But Merkel isn't in a very strong position at the moment. If she pushes too far she could find herself out of office.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fully Fledged
Full Member
Without the issue of the boarder being solved? Not a chance.I think Ireland would - Im pretty sure Belgium and Holland would be likely, Poland and Germany I think probably.... but beyond that I think it starts to become a bit more tricky.... (most telling though is that this was said just after taking over the rotating presidency - is it one person off the cuff or is it something that has been spoken about in corridors etc as a preferred way of kicking the can down the road by a year or two)
Adisa
likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt
Really doesn't matter how strong or weak Merkel is. She can't make the other countries take a deal. Furthermore,the EU is legally restricted in what it can accept. It can't legally accept free movement of goods but not services and people. That would be breaking the Maastricht Treaty.But Merkel isn't in a very strong position at the moment. If she pushes too far she could find herself out of office.
sun_tzu
The Art of Bore
the entire point is they are voting to keep things as they are whilst a solution is found... I think Ireland would vote for that rather than having to implement a hard boarder in March 2019Without the issue of the boarder being solved? Not a chance.
Adisa
likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt
The problem is May and Davis want a time limit to that back stop. The EU won't accept a time limit. Think May has already conceded on that but I'm not sure.the entire point is they are voting to keep things as they are whilst a solution is found... I think Ireland would vote for that rather than having to implement a hard boarder in March 2019
the entire point is they are voting to keep things as they are whilst a solution is found... I think Ireland would vote for that rather than having to implement a hard boarder in March 2019
To make that point clear, it's not "keep things as they are" but an extension of the withdrawal period and the extension is subjected to the unanimous agreement of the member states. The other alternative is according to WTO an actual FTA pre agreement otherwise, we have to apply WTO rules.
sun_tzu
The Art of Bore
yes but whilst the withdrawal period trade remains as it is now - which would negate the need for a boarder solution by March 2019 which lets be honest looks unlikelyTo make that point clear, it's not "keep things as they are" but an extension of the withdrawal period and the extension is subjected to the unanimous agreement of the member states. The other alternative is according to WTO an actual FTA pre agreement otherwise, we have to apply WTO rules.
yes but whilst the withdrawal period trade remains as it is now - which would negate the need for a boarder solution by March 2019 which lets be honest looks unlikely
Whilst the withdrawal period remains the UK benefits from all EU perks, the budget period ends in 2020, what do we do? Do we budget with or without the UK? If we budget with the UK will they pay until the end of the budget period or create a hole in the finances? How long can the extension go, because it's creating a lot of uncertainty for professionals?
The reality is that from a practical standpoint, it's best for the EU that the UK leave in march 2019 or at worst march 2020. After that it creates more problems than anything. After two years, the government is still unable to to tell us what type of relationship they want, one more year isn't likely to make them wiser.
Honestly i think extending negotiations will be a hard sell. Particularly without a solution to the NI border. You've been negotiating for a pretty long time and I can't think of a single thing thats been agreed on.
If you actually had a vaguely realistic position or demands it'd would help but without serious progress more or less now i think most, if not all, members will be inclined to say feck it and move on in a years time.
If you actually had a vaguely realistic position or demands it'd would help but without serious progress more or less now i think most, if not all, members will be inclined to say feck it and move on in a years time.
Massive Spanner
The Football Wrench
I'd say it's much worse from that because they haven't actually come up with anything. Anything they do present to the EU is just pure fantasy with no actual factual explanation or reasoning behind it.Honestly i think extending negotiations will be a hard sell. Particularly without a solution to the NI border. You've been negotiating for a pretty long time and I can't think of a single thing thats been agreed on.
If you actually had a vaguely realistic position or demands it'd would help but without serious progress more or less now i think most, if not all, members will be inclined to say feck it and move on in a years time.
"Oh we 100% agree to not have a border between NI and ROI"
"Great, how?"
"ehh.. technology n' shit?"
Ireland is probably pushing the current deadline harder than anyone tbh. We dont want a proposal to the NI border, we want a specific solution to it. There wont be a better chance to force it than now. If the other 27 are prepared to continue negotiations despite the lack of agreement on NI, then were under a lot of pressure to go along with it. So ... yeah.
Germany would benefit from allowing it but ... I think they'll back Ireland up, their government is pretty pro EU. At least as long a fair majority of other governments weren't in support.
I'm sure theres plenty of anti EU governments knocking about Europe that could be convinced.
Germany would benefit from allowing it but ... I think they'll back Ireland up, their government is pretty pro EU. At least as long a fair majority of other governments weren't in support.
I'm sure theres plenty of anti EU governments knocking about Europe that could be convinced.
Oscie
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,680
I think the r27 would prefer we stayed. As much as 'they need us as much as we need them' is bollocks, they would rather avoid the economic impact if we left all the same
Fully Fledged
Full Member
That's what I was saying.Ireland is probably pushing the current deadline harder than anyone tbh. We dont want a proposal to the NI border, we want a specific solution to it. There wont be a better chance to force it than now. If the other 27 are prepared to continue negotiations despite the lack of agreement on NI, then were under a lot of pressure to go along with it. So ... yeah.
Germany would benefit from allowing it but ... I think they'll back Ireland up, their government is pretty pro EU. At least as long a fair majority of other governments weren't in support.
I'm sure theres plenty of anti EU governments knocking about Europe that could be convinced.
I think the r27 would prefer we stayed. As much as 'they need us as much as we need them' is bollocks, they would rather avoid the economic impact if we left all the same
I think its a bit of brinkmanship. Basically saying 'no deal, is better than a bad deal' back to you.
Oscie
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,680
I think its a bit of brinkmanship. Basically saying 'no deal, is better than a bad deal' back to you.
No deal with an agreement that status quo until agreement is reached is better than a bad deal. In fact that's better than any deal short of some kind of Blow Job Fridays arrangement.
No deal with an agreement that status quo until agreement is reached is better than a bad deal. In fact that's better than any deal short of some kind of Blow Job Fridays arrangement.
The key is to define "status quo".
Oscie
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,680
The key is to define "status quo".
From the 27's point of view, continued membership on same terms. The issue of May not being able to sell their to her party is moot on account of the fact she can't sell no deal with WTO rules or any kind of deal good or bad.
No deal with an agreement that status quo until agreement is reached is better than a bad deal. In fact that's better than any deal short of some kind of Blow Job Fridays arrangement.
Not really though. It leaves the EU in a constant state of uncertainty not knowing when the UK could leave.
Oscie
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,680
But practically:
No deal - WTO rules. Needs to be ratified
Deal (good/bad). Needs to be ratified
Nothing changing - no ratification needed.
If the 28 as a collective agree to push back/indefinitely postpone with withdrawal process there is no need for parliament to ratify that. It will make May's position effectively untenable but she won't need to win a Parliamentary vote on that as she would the other outcomes.
No deal - WTO rules. Needs to be ratified
Deal (good/bad). Needs to be ratified
Nothing changing - no ratification needed.
If the 28 as a collective agree to push back/indefinitely postpone with withdrawal process there is no need for parliament to ratify that. It will make May's position effectively untenable but she won't need to win a Parliamentary vote on that as she would the other outcomes.
From the 27's point of view, continued membership on same terms. The issue of May not being able to sell their to her party is moot on account of the fact she can't sell no deal with WTO rules or any kind of deal good or bad.
But that causes a budget problem. What could work is a transition until the end of the next period(2024), that way everyone in every fields is relax and can plan correctly. At the exception of May and Tories who will be under pressure during the next elections.
No deal with an agreement that status quo until agreement is reached is better than a bad deal. In fact that's better than any deal short of some kind of Blow Job Fridays arrangement.
Suppose it is, I think its a negotiating tactic, I dont think they're that keen on the plan. Cant imagine they'll be keen on negotiating the UK's contribution to future budgets, that would probably be one of the few stumbling blocks. Mays ability to hold the UK in limbo indefinitely seems kind of questionable but I guess no one is jumping at the chance to be the one to pull the UK out of the EU and that probably wont change.
Massive Spanner
The Football Wrench
There's no think about it to be fair. It's obviously much better for the EU if the UK stay in.I think the r27 would prefer we stayed. As much as 'they need us as much as we need them' is bollocks, they would rather avoid the economic impact if we left all the same
Losing the city of London as the central financial district for example causes shitloads of problems.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
Which was drafted first, article 50 or the GFA?
EyeInTheSky
Full Member
To be honest I actually think she is counting on it being rejected as they can then spin it that they tried by offering a couple of alternatives, they even went back with a third option but the nasty EU rejected them all - its their fault that we now have to have a full on hard brexit and a border in Ireland
Exactly, nobody is that stupid.
However it could be desperation and panick. It makes people Do astoundingly stupid and irrational things
Which was drafted first, article 50 or the GFA?
The GFA, why?
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
Then no one thought about it when drafting A50. Shows lack of foresight and stupidity on those that signed it off. Why am i not at all surprised? Who agreed to A50?The GFA, why?
Dobba
Full Member
A spokesman for the Prime Minister has been spotted in Downing Street
Then no one thought about it when drafting A50. Shows lack of foresight and stupidity on those that signed it off. Why am i not at all surprised? Who agreed to A50?
Art.50 has nothing to do with it though and for what it's worth Art.50 has been written by a british. Art.50 simply stipulates that in order to withdraw a member state simply has to officially announce it.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
But as its not possible to ignore GFA then A50 is worthless, it cannot be implemented for UK.Art.50 has nothing to do with it though and for what it's worth Art.50 has been written by a british. Art.50 simply stipulates that in order to withdraw a member state simply has to officially announce it.
But as its not possible to ignore GFA then A50 is worthless, it cannot be implemented for UK.
Again art.50 has nothing to do with it, it's strictly about the relationship that a member state has with the EU while the GFA is about the relationship between the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK, the latter doesn't involve the EU. The problem here is that the UK and Ireland tied their personal relationship with EU membership which isn't a good idea when you are talking about sovereign countries.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
Actually i have just read A50 and the GFA, there are no black and white connections unless you can point any out. A50 just refers to A218/3 which says nothing. GFA a cross party agreement where no party are sovereign eu states, only British and Irish. So where is the document or article outlining the impossibility of A50?
Actually i have just read A50 and the GFA, there are no black and white connections unless you can point any out. A50 just refers to A218/3 which says nothing. GFA a cross party agreement where no party are sovereign eu states, only British and Irish. So where is the document or article outlining the impossibility of A50?
What are you on about? You are the one connecting them and saying that Art.50 is impossible for the UK.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
Where have they tied eu relationship to gfa, bu proxy? Where is that documented? I've read here the gfa was based on eu framework, show me that paper.Again art.50 has nothing to do with it, it's strictly about the relationship that a member state has with the EU while the GFA is about the relationship between the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK, the latter doesn't involve the EU. The problem here is that the UK and Ireland tied their personal relationship with EU membership which isn't a good idea when you are talking about sovereign countries.
Where have they tied eu relationship to gfa, bu proxy? Where is that documented? I've read here the gfa was based on eu framework, show me that paper.
First GFA is possible because of their membership to the EU, because that's where they have their WTO membership, that's why they don't need borders according to WTO rules because they have together an FTA and custom union agreement both of which are through the EU. It's also partially based on the council of Europe legal framework on everything that concerns Human Rights.
Now, none of this has anything to do with art.50
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
No I'm not, its what i keep reading here. I just want to know where its written that leaving the eu nullifies the GFA, i am curios.What are you on about? You are the one connecting them and saying that Art.50 is impossible for the UK.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
It has lots to do with A50, if it cannot work by leaving eu and gfa arent compatible.First GFA is possible because of their membership to the EU, because that's where they have their WTO membership, that's why they don't need borders according to WTO rules because they have together an FTA and custom union agreement both of which are through the EU. It's also partially based on the council of Europe legal framework on everything that concerns Human Rights.
Now, none of this has anything to do with art.50
But as its not possible to ignore GFA then A50 is worthless, it cannot be implemented for UK.
It could, just not without the support of Northern Ireland. You can't impose a hard brexit on NI due to the GFA.
It has lots to do with A50, if it cannot work by leaving eu and gfa arent compatible.
No, the UK can leave but they need a deal that fits with the GFA, basically NI needs to be free to have a deal with the EU by themselves.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
Where is that documented?No, the UK can leave but they need a deal that fits with the GFA, basically NI needs to be free to have a deal with the EU by themselves.
Where is that documented?
The solution isn't documented. It's a simple response to "no border" and WTO's principle of most-favoured-nation. Without FTA and CU both the EU and the UK would have to offer the NI-ROI arrangement to pretty much every WTO members. The entire problem here is to fit within WTO rules, not art.50.
Share: