The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[woodview]

don't you mean : "but you'll have to give up all the cushy opt-outs, rebates, etc."

 

?

Phrase it either way. But an option on those lines wouldn't result in a Remain vote.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2018 at 13:26 ----------

 

You’re guessing that would happen, and perhaps your guess is driven by a view of the EU based on myths and lies.

 

The reality is that as long as we haven’t diverged too far, which in practical terms we won’t basically because we can’t, then rejoining will be a no-brained.

 

As for the Euro there are convergence criteria that could take decades to meet. You can’t just join it. It’s therefore a non argument. Schengen again a non argument. We have a natural physical border.

What do you mean I'm guessing at? I'm discussing Loobs point about a 2nd referendum, assuming it would happen imminently, following this round of talks collapsing. Not in years to come.

Edited November 14, 2018 by woodview

[Top Cats Hat]

ECJ interprets them as it sees fit?

 

As does the Supreme Court in the UK and America, the Cour de Cassation in France, the Bundesgerichtshof in Germany and any other 'highest court in the land.

 

It is their job to interpret law.

[woodview]

As does the Supreme Court in the UK and America, the Cour de Cassation in France, the Bundesgerichtshof in Germany and any other 'highest court in the land.

 

It is their job to interpret law.

They interpret conflicting laws and fine detail. Your comment said the laws are loosly written and they interpret them to suit. very different scenarios.

[L00b]

I was answering your point regards a second referndum!

And I’d demonstrated the redundancy of it before you replied: it doesn’t matter if the U.K. has that referendum or not, because it’s not up to the UK to decide whether it *can* stay in the EU (on the back of a new ‘remain’ vote or however else), it’s up to the ECJ and the EU27.

 

That’s what triggering Article 50 back in March 2017 meant, and how the balance of power in the negotiations finished tilting fully on the EU side then.

 

Which -again- I posted about at the time.

Either way, if it was along the lines of 'you can come back, but we're gonna make you pay for your insolence' it wouldn't result in a Remain result, that's way to much for swaying voters to accept. A 'come back, with better concessions' would possibly work.

What do you mean by ‘come back with better concessions’, precisely? Edited November 14, 2018 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat]

They interpret conflicting laws and fine detail. Your comment said the laws are loosly written and they interpret them to suit. very different scenarios.

 

I think you are getting too caught up in all these crank conspiracy theories about the EU.

 

The issue in hand is that the Article 50 legislation was drawn up to facilitate a member leaving the EU, not a member deciding to leave the EU then changing its mind before the exit date. Because of that there is no legal framework for halting the process. This is why the most senior court of the EU needs to examine it and make a ruling.

 

Who do you think should make rulings on European law if not the European Court of Justice?

[woodview]

And I’d demonstrated the redundancy of it before you replied: it doesn’t matter if the U.K. has that referendum or not, because it’s not up to the UK to decide whether it *can* stay in the EU (on the back of a new ‘remain’ vote or however else), it’s up to the ECJ and the EU27.

 

That’s what triggering Article 50 back in March 2017 meant, and how the balance of power in the negotiations finished tilting fully on the EU side. Which -again- I posted about at the time.

What do you mean by ‘come back with better concessions’, precisely?

I agree , we've triggered A50, any type of return would be by mutual agreement and negotiation.

What I'm saying is, if a referendum were held and it was clear we would be returning in schengen, no rebate etc , then that referendum would return a larger Leave majority. If a referndum were held and the 'concessions' were larger rebate, and the concessions Cameron failed to get, then it is more easily winnable by Remain.

[apelike]

... it doesn’t matter if the U.K. has that referendum or not, because it’s not up to the UK to decide whether it *can* stay in the EU (on the back of a new ‘remain’ vote or however else), it’s up to the ECJ and the EU27.

 

That’s what triggering Article 50 back in March 2017 meant, and how the balance of power in the negotiations finished tilting fully on the EU side then

 

Thank you for that as its also what I have been stating. As far as I can see all that can happen now is to have an extension (if agreeable) till things are sorted a bit better and allowing negotiations to continue.

Edited November 14, 2018 by apelike

[bendix]

It will be similar to the other countries deal, all the different deals work perfectly well, vassal state or not.

Not so. The deal, such as it is, relates only to our separation. No other country has left the EU so it can't be the same deal as other countries, because none exists.

 

There have as yet been ZERO discussions about any trading deal, because it has been made clear from day one that no discussions would start on that until after we had left.

Edited November 14, 2018 by bendix

[tinfoilhat]

Thank you for that as its also what I have been stating. As far as I can see all that can happen now is to have an extension (if agreeable) till things are sorted a bit better and allowing negotiations to continue.

 

Can't see the point, the EU aren't going to change their position and we won't have a unified front if we extend it 20 years. May might as well finish making this **** sandwich and pass it round for everyone to have a bite.

[I1L2T3]

Not so. The deal, such as it is, relates only to our separation. No other country has left the EU so it can't be the same deal as other countries, because none exists.

 

There have as yet been ZERO discussions about any trading deal, because it has been made clear from day one that no discussions would start on that until after we had left.

 

Leaving means not officially being part of the EU, but in the transition period it’s as-is in terms of trade etc...

 

Not many leavers understand that - in April 2019 we’ll still be operating much like an EU member and that will continue until the (extendable) transition completes.

 

Today is all about the deal being agreed so we can get the transition started in March.

 

Once a deal is agreed it means 2 years at least of relative stability, which May hopes gives the Tories a reasonable glide path for a GE.