recognise that the EU is in a position to watch us swing in the wind, if they so desire.
Deeming such behaviour even acceptable, let alone admirable, is quite another matter.
And is 'fine, close the door..' really a negotiation in your view ?
I don't regard the EU's approach as admirable or even particularly wise on the basest level of self-interest. But yes, if Britain wants a fuller relationship with the EU, it is going to have to do more than demand the EU talk about things it wants the EU to talk about. The EU isn't obliged to work to Britain's agenda.
The German car and Italian wine lobbies will be on the phone any day now and we'll get whatever deal we ask for from Barnier.
Keep the faith, and top up the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
If we leave the EU, then arguably Italian wine will become cheaper as there will be no customs duty to pay.
Surely Italian wine will be the same price, as we pay no tariffs now, only U.K. Excise duty charged on all wine sold in U.K? The change in wine prices will be all the new world wines, which will get a lot cheaper if we don’t charge tariffs on their import.
Excise duty is a UK tax due on all alcohol imported into the UK (or for what is referred to a ‘released for consumption’) regardless of where it is from, whereas Customs Duty is a European tax on alcohol imported from outside the European Union. For example, on a wine imported from Spain excise duty would have to be paid but not customs duty, but on a wine imported from Australia both excise duty and customs duty have to be paid.
But it is not 100% clear whether UK excise duty includes EU customs duty. I don't buy enough of (any) non-EU wines so can't tell you exactly. Perhaps Robert, or any other PB boozer (ie everyone here) can help?
The EU Customs Duty is charged only on imports *into* the EU Customs Union. We currently pay this on wine of non-EU origin.
When we leave the Customs Union, we won’t have to charge it on any wines.
It’s a protectionist EU measure to make French and Italian wines comparatively cheaper than Chilean and South African wines.
Excise Duty is what the Chancellor talks about in the Budget, and is charged on all wines sold in the U.K. irrespective of origin. (Including wines produced in the U.K.)
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law. "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…" "shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
Just asking...... The word "shall" is used in the English version of the treaty, and this is interpreted as obligatory. If the treaty has said "will", would the obligation still be there?
I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
After reading Michel Barnier's comments last night, I was surprised at just how openly obstructive the EU was being. He explicitly said "no concession" on Ireland, money or, notably, citizens rights, which means the ECJ.
So the EU is currently refusing to talk about half the issues until we have resolved these ones, and is refusing to make any concessions on them. This is not an entity negotiating in good faith.
It's an entity negotiating from what it considers to be a strong negotiating position. It doesn't feel that it has to make concessions or yet talk about things it doesn't want to. That's not bad faith, simply a belief that it holds the cards.
"We are not going to move on these issues and won't talk about others" is not a negotiation. The UK is compromising, the EU is refusing to. If these talks fail, it will be the EU's fault. Childish games that unnecessarily keep people's lives in uncertainty.
If you tell me that you want to buy my flat, I'll listen to what you have to say. I'll do so in good faith. But I don't feel any particular need to sell and getting angry that I won't just sign on the dotted line is your problem, not mine.
I'm not sure that analogy is a good one, given the article you spent a thread header analysing... "...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…"
The content of that agreement is not dictated. "Fine, bye, close the door on the way out" would satisfy it. The fact that Britain might want more doesn't oblige the EU to accommodate Britain or even talk about things that it isn't going to offer.
Perhaps but what it does say is that if we get to the point where we have concluded the terms of leaving but run out of time for the framework trade talks and are therefore facing a hard Brexit, Britain would be quite entitled to say, as Davies has already said, that nothing I final until everything is final. If we are going to have a hard Brexit in terms of trade then why bother agreeing to things like a divorce payment.
What the EU seems to be relying on is that anything agreed now on the terms of leaving can be banked and will stand even if trade arrangements are not completed. We need to make it clear that that is not the case.
When we leave the Customs Union, we won’t have to charge it on any wines.
It’s a protectionist EU measure to make French and Italian wines comparatively cheaper than Chilean and South African wines.
The EU tariff on Chilean wines is ... wait for it .. 0. As is the EU tariff on around half of South African wines.
Tariffs for wine from countries which don't have a trade deal are a whopping ... wait for it .. 8.5p or 10p a bottle, depending on the alcoholic strength.
Not very protectionist, is it?
It is in other EU countries without the very high Excise Duties we have in the UK.
Last time I was in Italy the local supermarket plonk was less than a euro a litre, in which case the tariff is much more significant.
1. The EU negotiators seem to be holding the UK to ransom by asking for a bigger divorce settlement than legally justified, otherwise they will refuse to have a trade agreement.
2. Statements by the EU President and the French and German leaders shows the EU moving closer to being a United States of Europe.
It is all confirming the Leavers arguments that remaining in the EU would lead to further loss of control by the UK citizens over the UK.
Not sure all the 27 countries are on board with the EU direction but making it difficult for those leaving the EU is a way to corral the stragglers in the same unification direction.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Wow. Just wow.
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
It's precisely because what the people think does matter that it behoves responsible leaders not to put stupid ideas in their heads.
You are truly amazing.
He is - each comment a bigger and bigger hole in democracy.
When democracy believes it is supreme over reality, disaster looms. That's a sound, uncontroversial, conservative principle.
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law. "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…" "shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
Just asking...... The word "shall" is used in the English version of the treaty, and this is interpreted by our lawyer friends as obligatory. If the treaty has said "will", would the obligation still be there?
I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
Do you know what, I don’t think that’s a point that’s been raised before.
While there would have been careful legal translations made, does anyone know if there is a legally “definitive” language of the Lisbon Treaty?
The German car and Italian wine lobbies will be on the phone any day now and we'll get whatever deal we ask for from Barnier.
Keep the faith, and top up the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
If we leave the EU, then arguably Italian wine will become cheaper as there will be no customs duty to pay.
Surely Italian wine will be the same price, as we pay no tariffs now, only U.K. Excise duty charged on all wine sold in U.K? The change in wine prices will be all the new world wines, which will get a lot cheaper if we don’t charge tariffs on their import.
Excise duty is a UK tax due on all alcohol imported into the UK (or for what is referred to a ‘released for consumption’) regardless of where it is from, whereas Customs Duty is a European tax on alcohol imported from outside the European Union. For example, on a wine imported from Spain excise duty would have to be paid but not customs duty, but on a wine imported from Australia both excise duty and customs duty have to be paid.
But it is not 100% clear whether UK excise duty includes EU customs duty. I don't buy enough of (any) non-EU wines so can't tell you exactly. Perhaps Robert, or any other PB boozer (ie everyone here) can help?
The EU Customs Duty is charged only on imports *into* the EU Customs Union. We currently pay this on wine of non-EU origin.
When we leave the Customs Union, we won’t have to charge it on any wines.
It’s a protectionist EU measure to make French and Italian wines comparatively cheaper than Chilean and South African wines.
Excise Duty is what the Chancellor talks about in the Budget, and is charged on all wines sold in the U.K. irrespective of origin. (Including wines produced in the U.K.)
There is a carve out for Chilean and SA wines
I have a colleague who has been ”prescribed “ Chilean Merlot as a means of helping reduce his cholesterol ( bona fide NHS doctor I believe, not a shaman ).
I believe he’s finding the prescription fairly palatable compared to most he’s had.
On arguing over specific words and their meanings, us it the case that hyper literal readings of words generally does not work as a frustrating tactic?
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Wow. Just wow.
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
It's precisely because what the people think does matter that it behoves responsible leaders not to put stupid ideas in their heads.
You are truly amazing.
He is - each comment a bigger and bigger hole in democracy.
When democracy believes it is supreme over reality, disaster looms. That's a sound, uncontroversial, conservative principle.
We can all chip in and get you a nice new spade for Xmas, because I fear you will have worn out the one you are using, which in fairness is a top of the range one.
The German car and Italian wine lobbies will be on the phone any day now and we'll get whatever deal we ask for from Barnier.
Keep the faith, and top up the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
If we leave the EU, then arguably Italian wine will become cheaper as there will be no customs duty to pay.
Surely Italian wine will be the same price, as we pay no tariffs now, only U.K. Excise duty charged on all wine sold in U.K? The change in wine prices will be all the new world wines, which will get a lot cheaper if we don’t charge tariffs on their import.
Excise duty is a UK tax due on all alcohol imported into the UK (or for what is referred to a ‘released for consumption’) regardless of where it is from, whereas Customs Duty is a European tax on alcohol imported from outside the European Union. For example, on a wine imported from Spain excise duty would have to be paid but not customs duty, but on a wine imported from Australia both excise duty and customs duty have to be paid.
But it is not 100% clear whether UK excise duty includes EU customs duty. I don't buy enough of (any) non-EU wines so can't tell you exactly. Perhaps Robert, or any other PB boozer (ie everyone here) can help?
The EU Customs Duty is charged only on imports *into* the EU Customs Union. We currently pay this on wine of non-EU origin.
When we leave the Customs Union, we won’t have to charge it on any wines.
It’s a protectionist EU measure to make French and Italian wines comparatively cheaper than Chilean and South African wines.
Excise Duty is what the Chancellor talks about in the Budget, and is charged on all wines sold in the U.K. irrespective of origin. (Including wines produced in the U.K.)
There is a carve out for Chilean and SA wines
Yes, as Mr Nabavi pointed out I used a bad example!
Import Tariffs on alcohol and cigarettes in the UK are anyway rendered almost null by the significantly higher excise duties charged on them by our own government. In other parts of the EU where excise duties are lower the tariffs are more significant.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Wow. Just wow.
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
It's precisely because what the people think does matter that it behoves responsible leaders not to put stupid ideas in their heads.
You are truly amazing.
He is - each comment a bigger and bigger hole in democracy.
When democracy believes it is supreme over reality, disaster looms. That's a sound, uncontroversial, conservative principle.
I guess it's time to take the only option available to us and adopt the euro, schengen and embrace our destiny at the heart of the Europe
The German car and Italian wine lobbies will be on the phone any day now and we'll get whatever deal we ask for from Barnier.
Keep the faith, and top up the Kool-Aid while you're at it.
If we leave the EU, then arguably Italian wine will become cheaper as there will be no customs duty to pay.
Surely Italian wine will be the same price, as we pay no tariffs now, only U.K. Excise duty charged on all wine sold in U.K? The change in wine prices will be all the new world wines, which will get a lot cheaper if we don’t charge tariffs on their import.
Excise duty is a UK tax due on all alcohol imported into the UK (or for what is referred to a ‘released for consumption’) regardless of where it is from, whereas Customs Duty is a European tax on alcohol imported from outside the European Union. For example, on a wine imported from Spain excise duty would have to be paid but not customs duty, but on a wine imported from Australia both excise duty and customs duty have to be paid.
But it is not 100% clear whether UK excise duty includes EU customs duty. I don't buy enough of (any) non-EU wines so can't tell you exactly. Perhaps Robert, or any other PB boozer (ie everyone here) can help?
The EU Customs Duty is charged only on imports *into* the EU Customs Union. We currently pay this on wine of non-EU origin.
When we leave the Customs Union, we won’t have to charge it on any wines.
It’s a protectionist EU measure to make French and Italian wines comparatively cheaper than Chilean and South African wines.
Excise Duty is what the Chancellor talks about in the Budget, and is charged on all wines sold in the U.K. irrespective of origin. (Including wines produced in the U.K.)
There is a carve out for Chilean and SA wines
I have a colleague who has been ”prescribed “ Chilean Merlot as a means of helping reduce his cholesterol ( bona fide NHS doctor I believe, not a shaman ).
I believe he’s finding the prescription fairly palatable compared to most he’s had.
Sadly he has been poorly advised! alcohol is not protective, indeed increases the risk.
See section 8.1 of the sign guidelines issued this week:
A50 does not discuss negotiating the future framework of the relationship between the UK and the EU, it takes it into account. This suggests that A50 assumes that the future framework is a given and that the agreement between the UK and the EU, which is solely about withdrawal (note the use of commas) only takes it into account. Can the future framework be a one sided decision?
What happens if there is no future framework? Can it be inferred that A50 can only be exercised legally if a decision to leave the EU has been taken and a future framework decided by the leaving state?
No. The next clause explains there is no requirement for a withdrawal agreement.
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.
Mr. rkrkrk, disagree. Planning for the future is wise. Waiting until peril is imminent is not.
You haven't even explained what the peril is. We are in an organisation that we have decided to leave and so will lose the benefits of belonging to it. If it collapses we would also lose the benefits. What is the difference between these two processes that makes one preferable to the other? If anything, avoiding having to negotiate with the organisation at least saves some time and boring news stories.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
A further point is that the ‘pour encourager les autres’ motivation is stronger for the EU27 than for the Commission. They don’t want their own electorates getting ideas.
Wow. Just wow.
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
It's precisely because what the people think does matter that it behoves responsible leaders not to put stupid ideas in their heads.
You are truly amazing.
He is - each comment a bigger and bigger hole in democracy.
When democracy believes it is supreme over reality, disaster looms. That's a sound, uncontroversial, conservative principle.
I guess it's time to take the only option available to us and adopt the euro, schengen and embrace our destiny at the heart of the Europe
No, our destiny was always EFTA at most not the EEC (which we only ever joined on the basis of a Common Market anyway) and certainly not EU/Eurozone
Interesting article and particularly refreshing to look at the ipsissima verba of the Treaty - although I take the point that it is much more about politics than law. "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…" "shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
Just asking...... The word "shall" is used in the English version of the treaty, and this is interpreted by our lawyer friends as obligatory. If the treaty has said "will", would the obligation still be there?
I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
Do you know what, I don’t think that’s a point that’s been raised before.
While there would have been careful legal translations made, does anyone know if there is a legally “definitive” language of the Lisbon Treaty?
23 languages, all equally authentic:
Article 53
1. This Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Italian Republic, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the governments of the other signatory States.
2. This Treaty may also be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory. A certified copy of such translations shall be provided by the Member States concerned to be deposited in the archives of the Council.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.
A couple of very astute tweets from Prof Chalmers on the relative negotiating strengths in terms of domestic political impact. EU partners need the deal less, not just because of the relatively smaller economic impact. They will see a much smaller political impact if the deal goes sour
Yep - it's a point I have made a few times on here. If the UK government had invested a little time and effort in reaching out to voter sin the EU27 member states, the UK might have a bit more leverage. As it is - as AlanBrooke correctly observes - Brexit is a second-tier issue across Europe. Very few people are watching, very few people care. There is no link to Brexit and their futures, as far as they can see. That suits EU27 governments perfectly. If (when) things go wrong, it will just be the British playing games and wanting their cake and eating, yet again - the same old story.
What few commentators, and no PB Brexiters have considered is what our attitude would be if any other EU country decided to leave. We would think...good luck to them...looking forward to being kept in touch....hope we can do some kind of deal...they want WHAT???? NO WAY...How dare they try to dictate terms to us, they are the ones leaving...etc..etc
You're wrong. That woukd be an instinctive rection but there woukd be those calling for calm and hoping our political leaders were reasonable not punitive. How do I know it is wrong? Because such a scenario was possible with Sindy and while there were people calling for near hostile Madrid style reactions in the event yes won , others did say wed hope for reasonable and amicable talk after the initial emotional reaction. The EU is meant to he a noble organisation after all, they can certainly look past emotional hurt.
There is a much stronger bond between Scotland and rUK than between the UK and the EU.
A50 does not discuss negotiating the future framework of the relationship between the UK and the EU, it takes it into account. This suggests that A50 assumes that the future framework is a given and that the agreement between the UK and the EU, which is solely about withdrawal (note the use of commas) only takes it into account. Can the future framework be a one sided decision?
What happens if there is no future framework? Can it be inferred that A50 can only be exercised legally if a decision to leave the EU has been taken and a future framework decided by the leaving state?
No. The next clause explains there is no requirement for a withdrawal agreement.
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.
That's yet another oddity. It seems to imply that the two-year period can be extended under QMV, not unanimity, by putting a later date into the withdrawal agreement.
Comments
When I challenged you on that you pointed me at the German papers. They have some of the same (not particularly German-centric) stories as our but we also have the added spice of 'Tory Rebels Stall Brext Bill', 'Chaos as EU talks Deadlocked', oh and a 'Saboteur' chancellor who apprently needs to be sacked...
So please don't try to tell me that Germany's less stable than Britain at the moment and use their papers to prove it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-41604236
If only someone had thought to warn us that leaving the EU would cause uncertainty and we couldn't just cherry pick all the good bits...
bleat away
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/csu-nicht-mehr-mit-seehofer-15244589.html
The other one is the approach of the cliff edge causing political and economic chaos, grounding of flights, shortages of essential goods, lack of nuclear fuel for power stations etc etc. If this happened then any outcome is possible, including a reversal of the entire Brexit process.
But they could be in accordance with the Article but still acting in bad faith, hence my question. People can certainly question the effectiveness of sequencing the negotiations in this way from their point of view, which is the only point of view that counts. But if they are clear about how they are doing it and get our agreement for that process, is it actually bad faith?
"...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…"
A50 specifies that we leave after 24 months. There isn't much 'good time' left.
How do you compel somebody to negotiate? 'OK, it's yours for £500,000m....and you have to let me come back and use it whenever I feel like it.'
The Article 50 withdrawal agreement isn't the be-all-and-end-all. It's an opportunity to agree stuff while the leaving party is still a member and on a simplified and accelerated agreement schedule. If we have an agreement we will continue to negotiate; if we don't have one we will still need to negotiate. The more stuff that we can get into the withdrawal agreement, the better. It reduces the cliff edge and saves us some of the negotiation down the line.
If anything it seems rather stronger than it did a few years ago...
However, A50 clearly implies that the 'framework for its future relationship' be in existence before the 'arrangements for withdrawal' can be put in place, so whatever the political reality, saying that the EU are not negotiating in good faith isn't exactly a stretch.
"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…"
"shall" is a big word - you have to do it. Now, no-one can be forced to make an agreement. But the words do force the negotiators to take account of "the framework for [the] future relationship". Refusing to talk about the future relationship is a breach of Article 50 and cannot continue to the end of the negotiation. The remedy for a breach would be in the ECJ.
I might be wrong. It'd be interesting if I am. But if I'm not, the sooner the EU ends, the better. It might be the difference between civil disturbance and bitterness, and war.
Deeming such behaviour even acceptable, let alone admirable, is quite another matter.
And is 'fine, close the door..' really a negotiation in your view ?
Excise duty is a UK tax due on all alcohol imported into the UK (or for what is referred to a ‘released for consumption’) regardless of where it is from, whereas Customs Duty is a European tax on alcohol imported from outside the European Union. For example, on a wine imported from Spain excise duty would have to be paid but not customs duty, but on a wine imported from Australia both excise duty and customs duty have to be paid.
wsta.co.uk/resources/faq
and
wsta.co.uk/resources/facts-figures
But it is not 100% clear whether UK excise duty includes EU customs duty. I don't buy enough of (any) non-EU wines so can't tell you exactly. Perhaps Robert, or any other PB boozer (ie everyone here) can help?
We need to put an early deadline on the trade talks so that we can prepare for an organised WTO ‘no-deal’ scenario, whereas they would prefer to keep up the pretence of trade negotiations until 29th March 2019 and have us either crash out or bend over. I would say that’s also acting in bad faith.
The negotiations are a complete mess because the Treaty framework is a complete mess.
Kudos.
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/918794798659760128
And there we have it. The people do not matter. What they want and think does not matter does it?
Something built without the consent of the people will eventually fail. Might outlive me, but it’s all on sand ultimately. In the meantime strife will increase which is precisely what “Europe” is supposed to quell.
When we leave the Customs Union, we won’t have to charge it on any wines.
It’s a protectionist EU measure to make French and Italian wines comparatively cheaper than Chilean and South African wines.
Excise Duty is what the Chancellor talks about in the Budget, and is charged on all wines sold in the U.K. irrespective of origin. (Including wines produced in the U.K.)
As the event around 1400 and Constantinople showed, black swans can rather mess up predictions quite significantly.
What happens if there is no future framework? Can it be inferred that A50 can only be exercised legally if a decision to leave the EU has been taken and a future framework decided by the leaving state?
If the EU side have no intention of concluding the trade talks, purely in order to leave us with Hobson’s choice to either crash out or bend over at one minute to midnight, then we should just accept now that there’s not going to be a deal and get on with planning for life without it. That’s what I mean by the EU acting in bad faith.
Tariffs for wine from countries which don't have a trade deal are a whopping ... wait for it .. 8.5p or 10p a bottle, depending on the alcoholic strength.
Not very protectionist, is it?
But yes, whilst I am not a lawyer - if you draft a treaty and it turns out to mean the opposite of what you thought - I'd suggest another line of work...
I wonder how the idea was expressed in the other official languages. Do they convey they idea of "must"?
https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/918774024070664192
Doubtless the SNP will fold in sympathy too tomorrow.
Or maybe just maybe, though I might think they are wrong, I actually believe in their right to peacefully put forward their views.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT&from=EN
The wording just uses the present tense: 'the Union negotiates and concludes...'
What the EU seems to be relying on is that anything agreed now on the terms of leaving can be banked and will stand even if trade arrangements are not completed. We need to make it clear that that is not the case.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/918767705527697409
Last time I was in Italy the local supermarket plonk was less than a euro a litre, in which case the tariff is much more significant.
1. The EU negotiators seem to be holding the UK to ransom by asking for a bigger divorce settlement than legally justified, otherwise they will refuse to have a trade agreement.
2. Statements by the EU President and the French and German leaders shows the EU moving closer to being a United States of Europe.
It is all confirming the Leavers arguments that remaining in the EU would lead to further loss of control by the UK citizens over the UK.
Not sure all the 27 countries are on board with the EU direction but making it difficult for those leaving the EU is a way to corral the stragglers in the same unification direction.
While there would have been careful legal translations made, does anyone know if there is a legally “definitive” language of the Lisbon Treaty?
I believe he’s finding the prescription fairly palatable compared to most he’s had.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-face-trouncing-in-town-hall-elections-with-53-backing-labour-a3657901.html
Import Tariffs on alcohol and cigarettes in the UK are anyway rendered almost null by the significantly higher excise duties charged on them by our own government. In other parts of the EU where excise duties are lower the tariffs are more significant.
See section 8.1 of the sign guidelines issued this week:
http://www.sign.ac.uk/sign-149-risk-estimation-and-the-prevention-of-cardiovascular-disease.html
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.
Article 53
1. This Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Italian Republic, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the governments of the other signatory States.
2. This Treaty may also be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory. A certified copy of such translations shall be provided by the Member States concerned to be deposited in the archives of the Council.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.
https://twitter.com/JoeTwyman/status/918775161368862720