Brexit thread - what happens next

[awaybreaktoday]

So we leave the EU and then the UK government goes sign us up to a TTIP deal with the USA. WTF man, are you all crazy, being part of a Federal EU would be far better than signing any TTIP deal with the USA.

 

[scorza]

I was under the impression that leaving under Article 50 happened, and then the negotiations began regarding the future relationship between the UK and the EU.

Not that there's any precedent for how this is done, but that was my understanding.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

My reading of that is that when we trigger Article 50, the UK will be cut out of the EU decision making process, which is kinda necessary since they'll be making decisions about the negotiations. Two years is the default period under which we will still have to follow EU rules i.e. effectively still in the EU though the so called 'sunset period' may be extended (or presumably shortened) with agreement. Am I worried that in those two years we might have to follow EU rules that were made without us? Not at all.

So we leave the EU and then the UK government goes sign us up to a TTIP deal with the USA. WTF man, are you all crazy, being part of a Federal EU would be far better than signing any TTIP deal with the USA.

Who has said we're signing up to TTIP?

 

[Cern]

How does does the question of parliament being able to interfere affect 'respect and honour' - it seems like a meaningless, emotional statement and the same could be said from the other perspective that the electorate has given the government/PM a clear mandate on which to act and that to then allow some politicians to interfere with or potentially overrule that strong mandate is also not conducting things with 'respect and honour'.

Really you're going to have to face up to the fact that brexit is going to happen regardless of irrelevant moaning about some subjective view of 'respect and honour'.

I faced up to the fact that we're leaving the day TM said "Brexit means Brexit". But there's a right way and a wrong way to leave.

For this to work it needs to get all sides onside and some form of accord, both within the country and with the rest of the EU. Leavers seem to just want to take the reckless, pig-headed route to leaving as quickly as possible whatever the consequences. Perhaps they are scared about how narrow the winning margin was and just want the deal done before the country wakes up to the reality of it all?

Besides, the day anyone describes Parliament as "interfering" with and being in the way of a democratic process is a dark day for democracy indeed.

 

[awaybreaktoday]

I faced up to the fact that we're leaving the day TM said "Brexit means Brexit". But there's a right way and a wrong way to leave.

For this to work it needs to get all sides onside and some form of accord, both within the country and with the rest of the EU. Leavers seem to just want to take the reckless, pig-headed route to leaving as quickly as possible whatever the consequences. Perhaps they are scared about how narrow the winning margin was and just want the deal done before the country wakes up to the reality of it all?

Besides, the day anyone describes Parliament as "interfering" with and being in the way of a democratic process is a dark day for democracy indeed.

What democratic process?

 

[Caged]

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

My reading of that is that when we trigger Article 50, the UK will be cut out of the EU decision making process, which is kinda necessary since they'll be making decisions about the negotiations. Two years is the default period under which we will still have to follow EU rules i.e. effectively still in the EU though the so called 'sunset period' may be extended (or presumably shortened) with agreement. Am I worried that in those two years we might have to follow EU rules that were made without us? Not at all.

Right, but I think there's a misunderstanding between what the (maximum) two year Article 50 period is about - everything I have read says that it's a time period to work with the EU to separate. Formally negotiating a trading relationship with the EU starts after that process has completed.

 

[Cern]

What democratic process?

Indeed, what democratic process?

An advisory referendum being fast-tracked into a massive constitutional change without Parliamentary ratification is hardly healthy democracy.

Shall we do government by weekly phone vote in the future? Would save on a lot of MPs' expenses.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Right, but I think there's a misunderstanding between what the (maximum) two year Article 50 period is about - everything I have read says that it's a time period to work with the EU to separate. Formally negotiating a trading relationship with the EU starts after that process has completed.

The 2 years is to complete the separation.
During that time, ideally, we would agree exactly what would happen when we do, but no guarantees.

Problem is we also need to do the same with the WTO or we would be under **** rules there as well.

 

[dowie]

I faced up to the fact that we're leaving the day TM said "Brexit means Brexit". But there's a right way and a wrong way to leave.

For this to work it needs to get all sides onside and some form of accord, both within the country and with the rest of the EU. Leavers seem to just want to take the reckless, pig-headed route to leaving as quickly as possible whatever the consequences. Perhaps they are scared about how narrow the winning margin was and just want the deal done before the country wakes up to the reality of it all?

Besides, the day anyone describes Parliament as "interfering" with and being in the way of a democratic process is a dark day for democracy indeed.

Well they won't be interfering with it as the PM has been quite clear that brexit means brexit. It would be a dark day for democracy indeed if they they could ride roughshod over the result of a referendum.

And again you're just espousing vague and rather meaningless criticism about 'leavers' - sure some in UKIP would like to see article 50 triggered immediately, people who actually count - government ministers such as Boris have emphasized not rushing things. We seem to be going about things the right way, your criticisms of 'leavers' are mostly appropriate to people either not in power or stuck on the back benches rather than applicable to all 'leavers' as though they're some homogeneous mass.

 

[dowie]

Indeed, what democratic process?

An advisory referendum being fast-tracked into a massive constitutional change without Parliamentary ratification is hardly healthy democracy.

Actually a referendum result being used to guide the government rather than being potentially ignored or rejected by politicians is healthy democracy. It is about as democratic as you can get - there is no need for parliament to have a potential veto over it or to have to ratify it. It is a major constitutional change which is why we had a referendum in the first place.

What next - Scotland to vote on independence but only if politicians agree with the result?

If you have a referendum then you don't get to change or ignore the result if it doesn't go the way you intended - that would be anti democratic and would defeat the point of having the referendum in the first place!

Shall we do government by weekly phone vote in the future? Would save on a lot of MPs' expenses.

We're not talking about a mundane decision here so no, we have referendums for major constitutional issues like this. We had a referendum on joining the EEC, we had a referendum on AV and people in Scotland had a referendum on independence. To support referendums for big constitutional decisions doesn't imply that the day to day running of the country via direct democracy is also being supported.

 

[Cern]

Actually a referendum result being used to guide the government rather than being potentially ignored or rejected by politicians is healthy democracy. It is about as democratic as you can get - there is no need for parliament to have a potential veto over it or to have to ratify it. It is a major constitutional change which is why we had a referendum in the first place.

What next - Scotland to vote on independence but only if politicians agree with the result?

If you have a referendum then you don't get to change or ignore the result if it doesn't go the way you intended - that would be anti democratic and would defeat the point of having the referendum in the first place!

The Scottish referendum was not legally binding either and would have needed to be ratified by both the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. It is extremely unlikely this would have been just been pushed through by the PM using royal prerogative. I guess we'll see what happens when Scotland have their new independence referendum after Brexit

If Scotland votes for independence and the UK Parliament blocks it then there would be a huge amount of anger and moral outrage. Same is true for the UK parliament blocking the triggering of Article 50 now there's been a leave vote. But this does not mean Parliament should be bypassed in either case, just because there's a risk of that happening.

Personally I don't think Parliament would actually block Article 50 and would recognise it is not in the public interest to go against the will of the people. But, it is entirely correct that Parliament should debate it and rubber stamp it. Completely essential, given the enormity of the constitutional change it is going to bring to this country. If Parliament is bypassed there will always be doubts over the legitimacy of the process and that starts everything off on a shaky footing before we've even really begun what will be many years of upheaval.

I totally get why Leavers want to get on with things. But seriously, do it properly and you will carry most moderate Remainers with you. Do it 'by any means' and there's always going to a schism.

 

[Amp34]

Well hardly surprising given that there will be two parties to the negotiations and multiple conflicting interests at stake - we've not even started negotiating so this rather futile criticism that brexit politicians don't know for sure what will happen is precisely that... They can push for general areas or set out what they believe we should be working towards but until the negotiation happens it isn't going to be clear at all.

Then again staying in the EU, the future shape of the EU (regardless of the UK's safeguards), what it may look like in 10, 20 years isn't predictable either.

Yet normally you go into a negotiation with an idea of what you want. Currently there is no idea what that is. Perhaps we will find out in a few months, but the point I was making was that people voted leave, but all those people want different results from leaving - Complete cut, EEA, single market, free movement etc.

You're probably right there, there are multiple different groups. I'm sure people that voted leave could be separated into double digit numbers...

Owen Smith also wants peace talks with the Islamic State...

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

Like I said they should be able to debate any deal, but what they can't do, must not be allowed to do is prevent the UK from leaving. What exactly are we saying here? We finish two years of negotiations with the EU, leave the EU (which automatically happens 2 years after triggering Article 50), and then parliament decides not to abide by our side of the deal? Nuh-uh, does not make sense.

No, but if the deal is a pile of **** and only acceptable to the most hardcore brexiteer then I'd like the idea that parliament could vote against the deal and perhaps either force the government back to the negotiating table or rescind article 50. As mentioned before a good option would be calling a referendum or new general election and allowing the public to decide if the proposed deal is better than the status quo. You can't argue "democracy" and be against a vote after the actual terms of leaving are pretty much in place.

The preferred method of leaving is get ready to trigger Article 50, trigger Article 50, have two years of negotiations to define the UK's future relationship with the EU. Issues like keeping free movement are political decisions that need to be made or not made and explained to the British electorate. I personally don't think that would be a satisfactory outcome for the majority of Leave voters, but there's nothing stopping the PM from trying to sell that to us. No doubt the more limp-wristed politicians (like Owen Smith) would try to if they had the power.

See the reply to dowie above for the first part. As for the second: I'd also take a guess that crashing out of the single market is probably not something most leave voters would want either, and probably even more would dislike the WTO option. The reality is most leave supporters aren't to bothered about the trade side, it's the immigration and "laws" side IMO. It's why a vote of some kind (with a vote in parliament being the easiest option) is needed once negotiations have reached an end stage.

 

[Amp34]

I was under the impression that leaving under Article 50 happened, and then the negotiations began regarding the future relationship between the UK and the EU.

Not that there's any precedent for how this is done, but that was my understanding.

I was under the impression during those two years we would also be discussing what broad relationship we would have with them. I.e we won't leave after 2 years and then spend years negotiating our way back into the EEA or whatever our "special deal" will be.

If that isn't the case then there's not really much point discussing the matter as well will leave and then default to WTO rules and have about a decade before we potentially get some form of other trading relationship.

If I'm wrong them obviously my previous post is irrelevant, but considering May has arranged a minister get together to discuss what each department wants from article 50 I assume there is some form of broad negotiation going to go on about our relationship with the EU and what we will/want to be keeping and dropping.

 

[Nate--IRL--]

Yet normally you go into a negotiation with an idea of what you want. Currently there is no idea what that is. Perhaps we will find out in a few months, but the point I was making was that people voted leave, but all those people want different results from leaving - Complete cut, EEA, single market, free movement etc.

Doesn't matter - invoke Article 50 and you're out of all of that, that what Article 50 negotiations are, negotiated orderly exit.

After the conclusion of those Exit negotiations, you begin to negotiate what you may want to then join, this will most likely take years if it is to be negotiated properly.

EDIT:- didn't see your post above, but the point still stands.

Nate

 

[Amp34]

Who has said we're signing up to TTIP?

The British government have been one of the governments at the forefront of pushing for the deal. Outside of the EU the British government could make a deal on TTIP without the other EU countries trying to stop them...

If you're anti TTIP you should be anti leave, as leaving just reduces roadblocks for the British government to enact a TTIP like deal.

 

[Cern]

Doesn't matter - invoke Article 50 and you're out of all of that, that what Article 50 negotiations are, negotiated orderly exit.

After the conclusion of those Exit negotiations, you begin to negotiate what you may want to then join, this will most likely take years if it is to be negotiated properly.

But what's the two year period for if there cannot be any negotiations on anything meaningful during that time and all it will be is the EU saying "we can't talk about that until you've actually left"?

So why are we putting together negotiating teams to cover every aspect of the forthcoming talks during the A50 period?

 

[dowie]

Yet normally you go into a negotiation with an idea of what you want. Currently there is no idea what that is. Perhaps we will find out in a few months, but the point I was making was that people voted leave, but all those people want different results from leaving - Complete cut, EEA, single market, free movement etc.

You're probably right there, there are multiple different groups. I'm sure people that voted leave could be separated into double digit numbers...

sort of stating the obvious really - and it applies to both leave and remain voters... people have different ideas about brexit just as people have different ideas about the EU and future European integration

 

[dowie]

Same is true for the UK parliament blocking the triggering of Article 50 now there's been a leave vote. But this does not mean Parliament should be bypassed in either case, just because there's a risk of that happening.

It isn't necessarily being bypassed when it isn't really necessary in the first place. And no they shouldn't have an opportunity to block it as has already been pointed out it would defeat the whole point of having a referendum in the first place. They're also not going to be involved in negotiations at that is an executive function. There is little point in involving parliament at this stage other than wishful thinking by angst ridden remain supporters.

I totally get why Leavers want to get on with things. But seriously, do it properly and you will carry most moderate Remainers with you. Do it 'by any means' and there's always going to a schism.

It is being done properly - having some farcical situation where a referendum is potentially ignored or blocked would be an example of not doing it properly - the referendum has already been run, you don't then debate and/or potentially block it after the fact because you don't like the result. It serves no purpose.

 

[Nate--IRL--]

But what's the two year period for if there cannot be any negotiations on anything meaningful during that time and all it will be is the EU saying "we can't talk about that until you've actually left"?

So why are we putting together negotiating teams to cover every aspect of the forthcoming talks during the A50 period?

As I said, a negotiated orderly exit. There are tons of things to negotiate, for both sides, to ensure the exit is not a damaging affair.

It is less that "we can't talk about that until you've actually left", and more that there is so much stuff to unravel and get right first. The EU and UK are deeply intertwined.

If the article 50 negotiations conclude after a week, happy days, start the New Relationship negotiations, but I think even 2 years is optimistic.

Nate

 

[Tefal]

As I said, a negotiated orderly exit. There are tons of things to negotiate, for both sides, to ensure the exit is not a damaging affair.

such as?

 

[Cern]

It isn't necessarily being bypassed when it isn't really necessary in the first place. And no they shouldn't have an opportunity to block it as has already been pointed out it would defeat the whole point of having a referendum in the first place. They're also not going to be involved in negotiations at that is an executive function. There is little point in involving parliament at this stage other than wishful thinking by angst ridden remain supporters.



It is being done properly - having some farcical situation where a referendum is potentially ignored or blocked would be an example of not doing it properly - the referendum has already been run, you don't then debate and/or potentially block it after the fact because you don't like the result. It serves no purpose.

Both the EU and Scottish referendums were advisory. Which part of that isn't clear?

If the government want to rule out the chance of a referendum result being blocked during the ratification process then the referendum needed to be made legally binding from the outset. Which would mean Parliament passing legislation to make it so (and thus waiving the chance to debate the result).

You can think it a farce if you like. Others might think it a farce that a non legally binding referendum becomes law without the involvement of Parliament. Clearly we disagree on what constitutes a farce.

All this banging on about democracy and sovereignty by Leavers. And yet you want to bypass the very embodiment of democracy in this country and disregard parliamentary sovereignty. Such desperate hypocrisy.