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

[amogles]

	Quote:	StirB
	Well, the good news is that MPs (and Lords) get a vote on it. The current state of play is 329 conservative, 1 UKIP and 320 everyone else. A few Tory defections and this is dead in the water. Lovely.

There are also Labour people who are pro Brexit, apparently.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	What remains to be seen is if the EU will cut off the nose to spite the face.

You mean let the UK cherry pick what it likes from the 4 freedoms in return for common market access and so encourage any other EU member states to also leave?

[marton]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	According to the Swiss press that's exactly how May envisions it. In the end PMs will have no real choice, and even if they do refuse the UK will be out in two years or so. Assuming of course English courts don't interfere, isn't there a case still pending?

The Article 50 challenge depends on the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing, which was due to be announced this week.

The challenge about Article 127 of the European Economic Area agreement that sets out the mechanism for leaving the single market will be heard by the Supreme Court in February!.

[Loz1983]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	You mean let the UK cherry pick what it likes from the 4 freedoms in return for common market access and so encourage any other EU member states to also leave?

Basically yes.

The UK isn't Portugal or Slovenia. If no deal is struck on trade then it will hurt everyone. If your only reason for not striking a deal is "not encouraging other members to leave", then you're cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Basically yes. The UK isn't Portugal or Slovenia. If no deal is struck on trade then it will hurt everyone. If your only reason for not striking a deal is "not encouraging other members to leave", then you're cutting your nose off to spite your face.

It won't hurt everyone, maybe only three or four countries out of 27?

How many countries will be hurt by stopping EU people freely coming to work in UK?

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Basically yes. The UK isn't Portugal or Slovenia. If no deal is struck on trade then it will hurt everyone. If your only reason for not striking a deal is "not encouraging other members to leave", then you're cutting your nose off to spite your face.

But you strike a deal and encourage other members to leave, you're also cutting your nose off to spite your face. Which leaves us to ask which is the lesser of two evils and pretty much every EU politician asked has answered that loss of trade with the UK is by far the lesser evil. The only people claiming that the EU would see the loss of trade as the greater evil are those who have a vested in promoting that belief.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	But you strike a deal and encourage other members to leave, you're also cutting your nose off to spite your face. Which leaves us to ask which is the lesser of two evils and pretty much every EU politician asked has answered that loss of trade with the UK is by far the lesser evil. The only people claiming that the EU would see the loss of trade as the greater evil are those who have a vested in promoting that belief.

Because from a political perspective they have a vested interest in keeping the EU going as it is. From an economic perspective, which is what matters, having a poor trading relationship with a big economy like the UK is not in anyone's benefit.

If other countries want to leave, why not let them ? What right does a politician have to force a country to remain within a club they formed ?

[Phos]

	Quote:	Mikers
	If other countries want to leave, why not let them ? What right does a politician have to force a country to remain within a club they formed ?

That is my problem with the EU in a nutshell. It behaves like a cult.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Because from a political perspective they have a vested interest in keeping the EU going as it is. From an economic perspective, which is what matters, having a poor trading relationship with a big economy like the UK is not in anyone's benefit. If other countries want to leave, why not let them ? What right does a politician have to force a country to remain within a club they formed ?

And that rebuts what I said how exactly?

[amogles]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	But you strike a deal and encourage other members to leave, you're also cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I would say that if you're really convinced that your way is the right way, then you should make it easy for people to leave as you know they don't want to.

If they feel they need to make leaving as unpleasant as possible, they are basically admitting they are jailkeepers rather than leaders of a voluntary union.

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	I would say that if you're really convinced that your way is the right way, then you should make it easy for people to leave as you know they don't want to. If they feel they need to make leaving as unpleasant as possible, they are basically admitting they are jailkeepers rather than leaders of a voluntary union.

Usually the EU leaders say that after Brexit the UK should not finish up with a better deal than the current one; sounds fair to me?

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	amogles
	I would say that if you're really convinced that your way is the right way, then you should make it easy for people to leave as you know they don't want to. If they feel they need to make leaving as unpleasant as possible, they are basically admitting they are jailkeepers rather than leaders of a voluntary union.

All you have to do is rock up and tell us you want to leave and then leave, what could be easier???

[Castro]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Nonsense. Once Article 50 is triggered the UK will be out with or without a deal. If the MPs reject it, well tough luck we'll have to do without.

It is not that clear cut according to experts {spit}

	Quote:
	If the government argued that MPs could vote to revoke article 50 during the exit negotiation period, some academics say, the outcome of the government’s appeal to the supreme court would be different, because it would imply that the sovereignty of parliament had not been removed. Dr Eirik Bjorge, a senior law lecturer at Bristol University and an expert in EU law, said: “If the government decides to – and is allowed to – argue that the article 50 notice can be revoked, then it is all but sure to win in the supreme court. In those circumstances it cannot be said that, once the trigger has been pulled, the bullet will inexorably hit the target and expunge our rights under the European Communities Act 1972.” Tridimas is one of those who believes the article 50 process could be reversed before the UK’s exit from the EU had been completed. “My view is that it is reversible,” he said. “There’s nothing in the wording of article 50 which says that it cannot be withdrawn. The Vienna convention on the law of treaties says that they can be reversed unless they state otherwise. The point of no return is two years after notification has been given [to the EU].” Prof Paul Craig, an Oxford University expert on both EU and constitutional law, said the triggering of article 50 should be revocable by parliament. “It is a cardinal legal principle that a party is not bound by a contract or treaty until agreement has been reached,” he has argued in a blogpost. “The consequences of not being able to revoke would be particularly severe: withdrawal would have to proceed even if invocation of article 50 triggered an economic meltdown in the country.” Source

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Because from a political perspective they have a vested interest in keeping the EU going as it is.

The majority of voters in the last EU parliamentary elections, voted for parties that support a closer union, so how would they behave if not to kept the union going. Seriously.

	Quote:	Mikers
	From an economic perspective, which is what matters, having a poor trading relationship with a big economy like the UK is not in anyone's benefit.

Well if that is the case, then with 48% of it's exports going to the EU, we can expect the UK to accept FMOP, ECJ etc so they will get a deal, can we? After all trade is more important to the UK than principles according to your logic.

	Quote:	Mikers
	If other countries want to leave, why not let them ? What right does a politician have to force a country to remain within a club they formed ?

What could be simpler than telling people you are leaving and tidying up your affairs and well just leaving. There is no mechanism to prevent a member leaving, except the reluctant member themselves... It's a couple of months ago now since the EU appointed it's negotiators, where are the UK negotiators???

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Castro
	It is not that clear cut according to experts {spit}

Except the two dears forget that article 50 will not be interpreted under UK common law.... so if it does not specifically state that it can be revoked it will not be so. Furthermore it can easily be argued that since the article specifically states who a exiting member can rejoin, it was never the intention of the drafters nor the parties to the treaty that it should be possible that the article be revoked.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	Usually the EU leaders say that after Brexit the UK should not finish up with a better deal than the current one; sounds fair to me?

Even if the EU leaders wanted it, it is not for them to grant it. You simply can not have one player in the market who is not subject to the rules, regulations and jurisdiction of the market. An awful lot of work has gone into trying to ensure a fair market over the years, so trying to convince Europeans toss that aside is not something the politicians will do. Nor will they want to hold at least 3 referenda on it.

Mind you depending on the outcome of the general election in NI in March, Mrs. May may have a very different landscape to deal with. If it turns into a referendum on EU membership and I expect SF will make it that and if people vote the same way, then we may be into GFA territory...

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Except the two dears forget that article 50 will not be interpreted under UK common law.... so if it does not specifically state that it can be revoked it will not be so. Furthermore it can easily be argued that since the article specifically states who a exiting member can rejoin, it was never the intention of the drafters nor the parties to the treaty that it should be possible that the article be revoked.

Depends on how you decide the meaning of this sentence "If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin"

Does "has withdrawn" mean in the period after having invoked Art. 50 or does it mean after "...the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after..."

Plus we have "Article 50 author Lord Kerr says Brexit could be stopped after Article 50 has been triggered."
Source

[marton]

May spoke about a Customs Union deal so this is interesting?

	Quote:
	Turkey has a “customs union” for goods with the EU. It is not bound by the CAP (and it’s agricultural products are outside of the customs union), it doesn’t pay fees and there is no freedom of movement of people between Turkey and the EU. Unfortunately, there is a catch – or rather, several of them. The Turkish customs union covers only goods, not services or finance. So a Turkish-style deal would be denying us a big part of the single market. What’s more, the quid pro quo of even this limited access is that Turkey has to follow the EU’s rules for the production of goods – without any say on what those rules are. A pattern should be familiar by now: to the extent that a country gets access to the single market, it has to follow the EU’s rules. Turkey’s customs union with the EU – a key difference from the Norwegian or Swiss models – creates further problems. It requires Turkey to align its trade policy with the EU’s, seeking to cut free trade deals on goods with whomever Brussels makes deals. The snag is that Turkey does not have any vote on which free trade deals the EU pursues and so no way of making sure they satisfy its interests. Nor do the EU’s trading partners necessarily have an incentive to open their markets to Turkey, as they can simply cut deals with the EU and get access to the Turkish market by sending goods to the EU and then on to Turkey. They have often delayed several years before signing trade deals with Turkey – meaning its businesses were at the back of the queue when it came to penetrating new markets.

Source

And from here

	Quote:
	Remaining in the EU customs union would have profound implications for the ability of the UK to govern itself as an independent nation and deprive it of the ability to decide its own laws over very wide fields of domestic policy extending far beyond customs controls themselves, prevent the UK from exercising an independent trade policy or concluding its own trade agreements with states outside the EU, and inevitably result in the UK being subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the interpretation and application of the common rules which regulate the customs union.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	amogles
	I would say that if you're really convinced that your way is the right way, then you should make it easy for people to leave as you know they don't want to. If they feel they need to make leaving as unpleasant as possible, they are basically admitting they are jailkeepers rather than leaders of a voluntary union.

Again: How's this related to what I said? Changing the subject?

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	The majority of voters in the last EU parliamentary elections, voted for parties that support a closer union, so how would they behave if not to kept the union going. Seriously. Well if that is the case, then with 48% of it's exports going to the EU, we can expect the UK to accept FMOP, ECJ etc so they will get a deal, can we? After all trade is more important to the UK than principles according to your logic. What could be simpler than telling people you are leaving and tidying up your affairs and well just leaving. There is no mechanism to prevent a member leaving, except the reluctant member themselves... It's a couple of months ago now since the EU appointed it's negotiators, where are the UK negotiators???

I think they should work to keep the union going, by having a favorable deal with the U.K. On the best terms for both, ignoring free movement, principles, tariffs and the rest of it and just say 'ok, what's best for both of us, for Europe and for you'. That's good government of your European Union. Not trying to hurt someone when they leave to scare others into staying. It's a political union for gods sake, not ISIS.

Im sure the U.K. will have its negotiators. A few weeks ago everyone was convinced we would never get a trade deal with the u.s. Now they want to make one as soon as is possible.

This may turn out really crap for England. Unlike yourself I am not wedded to being in our out if the eu. What matters is the will of the people is followed and in this case the voting majority voted to leave so that's what the country has to pull its socks up and get on with, for better or worse.