The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, Risso said:

There are no shortage of "tax havens" in and around the EU.  Gibraltar isn't taking business away from Spain, any more than any other offshore centre is.  Any business going through Gib that isn't viable after the Brexit deal, will just go through Malta instead.

Away with your rationality young man, we have white flags to stitch! 

[blandy]

7 hours ago, Awol said:

The same EU Parliament supported draft negotiation guidelines state no discussion on trade until the financial settlement agreed.

So, no compromise on removing this Spanish nonsense about Gib, then no discussion over how much money they want us to hand over. 

Again you seem to think we just meekly sit back and take whatever crap is thrown at us no questions asked. If Davis takes that view he shouldn't have the job. 

I thought the EU parliament had now determined that the approach would be that there will be no discussion on trade until the principles behind calculating the "bill" for leaving are agreed. They've also set a 3 year limit (post leaving) for agreement of any trade deal. I could be wrong, but that's what I read, somewhere.

The Gib thing is in the same document as the approach on trade I've just described, isn't it? i.e. (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that's what's been set as how things will proceed. It's not something on which the UK has any say. The EU (minus the UK) sets  these terms and conditions. A50 says we have no say. 

re: "no compromise on removing this Spanish nonsense about Gib, then no discussion over how much money they want us to hand over" is just a mental approach. There are things the UK wants and needs from the EU and vice versa. US refusing to negotiate with them because of the EU's rule that the UK and Spain need to agree about Gib, would be foolish in the extreme.

UK: We think we want to leave, please

EU: OK, if you do, then the rules for leaving get decided by us - you know that right?

UK: Yes, that's fine. We know and accept that. We still want to leave.

EU: The rules are 1. Agree mechanism to calculate what you owe, and are owed. 2. then talk about trade deal and any agreement will depend on you and Spain reaching a mutually acceptable arrangement on Gib.

UK: Wah Wah. We didn't know you'd say that. it's so unfair! we don't accept it. Slams door. Stands outside in cold and dark cursing foreigners.

i.e. at some point it's got to be a bit more grown up than throwing a tantrum and threatening to run away every time something we don't fully like crops up. Any sane person would stop with all the "threat" stuff and instead do what Britain used to be really good at, which was essentially quiet diplomacy, being nice and calm and considered and fair and measured. It's not about "meekly sit back and take whatever crap" it's not a fight, it's about, or should be, reason and working to reach something that is as close to win win as can be got, given that everyone on both sides is going to be worse off as a result of all this, the way it's going.

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, Risso said:

Gibraltar isn't taking business away from Spain, any more than any other offshore centre is.  Any business going through Gib that isn't viable after the Brexit deal, will just go through Malta instead.

So, Gib will lose busines to Malta. Great. They must be chuffed with that. All hail wise brexit!

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, Awol said:

Away with your rationality showing Gib will lose out, young man, we have more of our feet to shoot! 

FTFY

[Awol]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

i.e. at some point it's got to be a bit more grown up than throwing a tantrum and threatening to run away every time something we don't fully like crops up. Any same person would stop with all the "threat" stuff and instead do what Britain used to be really good at, which was essentially quiet diplomacy, being nice and clam and considered and fair and measured. It's not about "meekly sit back and take whatever crap" it's not a fight, it's about, or should be, reason and working to reach something that is as close to win win as can be got, given that everyone on both sides is going to be worse off as a result of all this, the way it's going.   

It's not threatening to run away, it's insisting from the outset that there are red lines we won't accept the EU screwing around with. You don't think we have a strong enough hand to stand firm, I disagree. 

The idea that we're all going to sit around with a nice cup of tea and work things out is charming but lunacy.

Various luminaries on the continent have stated (paraphrasing) that the separation must be as painful as possible for the UK, and they want to hurt us for rejecting their political vision. This is a street fight, not Glastonbury. 

[Awol]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

 All hail wise brexit!

...still firmly stuck in the denial phase, then. It's happening, even if no one's told Tim Farron yet.

[blandy]

7 hours ago, Awol said:

It's not threatening to run away, it's insisting from the outset that there are red lines we won't accept the EU screwing around with. You don't think we have a strong enough hand to stand firm, I disagree. 

To use your post:

6 hours ago, Awol said:

...still firmly stuck in the denial phase, then. It's happening

The clause for Spain and Gib is in there. It's done. It's happening.

Re overall Brexit, I'm (as I've said a few times) not massively fussed either way. There's enough wrong with the EU to make a case for leaving. The difficulty I have is the nobbers in our Brext team and their slavery to the likes of the Telegraph, Express, Mail etc. for party purposes.

The idea that each time the UK comes across and aspect of the negotiations that we don't fully agree with, we threaten/actually do turn our backs and walk away is just mental. There's no ther word for it. I'm fully aware that the EU nations will all have a list of things they want, their own interests etc. and that they can and will at times "play hardball". My comments are all around not having antipathy and walk away as the main plank of the UK negotiating strategy.

We, the UK, invoked article 50. The rules surrounding it are what they are. They don't give us a say. [on the framework for discussions, like the Gib thing]

Quote

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, 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. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

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.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.....[ ]

 

[Awol]

@blandy yep and nowhere does it say a departing member can be treated on any basis other than as a single functioning unit.

As a BOT Gib falls under the UK umbrella for EU membership purposes. No where does it state that upon departure the departing member can be treated as divisible. 

So the question is on what legal basis can Gib be treated separately from the UK when they are in effect a single member state? If the answer is 'because the EU wants to' they can Jeff off. 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Awol said:

As a BOT Gib falls under the UK umbrella for EU membership purposes

So is that the same for the SBA in Cyprus then? I mean will the SBA no longer be in the EU? Will there need to be a border? Why has no-one even mentioned it?  ( I genuinely don't know anything about this)

And also aren't most other BOTs outside the EU - i.e. EU arrangements don't cover them. Bermuda's one I can think of and the Falklands? If BOT's are "under the Umbrella for EU membership purposes" then surely that's all of them? and I'm pretty sure that at least some of them in actuality are not included.

I don't know, but I don't feel it's quite as you say. Do you have any knowledge of the situation  on this?

[edit] how does it compare with Greenland being out , but Denmark in? - all seems like a big bag of worms]

[snowychap]

18 minutes ago, Awol said:

@blandy yep and nowhere does it say a departing member can be treated on any basis other than as a single functioning unit.

As a BOT Gib falls under the UK umbrella for EU membership purposes. No where does it state that upon departure the departing member can be treated as divisible. 

So the question is on what legal basis can Gib be treated separately from the UK when they are in effect a single member state? If the answer is 'because the EU wants to' they can Jeff off. 

Surely Gibraltar will want to be treated differently?

[tinker]

Spain, depends upon the UK for its largest industry, tourism. We could get awkward with them over Gibraltar. The end result would be cost increases to the consumer via taxes. How many UK tourists would accept a cost increase on their holiday to keep Gibraltar within the UK? Not many, will that count? No, they will just blame the government and vote Ukip or even Labour at the next general election 

Want a growth industry prediction? Buy into a UK holiday resort or maybe Gibraltar, that's where most of us will be heading for our holidays.after the clowns sort this mess out.

[Risso]

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

So is that the same for the SBA in Cyprus then? I mean will the SBA no longer be in the EU? Will there need to be a border? Why has no-one even mentioned it?  ( I genuinely don't know anything about this)

And also aren't most other BOTs outside the EU - i.e. EU arrangements don't cover them. Bermuda's one I can think of and the Falklands? If BOT's are "under the Umbrella for EU membership purposes" then surely that's all of them? and I'm pretty sure that at least some of them in actuality are not included.

I don't know, but I don't feel it's quite as you say. Do you have any knowledge of the situation  on this?

[edit] how does it compare with Greenland being out , but Denmark in? - all seems like a big bag of worms]

Ooh, sir, sir, pick me, I know!

The treaties apply to European territories where a Member State is responsible for their external relations, however at the time of accession, the places in question (Gib, IOM etc) could pick and choose which bits applied to them.  Gibraltar for example, doesn't follow the CAP and fisheries policy, isn't in the Customs Union, and doesn't charge VAT.  Article 299(4) EC, innit.

That's the theory, anyway.  There are currently lots of legal cases flying around (mostly concerning tax) where various sides agree/disagree to suit their case.

[chrisp65]

Well I for one never imagined it would be this complicated.

 

[Risso]

6 minutes ago, tinker said:

Spain, depends upon the UK for its largest industry, tourism. We could get awkward with them over Gibraltar. The end result would be cost increases to the consumer via taxes. How many UK tourists would accept a cost increase on their holiday to keep Gibraltar within the UK? Not many, will that count? No, they will just blame the government and vote Ukip or even Labour at the next general election 

Want a growth industry prediction? Buy into a UK holiday resort or maybe Gibraltar, that's where most of us will be heading for our holidays.after the clowns sort this mess out.

Again, invest in Malta.  They're rubbing their hands out there at the moment.  English speaking, EU, low tax jurisdiction.  Apparently there's now a 5 year waiting list for the private schools out there.

[Risso]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well I for one never imagined it would be this complicated.

 

So complicated he said it twice.

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, Risso said:

Article 299(4) EC

 'No officer with false teeth should attempt oral sex in zero gravity.'

[Chindie]

Malta is already full of (smaller) insurers, speaking from experience.

Lloyds chose Belgium incidentally for a Euro base.

[Risso]

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

 'No officer with false teeth should attempt oral sex in zero gravity.'

Oh bugger, now you tell me.

[tonyh29]

5 minutes ago, Risso said:

Oh bugger, now you tell me.

tbf he had his mouth full earlier and couldn't speak  ....

[hippo]

Broadly speaking, how is our exit bill calculated ? - is it legal costs ? - or recouping grants that we have already had ?  compensation ?