The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[JagWaugh]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Yeah, but we can get started on the negotiations. The UK can't sign anything until it's no longer part of the EU anyway. So say 2-4 years to leave and in the meantime negotiate with other countries and there should be very little gap.

Why on earth can't the UK sign anything until it is out of the EU? Nothing wrong with a deal of the form "as of the date of the formal end of UK membership the following will apply, x,y,z"

When you terminate your apt lease do you have to leave first before you look for another abode?

[Medea Fleecestealer]

Well, that might work if you could pin down the leave date accurately enough I guess. But according to the article as the UK is still part of the EU until it formally leaves, independent agreements can't be done only those involving the whole of the EU - which is sort of the point isn't it.

[JagWaugh]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Well, that might work if you could pin down the leave date accurately enough I guess. But according to the article as the UK is still part of the EU until it formally leaves, independent agreements can't be done only those involving the whole of the EU - which is sort of the point isn't it.

Medea,

Don't take this personally, but don't you think this is just a little bit hysterical? What benefit would the EU derive from taking this punitive line? Each party will negotiate for a deal which is in its own best interest. There will be some tit for tat, but nobody holds all the cards.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

Hysterical? I wouldn't call it that, just the way things are. The EU negotiates for the EU, individual trade agreements aren't allowed under the rules otherwise what's the point of having the EU to start with. It began as a free trade movement after all.

I certainly don't see any problems with the UK negotiating with other countries prepatory to leaving. And your signatory idea might work as well. Depends entirely on how narky the EU plan to be doesn't it?

[st2lemans]

	Quote:	marton
	US started with 13 States and it worked for them!

Yes, but they all spoke the same language, had the same ethics, and all were former colonies of the same country, so had far more in common than the EU countries ever will.

Tom

[JagWaugh]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Hysterical? I wouldn't call it that, just the way things are. The EU negotiates for the EU, individual trade agreements aren't allowed under the rules otherwise what's the point of having the EU to start with. It began as a free trade movement after all. I certainly don't see any problems with the UK negotiating with other countries prepatory to leaving. And your signatory idea might work as well. Depends entirely on how narky the EU plan to be doesn't it?

I think the most difficult aspect of the negotiations will be how to deal with ongoing EU projects within the UK, and there both sides could make things a lot worse by being narky.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	See. The world won't end just because we leave the EU. Australia wants a trade deal as do several other countries. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36818055

Well of course Australia should seek to have a trade deal with the UK once it leaves the EU as the current arrangement will no longer apply and since the UK is the country's second biggest inward investor it makes perfect sense from their side.

The big challenge for the UK remains: about 46% of it's exports are on a preferential basis to a relatively wealth market in close proximity to the source of production. Shipping goods half way around the world is not much of a substitute unless you can some how account for the extra costs and I fear that will be through wages, so the ordinary worker will carry the can.

From what we have seen so far the first that will benefit from BREXIT are the corporations with the new lower tax rates. And depending on what happens to labour law they may be in for a few more benefits as well. And sure if they can squeeze a few trade deal on top of that they will be doing just fine. Not exactly what many voters had in mind when they voted exit, I expect.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	It began as a free trade movement after all.

No, the UK joined the European Economic Community not a free trade movement, that was something the UK failed to understand from day one, it would appear.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	JagWaugh
	I think the most difficult aspect of the negotiations will be how to deal with ongoing EU projects within the UK, and there both sides could make things a lot worse by being narky.

I expect the first priority of the Commission in negotiations will be to avoid anything that would challenge the cohesion of the remaining 27 states. Their best chance of this is to a void anything that has to go to the Council or to referenda.

In having to go to the council they give for example Spain their best chance ever of regaining control over Gibraltar, Ireland to gain concessions on Northern Ireland and the eastern States to demand come kind of compensation for the loss of free movement of people.

Having to open the thing up to referenda would be a nightmare as it could quickly become a referendum on membership in France and Denmark. While in Ireland anything less that the current benefits under the CTA will most likely be rejected. And of course their might have to be multiple referenda, as the various states reject elements of the agreement which would then have to be renegotiated and represented for further referenda!

I expect all that will be on the table is EEA or WTO plus whatever else the Commission can get out of the old DC deal and even then it will still have to be approved by the Parliament.

One should not underestimate the limitations of the Commission in going into these negotiations.

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Well of course Australia should seek to have a trade deal with the UK once it leaves the EU as the current arrangement will no longer apply and since the UK is the country's second biggest inward investor it makes perfect sense from their side. The big challenge for the UK remains: about 46% of it's exports are on a preferential basis to a relatively wealth market in close proximity to the source of production. Shipping goods half way around the world is not much of a substitute unless you can some how account for the extra costs and I fear that will be through wages, so the ordinary worker will carry the can. From what we have seen so far the first that will benefit from BREXIT are the corporations with the new lower tax rates. And depending on what happens to labour law they may be in for a few more benefits as well. And sure if they can squeeze a few trade deal on top of that they will be doing just fine. Not exactly what many voters had in mind when they voted exit, I expect.

"the first that will benefit from BREXIT are the corporations with the new lower tax rates" Of course, if the UK's first action will be to setup in competition with the EU for new companies by implementing these new lower tax rates then this will add another flavour to UK/EU trade discussions.

[marton]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Yeah, but we can get started on the negotiations. The UK can't sign anything until it's no longer part of the EU anyway. So say 2-4 years to leave and in the meantime negotiate with other countries and there should be very little gap.

2-4 years for completing a new trade deal is optimistic unless UK speeds the process by surrendering on some key points .

[Kosti]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	One should not underestimate the limitations of the Commission in going into these negotiations.

Indeed. That is why the chief negotiator for Brexit has been appointed by the council, not the commission.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0ZB0UT

Merkel has no intention for something as delicate as the Brexit negotiations to be influenced by the commission, with Juncker as it's head. The commission is seen as responsible for the anti EU mood leading to Brexit.

Any UK deal under the current rules must be unanimously approved by the council, not the commission.

There will be no concession on free movement if England wants to join the EEA. The Eastern Europeans will never agree to it. If one richer European country gets a pass on free movement, the rest will follow.

[marton]

	Quote:	Kosti
	Indeed. That is why the chief negotiator for Brexit has been appointed by the council, not the commission. http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0ZB0UT Merkel has no intention for something as delicate as the Brexit negotiations to be influenced by the commission, with Juncker as it's head. The commission is seen as responsible for the anti EU mood leading to Brexit. Any UK deal under the current rules must be unanimously approved by the council, not the commission. There will be no concession on free movement if England wants to join the EEA. The Eastern Europeans will never agree to it. If one richer European country gets a pass on free movement, the rest will follow.

"Merkel has no intention for something as delicate as the Brexit negotiations to be influenced by the commission, with Juncker as it's head. "

From your link "European Council President Donald Tusk has appointed a Belgian diplomat to coordinate negotiations with Britain on its exit from the European Union"
"Tusk, as the chair of the body that groups national leaders, will have to broker the political accords required to drive the process to a final deal."

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Yeah, but we can get started on the negotiations. The UK can't sign anything until it's no longer part of the EU anyway. So say 2-4 years to leave and in the meantime negotiate with other countries and there should be very little gap.

Something like that is probably going to be tried.

But the big issue with that, from a UK perspective, is that UK will be at a HUGE disadvantage even before preliminary talks have started. It's like selling a house quickly, you will get way less than the best price.

Another huge problem is that the UK has been delegating a lot of negotiating to the EU. This made a good many people redundant that are capable of doing the actual negotiating. This is a matter that will take decads to remedy. I think it was New Zealand that offered their personnel almost immediately, but you can bet your life on who's advantage they will be working most for (hint: It's not the UK's even when negotiation with other countries).

[Kosti]

	Quote:	marton
	"Merkel has no intention for something as delicate as the Brexit negotiations to be influenced by the commission, with Juncker as it's head. " From your link "European Council President Donald Tusk has appointed a Belgian diplomat to coordinate negotiations with Britain on its exit from the European Union" "Tusk, as the chair of the body that groups national leaders, will have to broker the political accords required to drive the process to a final deal."

The EC is comprised of the heads of state of the EU countries. Donald Tusk, as the council president will naturally act on its behalf.

Among the heads of state who make up the council, any guesses who is the most powerful.

[marton]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Something like that is probably going to be tried. But the big issue with that, from a UK perspective, is that UK will be at a HUGE disadvantage even before preliminary talks have started. It's like selling a house quickly, you will get way less than the best price. Another huge problem is that the UK has been delegating a lot of negotiating to the EU. This made a good many people redundant that are capable of doing the actual negotiating. This is a matter that will take decads to remedy. I think it was New Zealand that offered their personnel almost immediately, but you can bet your life on who's advantage they will be working most for (hint: It's not the UK's even when negotiation with other countries).

The British civil service has no trade negotiators, the former head of the government’s EU unit has confirmed.
Oliver Letwin says all British negotiators are currently employed by the EU.

Source (might be behind a paywall)

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Kosti
	Any UK deal under the current rules must be unanimously approved by the council, not the commission.

That entirely depends on what the deal is. Almost all third country deals require Parliament approval and if it requires an kind of change to the treaties (free movement for example), then it needs approval beyond the Council and will involve referenda (France, Denmark & Ireland). If it only involves EEA or WTO, there would be nothing to approve, the UK would need to join EFTA and commit to the EEA agreement and so on.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	"the first that will benefit from BREXIT are the corporations with the new lower tax rates" Of course, if the UK's first action will be to setup in competition with the EU for new companies by implementing these new lower tax rates then this will add another flavour to UK/EU trade discussions.

Well the lower tax rate will have a major impact on the UK budget situation and the short fall will have to be made up in either sending cuts or new taxes. Of course they could have been more specific and come out with some sort of specific measures to apply only on new investment or exports etc.... but then I expect many of the tory supporters would have been upset.

I think any new deal outside of the existing models will be based on rational pragmatism rather than EU idealism. It may take a while, but the UK may be in the process of defining a new model of involvement with the EU that every country could follow. In the short term, the UK will likely have an intermediate phase like EFTA. The EU is not capable of deciding anything significant in a timely manner. It would be silly to count on its decision making process.

[Deep Purple]

One of the potential consequences that I heard about today is that grants that have already been given out, or committed, by the EU my be repayable under the terms of the grants if the UK does actually leave the EU