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

[Chindie]

Oh dear. This press conference with Barnier and Davis is a bit of a horror show.

Barnier has said it's clear we don't want to honour obligations, and therefore he questions whether there can be a trusting relationship going forward. He's also said that we want access to the single market but also want our standards, whatever they may be, to be immediately recognised... Which is impossible. He then said there had been no progress in these talks.

Immediately followed by Davis saying they has been concrete progress.

...Christ.

[peterms]

37 minutes ago, limpid said:

What would the question be for this referendum?

Alternatively, something like

Should David Davis now be placed on a barren rock in the Atlantic Ocean, equipped only with a fishing rod, a union flag, and a biography of Churchill?

[Chindie]

Also yesterday one of Boris' aides unfortunately had his Twitter account hacked and the hacker just railed off at Barnier for a bit, which is really unfortunate. Especially as this hacker remarkably showed knowledge of the negotiations.

[darrenm]

Any question better than this which meant **** all

[ml1dch]

23 minutes ago, peterms said:

How about a summary of the main points of the deal that is negotiated, followed by something like

1.  Having considered the proposed arrangements for leaving the EU, do you now wish the UK to leave the EU or remain a member?

2.  If the UK is to leave the EU, should it be on the basis of accepting the arrangements set out above, or rejecting them?

The first of those is no longer in the power of a UK Government to offer.

Any scenario that sees us remain a member will require a unanimous vote of the other 27.

Realpolitik suggests that vote passing is unlikely to be a problem, but it makes for at best a pretty unwieldy question for a referendum, and at worst an embarrassment where the public votes to knock the whole silly idea on the head, only for say, Hungary to turn round and say "actually, we'll stick with you leaving thanks".

[Chindie]

Yes our fate is pretty much out of our hands. Even in the negotiations we're the weaker party and everyone involved knows it.

The referendum will go down as one of the stupidest political moves this country has ever made, and only damns Cameron's time all the more.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Go on then - let's see your working out.

Otherwise you are literally pulling figures out of thin air.

What are you taking into account (and not) to get you to either 90bn or 20bn?

Article 50 implies the sum is £0 - once we've left "The Treaties shall cease to apply" - i.e. no rules or regulations, no assets or liabilities under EU law remain applicable to the UK. I think a parliamentary (HoL or Law Lords) investigation came to that conclusion.

But that's not really the point. If we want (and we do, because we need) to remain in Euratom and many other EU bodies, so we can fight crime and cancer and fly to Europe and trade with Europe on favourable terms and so on and so forth, then we'll need to contribute to the EU budget for those things.

The EU countries are at risk of potentially having a 12% budget drop if we leave and pay nothing in, and though we get some of that 12% back, at the moment, it's still an overall drop of a few billion quid a year that someone else will have to cough up, and they're really not going to want to do that. So we want to pay now't and to have all the benefits  of membership and they want us to pay what we would have done if we'd stayed and not have all the benefits. We'll end up somewhere in the middle, I guess. Some payment, some benefits. It's not a "bill", as such, more  a revised schedule of contributions in return for benefits.

But the EU has tied the negotiations to "sort out the money, then we'll talk about benefits". Davis was going to have "the fight of the summer" about that, but gave up in the first afternoon of discussions.

 

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Article 50 implies the sum is £0 - once we've left "The Treaties shall cease to apply" - i.e. no rules or regulations, no assets or liabilities under EU law remain applicable to the UK. I think a parliamentary (HoL or Law Lords) investigation came to that conclusion.

The investigation established that the UK could legally walk away, in the context that there was no legal recourse. i.e there was no supranational court to which the EU could go and ask for a ruling on the matter.

As the rest of your post alludes to though, this isn't going to  a be resolved as a legal matter, but as a political one.

[peterms]

47 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

The first of those is no longer in the power of a UK Government to offer.

There are differing views on whether A50 is unilaterally revocable, and I've not seen a definitive judgement.

But if the EU want us to remain a member (and several states have said so), then a way will be found, if we change our mind.  There would no doubt be some political price to pay, as a disincentive for future messing around by us or others.

[chrisp65]

another paper caught on another long lense, when will they ever learn...

 

[bickster]

28 minutes ago, peterms said:

There are differing views on whether A50 is unilaterally revocable, and I've not seen a definitive judgement.

But if the EU want us to remain a member (and several states have said so), then a way will be found, if we change our mind.  There would no doubt be some political price to pay, as a disincentive for future messing around by us or others.

EU's position is supposedly thus

Quote

EU leaked document: Britain can reverse Article 50

LONDON — The European Union's official response to Prime Minister Theresa May triggering Brexit states that Article 50 can be reversed, meaning Britain could, in theory, change its mind at some point in the two-year negotiation process.

Britain's ambassador to the European Union Sir Tim Barrow gave the Article 50 letter of notification to the European Commission shortly after lunch time on Wednesday, meaning Britain's formal departure from the 28-nation bloc is now officially underway. 

• NEW: The snap general election in 2017 could give the UK a chance to reverse Article 50.

According to a report in The Guardian, a leaked European Parliament resolution, in which EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier played a major role in putting together, says that the UK will be able to revoke Article 50 before it expires.

The resolution states that the UK will be able to revoke its Article 50 notification but this process must be "subject to conditions set by all EU27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom’s membership."

However, the resolution makes clear that Britain cannot use the revocability of Article 50 as a means of improving the Brexit package it agrees with EU or for any other tactical purpose. 

The key line can be found on page four of the document titled Draft Motion For A Resolution. It's highlighted here:

European Parliament

 

Britain's judges have not ruled on whether Article 50 is revocable but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Parliament must vote before Brexit is triggered on the understanding that Article 50 cannot be revoked. 

1

:Business Insider

[ml1dch]

30 minutes ago, peterms said:

There are differing views on whether A50 is unilaterally revocable, and I've not seen a definitive judgement.

But if the EU want us to remain a member (and several states have said so), then a way will be found, if we change our mind.  There would no doubt be some political price to pay, as a disincentive for future messing around by us or others.

As I said in a post further up, anything decided will be on a political basis not a legal one. 

If May and Davis were to release a statement soon saying "we've realised what a glorious institution the EU is, and we plan to hold a free vote in the Commons to decide once and for all whether the UK should proceed down this path", then as I said earlier I'm certain the will would be found to make our membership continue. The political will would be there on the EU side.

If in a 15 months, they say "having spent all of this time and money on this, we're going to have another referendum about the whole thing, at which point we might leave things just as they are, at least until UKIP get a bit more popular again". And the political will won't be there on the EU side.

 

Which is why "do you actually want things to just stay as they are" isn't a question that will be put to the people. It's almost certainly within the power of the EU to allow that, but it's not within the power of the UK Government to  unilaterally offer it.

 

[ml1dch]

42 minutes ago, bickster said:

EU's position is supposedly thus

:Business Insider

Well, yes. 

That article says "the resolution states that the UK will be able to revoke its Article 50 notification but this process must be "subject to conditions set by all EU27"

Whereas I phrased it "Any scenario that sees us remain a member will require a unanimous vote of the other 27"

We're saying the same thing.

It's still not a question that can be put on a referendum ballot (which I'm guessing was limpid's point when he asked in the first place).

Edit - the easiest way to phrase it is "can we change our mind with the consent of the other members, almost certainly yes. Can we change our mind without the consent of the other members, almost certainly no".

Edited August 31, 2017 by ml1dch

[ml1dch]

Rumours (admittedly from nowhere that can be quoted on here as an actual source) that Davis might be about to call the whole thing off and walk away.

Which in turn could be the trigger for one or more of the more sensible Cabinet Ministers to break ranks and call the circus what it is.

Could be complete nonsense, but a couple of the speeches at Party Conference in a month might be more interesting than normal...

 

[Enda]

8 hours ago, blandy said:

Article 50 implies the sum is £0 - once we've left "The Treaties shall cease to apply" - i.e. no rules or regulations, no assets or liabilities under EU law remain applicable to the UK.

It's a bit messier than that. The Treaties are not where you've agreed to fund scientific research for the next few years. Obviously what the EU spends its money on changes from year to year, so the specifics of that are not Treaty-worthy. You still signed up to pay scientists though, enforceable by the Treaties.

Brexit causes all these hassles for other European countries (the Irish border, for example), and to add to that you're now skimping on what we had all previously agreed. That's not to say we (Europeans) don't respect the will of the British people to withdraw from the EU, we do -- but pulling out of agreed funding commitments?

I'm a little bit surprised nobody is referring to this as a default. That's what it is. I think it's childish and, forgive me here, frankly arrogant to contest payment that you've committed to.

[chrisp65]

I can certainly sympathise that countries receiving hand outs won't want one of the paying countries to leave the party.

I can sympathise with the couple of other net contributing countries realising they will be paying out more to the net takers.

I think in Ireland's case you'll go from just about neutral to being a clear contributor? That'll change a few people's opinions on the merits of the money go round.

So perhaps there should have been clear rules set out and agreed in advance if it was important?

----

Of course, this could all just be bluster, setting people against each other before the suits on both sides declare victory by agreeing to what was sensible all along.

UK committed to paying in about £15bn a year for about 2 years longer than we wanted to stay? Just stay an extra 2 years sorting out detail and everyone can claim the win and Ireland gets 2 extra years to come to terms with more of its money moving out, or Greece gets 2 extra years  to, er, 'find efficiencies'.

 

 

 

[peterms]

D Davis explains

Quote

"The thing is,” said David Davis, answering questions on the glacial progress of the Brexit talks “I haven’t a clue how the EU works. So it’s no surprise things are going slowly.”

“To be honest,” Davis went on “none of us know. Not Michael, not Boris, definitely not Theresa. When I ask the other side for help they just ignore me.”

The Brexit Secretary admits if he’d thought Vote Leave would win, he’d have found out more about it and thinks the EU side have an unfair advantage.

“I feel like such a fool.” he said “the EU team start sniggering behind their hands whenever I speak and now Michel Barnier has spilled the beans, the whole world is laughing at me.”

“It’s not all bad news though,” said Davis, briefly brightening. “I’ve a nice new name badge – do you see? It’s even got a hologram, to stop anyone pretending to be me at the talks. No, I expect you’re right.” he added gloomily “Not that many”.

 

[blandy]

12 hours ago, Enda said:

It's a bit messier than that. The Treaties are not where you've agreed to fund scientific research for the next few years. Obviously what the EU spends its money on changes from year to year, so the specifics of that are not Treaty-worthy. You still signed up to pay scientists though, enforceable by the Treaties.

Brexit causes all these hassles for other European countries (the Irish border, for example), and to add to that you're now skimping on what we had all previously agreed. That's not to say we (Europeans) don't respect the will of the British people to withdraw from the EU, we do -- but pulling out of agreed funding commitments?

I'm a little bit surprised nobody is referring to this as a default. That's what it is. I think it's childish and, forgive me here, frankly arrogant to contest payment that you've committed to.

I take your point, and I think the UK Gov't probably does too. SO this isn't me disagreeing, but some of the nutters will be taking the line, in response to the type of comment you've made, that:

No, The EU agreed to fund specific research, or specific projects. The EU agreed to spend X amount on whatever. So while the UK is part of the EU, then we are obliged to pay our share, as calculated, into those projects etc.

 But if/when we're not part of the EU, then there is no obligation on us any longer. We will no longer recieve EU spending once we've left and we will no longer spend on EU projects after we've left.

That kind of argument is obviously of concern to the rest of the EU (and saner people in the UK) and will be part pof the reason for the EU hard balling at the moment - they want to remove that worry, to get the UK to commit to plugging the gap that would occur.

The sane people in the UK recognise that many or most of the EU projects planned out over the next 5 years or so are of soft or hard benefit to the UK - scientific research, environmental stuff, conservation, education...etc. and it would benefit us to stay involved and to contribute and benefit.

SO the legal "won't owe a penny" is only really practical for the hardest possible Brexit, which would be monumentally damaging for the UK (and the EU to a lesser extent) and any "saving" would be counteracted many times over by the damage done to the econonomy and to science and industry and reputation and overseas investment in the UK as an Isolated rock, rather than a place with good access to the continent.

[ml1dch]

38 minutes ago, blandy said:

I take your point, and I think the UK Gov't probably does too. SO this isn't me disagreeing, but some of the nutters will be taking the line, in response to the type of comment you've made, that:

No, The EU agreed to fund specific research, or specific projects. The EU agreed to spend X amount on whatever. So while the UK is part of the EU, then we are obliged to pay our share, as calculated, into those projects etc.

 But if/when we're not part of the EU, then there is no obligation on us any longer. We will no longer recieve EU spending once we've left and we will no longer spend on EU projects after we've left.

My understanding is that this isn't strictly true.

Let's say that you have a five year, EU funded research programme into a new cancer drug happening at UCL, that started in 2016.

The bill to the EU will arrive in 2021. Would we expect the EU to honour that agreed payment to a non-member country? I would.

It's pretty unlikely that anything new of that sort will be started in the UK (a problem in itself), but there will be EU distributed money coming into the UK post-April 2019.

 

[magnkarl]

On 8/31/2017 at 10:13, ml1dch said:

Go on then - let's see your working out.

Otherwise you are literally pulling figures out of thin air.

What are you taking into account (and not) to get you to either 90bn or 20bn?

My working out is based on common law in both the EU and UK. Once any partnership separates legally, be that marital or business, the assets or debts of said unit is split between the parties. I'm not claiming we should not pay for anything, because we really should pay for several of the continued relationships we have with the EU on nuclear arms, crime, terror prevention and so on, but were you to take our case in front of a judge he would take all assets that the EU has and split it equally between the member states that paid for said assets.

• EU buildings (amongst others a massive new HQ)
• EU equipment (boats in the med f.ex)
• Intellectual property

It's clearly not realistic to claim for the UK that we shan't pay anything. Neither is it realistic for the EU to demand of a member that wants to leave that they should pay more than half of their members do in a 3 year span because we want to leave. 

First, agree on how to move forward, then when there's some goodwill start talking cash. I'm against Brexit but I also don't fancy being held to ransom because the EU wants to make an example of us. If Davis had any sort of IQ he'd request that negotiations were held with two neutral parties assiting in the international court.

Edited September 1, 2017 by magnkarl