Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

I think the likelihood of a second referendum low but not out of the question.  Consider these scenarios:

(1) HMG negotiates with the EU Commission and Other Member States but can't get enough of what it wants and there is insufficient support within the Cabinet to advocate 'the deal' to Parliament, devolved administrations and the electorate.   What then? Leave anyway with an exit package that HMG clearly thinks isn't in the UK's interests just because the people voted out on (a pretty blind) referendum?

(2) HMG negotiates a deal which it thinks is acceptable but - as seems to be the current plan - keeps the negotiations under wraps so there's a 'big reveal' just before the deal has to be presented to Parliament and it turns out there are too many downsides in the package for others and HMG can't muster a majority to get the bill through the House.  Constitutional stalemate.  What then? 

Giving the electorate another chance to vote on the issue would be a plausible and justifiable means of breaking the impasse in both scenarios.  

I seem to recall at least one post on here where leave voters were referred to as "quitters". Arguably as, or more, offensive as "remoaners". Neither is excusable, necessary or beneficial.

Willy.

Willy,

I hasten to add that the term "Remoaners" was not coined by anyone on this forum although a couple of people in the forum have used the term in their posts. It was coined by a politician (I can't remember whom) on the 'Leave' side as a pejorative reference to those who had lost the referendum, but refused to actively support the act of 'Brexit' itself.  

Hmack posted:

Willy,

I hasten to add that the term "Remoaners" was not coined by anyone on this forum although a couple of people in the forum have used the term in their posts. It was coined by a politician (I can't remember whom) on the 'Leave' side as a pejorative reference to those who had lost the referendum, but refused to actively support the act of 'Brexit' itself.  

 

Hmack,

Wasn't suggested it had been, and I don't imagine "quitters" was coined here either. Just wished to make the point that the name calling is happening on both sides of the Brexit divide. 

On a personal level "quitter" is probably the least offensive offensive thing I've been called over the years. 

Willy.

MDS posted:

I think the likelihood of a second referendum low but not out of the question.  Consider these scenarios:

(1) HMG negotiates with the EU Commission and Other Member States but can't get enough of what it wants and there is insufficient support within the Cabinet to advocate 'the deal' to Parliament, devolved administrations and the electorate.   What then? Leave anyway with an exit package that HMG clearly thinks isn't in the UK's interests just because the people voted out on (a pretty blind) referendum?

(2) HMG negotiates a deal which it thinks is acceptable but - as seems to be the current plan - keeps the negotiations under wraps so there's a 'big reveal' just before the deal has to be presented to Parliament and it turns out there are too many downsides in the package for others and HMG can't muster a majority to get the bill through the House.  Constitutional stalemate.  What then? 

Giving the electorate another chance to vote on the issue would be a plausible and justifiable means of breaking the impasse in both scenarios.  

I think you will find that, by definition, once article 50 is triggered, the UK is out of the EU. From that point onwards it's about what relationships can be negotiated and agreed upon on the various levels. If agreements are not reached the UK still stays out. There is no option of parliament or the electorate to reverse the decision, the UK is then left with what's in place or not. The whole idea that the outcome of the negotiations can be put up for a vote / approval sounds good from a UK perspective but it doesn't change the fact that by that time the UK will have left the EU. A decision which is irreversible in the medium to long term. In order to enter the EU again, the UK would have to take up new negotiations for entering the EU, same as any other country that wanted to join. That process will likely take years too. Nor can a deal be voted upon before article 50 has been triggered because again, by definition, no negotiations can begin prior to triggering article 50. The only solution is to reverse the decision to leave before article 50 is triggered, which seems unlikely as no deal can be presented to vote on before triggering article 50.

Frank F posted:

The big problems with EU are the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission.  They all interfere with the existing National Standards which are much higher than the majority of  the Member States and appear to be out of control.

Do you mean to suggest the the UK national standards (laws) or workers rights (protection) are were higher in the UK before joining the EU or indeed will be stronger once the UK has left the EU? I'd be very surprised, if that were true.

Finally, I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that loosing the single market only means that UK will have to negotiate individually with each Member State (and the rest of the World).  In this way UKI can concentrate on buying good Spanish vegetables, excellent Polish apples and good produce from the rest of the World and then forget the inefficient common agricultural policy that supports poor standards and chemically grown produce.

The UK will not be able to negotiate separate bilateral agreements with EU member states. It can only negotiate with the EU as a whole, i.e. gaining access to the EU market or not. Same for any other country.

Don Atkinson posted:

 

I consider the Belgian Region that is blocking the Ceta deal is acting democratically. However, I consider it a stupid arrangement whereby  c.3m people can bugger up the sensible wishes of c.508m + c.33m, but hey-ho that's the way the EU goes !

In order for CETA to be ratified all 28 EU members have to approve and sign the treaty. In the case of Belgium its decentralised federal system means that the Belgium government needs the support from all of its five regional authorities before it can sign off any deal. This is an issue pertaining to the form of government in Belgium and has nothing to do with the EU as such.

Whether signing CETA is a sensible wish, let alone the wish of the majority of the EU population is an entirely different question. I am not so sure the answer here is yes. One of the reasons the Walloons decided to vote agains CETA is the whole issue surrounding Investor State Dispute Settlements. If not addressed, it will enable Canadian and US corporations to sue any EU member state or the EU as a whole through the usage of arbitration courts for loss of earnings due to political decisions taken or laws passed, which have had or might have a direct or indirect influence on their investment. Ultimately this will lead to a dilution of the strong environmental, health and social standards that presently exist across the EU. It could also easily lead to a situation where certain laws are not passed because Canadian or US lobby groups are threatening to sue in case they are passed, thereby influencing the political decision making process across the EU. 

Personally, I think it was a good thing for the Walloons to withhold their support as it led to a renewed focus on this issue and hopefully to a more stringent amendment of this particular area. I don't believe it's a good thing for multinational corporations to be able to sue governments for wanting to improve or protect the lives of their citizens. Others might disagree.

Eloise posted:

The UK has never wanted to embrace the EU project.  Its always wanted the advantages without playing a full part.  The whole "£350 million to EU each week" was a classic example.  The EU as a whole has been looking to improve Europe for the whole - the UK has always been what can the EU do to improve us and now we are seeing less concrete advantages its like "right you've helped us get back on our feet, now we're happy you can go **** yourselves cause you don't do exactly what we want you to".  There was (however) more chance of the EU reforming to be better for the UK when we were part of the EU. 

At least this seems to be the view of most continental Europeans. Mine too. When has any UK government ever praised the advantages of being part of the EU, its values, goals and vision for Europe? What being a part of it has done to the growth of the UK since joining, what disadvantaged areas have been supported by and benefitted from the EU regional development policy and fund? First Cameron spent the majority of his time criticising the EU and then expected people to vote remain. A strange concept. 

Frank F posted:

"The UK has never wanted to embrace the EU project.  Its always wanted the advantages without playing a full part.  The whole "£350 million to EU each week" was a classic example.  The EU as a whole has been looking to improve Europe for the whole - the UK has always been what can the EU do to improve us and now we are seeing less concrete advantages its like "right you've helped us get back on our feet, now we're happy you can go **** yourselves cause you don't do exactly what we want you to".  There was (however) more chance of the EU reforming to be better for the UK when we were part of the EU."

Eloise - substitute Germany where you wrote UK and that is nearer the mark.

 

Honestly, I'd be interested in your reasoning here.

Frank F posted:

To change the perspective, I met met a colleague from Greece last night and we talked about the Crisis that is continuing.  The main reason for the lingering crisis was corrupt politicians being seduced by certain influential industries to buy major products such as arms.

He now calls Greece - Merkelistan.

FF

In a nutshell, the main reason for the crisis in Greece was that by joining the EU in 2001 (something Greece should never have been allowed to do as they faked their financial accounts with the help of Goldman Sachs to get below the 3% of GDP deficit target) Greece was able to borrow money at roughly 5% interest rates, whereas in the years prior to joining that cost was at double digits. That cheap money went everywhere, increases in government salaries, public spending, etc. leading to salaries across the country that had no relevance to the country's actual productivity. The deficit was up at 12.6% of GDP in 2009 as opposed to the 6% the Greek government had previously stated. Confidence within the financial markets dropped, interest rates for government bonds (cost of borrowing) shot up to over 30% starting in 2010 as a result. The euro crisis had arrived. So a lot of Greek mismanagement there. Add to that a complete inability or should I say non existent ability to collect taxes from the entire Greek population, particularly the rich, and you have the recipe for a bankrupt Greek state. 

But hey, let's blame Merkel. Of course it's her fault that a whole series of Greek governments were incompetent at best, if not downright criminally corrupt. And just for the record, I am no friend of Merkel. What I do agree on, though, is that the Greek national debt has to be slashed, otherwise the country will not be able to recover. I am pretty sure that those negotiations will come, probably at some point after the 2017 general election here in Germany. As usual the tax payer will once again have to pick up the bill when it should have been the banks. 

totemphile posted:

I think you will find that, by definition, once article 50 is triggered, the UK is out of the EU. From that point onwards it's about what relationships can be negotiated and agreed upon on the various levels. If agreements are not reached the UK still stays out. There is no option of parliament or the electorate to reverse the decision, the UK is then left with what's in place or not.

The wording of Article 50 is clear to me. A Nation deciding to leave shall notify its intention to do so. The use of the word intention is such that a change of intention is possible. This is the view also expressed by Donald Tusk.

However, I accept that Lawyers in UK Courts are arguing this matter and the UK view as I understand will need to be decided by The Supreme Court. I'm not clear whether any EU Organisation has expressed a view as to how these words are to be interpreted.

These things are never as clear-cut as they should be.

totemphile posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

I consider the Belgian Region that is blocking the Ceta deal is acting democratically. However, I consider it a stupid arrangement whereby  c.3m people can bugger up the sensible wishes of c.508m + c.33m, but hey-ho that's the way the EU goes !

In order for CETA to be ratified all 28 EU members have to approve and sign the treaty. In the case of Belgium its decentralised federal system means that the Belgium government needs the support from all of its five regional authorities before it can sign off any deal. This is an issue pertaining to the form of government in Belgium and has nothing to do with the EU as such.

I was well aware of the process that you outlined, but thank you anyway.

Whether signing CETA is a sensible wish, let alone the wish of the majority of the EU population is an entirely different question. I am not so sure the answer here is yes. One of the reasons the Walloons decided to vote agains CETA is the whole issue surrounding Investor State Dispute Settlements. If not addressed, it will enable Canadian and US corporations to sue any EU member state or the EU as a whole through the usage of arbitration courts for loss of earnings due to political decisions taken or laws passed, which have had or might have a direct or indirect influence on their investment. Ultimately this will lead to a dilution of the strong environmental, health and social standards that presently exist across the EU. It could also easily lead to a situation where certain laws are not passed because Canadian or US lobby groups are threatening to sue in case they are passed, thereby influencing the political decision making process across the EU. 

Again, thank you for highlighting the reason the Walloons withheld their support. Fortunately it appears the issue has been resolved. I'm not convinced that ALL the Wallons were in agreement on this issue, or any other aspect of Ceta, but it does illustrate however, just how a very small section of the EU community can (and in future could) disrupt the reasonable wishes of the rest of the Community.

Personally, I think it was a good thing for the Walloons to withhold their support as it led to a renewed focus on this issue and hopefully to a more stringent amendment of this particular area. I don't believe it's a good thing for multinational corporations to be able to sue governments for wanting to improve or protect the lives of their citizens. Others might disagree.

totemphile posted:

MDS posted:

I think the likelihood of a second referendum low but not out of the question.  Consider these scenarios:

(1) HMG negotiates with the EU Commission and Other Member States but can't get enough of what it wants and there is insufficient support within the Cabinet to advocate 'the deal' to Parliament, devolved administrations and the electorate.   What then? Leave anyway with an exit package that HMG clearly thinks isn't in the UK's interests just because the people voted out on (a pretty blind) referendum?

(2) HMG negotiates a deal which it thinks is acceptable but - as seems to be the current plan - keeps the negotiations under wraps so there's a 'big reveal' just before the deal has to be presented to Parliament and it turns out there are too many downsides in the package for others and HMG can't muster a majority to get the bill through the House.  Constitutional stalemate.  What then? 

Giving the electorate another chance to vote on the issue would be a plausible and justifiable means of breaking the impasse in both scenarios.  

I think you will find that, by definition, once article 50 is triggered, the UK is out of the EU. From that point onwards it's about what relationships can be negotiated and agreed upon on the various levels. If agreements are not reached the UK still stays out. There is no option of parliament or the electorate to reverse the decision, the UK is then left with what's in place or not. The whole idea that the outcome of the negotiations can be put up for a vote / approval sounds good from a UK perspective but it doesn't change the fact that by that time the UK will have left the EU. A decision which is irreversible in the medium to long term. In order to enter the EU again, the UK would have to take up new negotiations for entering the EU, same as any other country that wanted to join. That process will likely take years too. Nor can a deal be voted upon before article 50 has been triggered because again, by definition, no negotiations can begin prior to triggering article 50. The only solution is to reverse the decision to leave before article 50 is triggered, which seems unlikely as no deal can be presented to vote on before triggering article 50.

I don't think it is that binary, totemphile.  The UK's referendum to leave takes the EU into unknown territory (I think Iceland's previous decision to leave isn't comparable ).  If there were the prospect of the UK changing its mind, given the size of its economy and that it is a net contributor to the EU, I'm pretty confident that the other member states and the EU commission would move heaven and earth to find a device to enable the UK to withdraw from its activation of Article 50.  Politicians are nothing is not pragmatic and would surely be able to adjust the Treaty to accommodate what all the member states want. 

Can somebody tell me who decided on my behalf to ratify the CETA agreement.

fatcat posted:

Can somebody tell me who decided on my behalf to ratify the CETA agreement.

Probably the EU Parliament or the Council of Ministers on the recommendation of the Commission. But someone who knows about these thing will provide a more useful and hopefully correct statement.

You might (or might not) have voted for an MEP in some form of PR ballot and an MEP was selected on your behalf, depending on just how many other people voted the way you did. Quite a lot of people voted for UKIP MEPs, but they weren't the MEPs that represented me.

MDS posted:

I don't think it is that binary, totemphile.  The UK's referendum to leave takes the EU into unknown territory (I think Iceland's previous decision to leave isn't comparable ).  If there were the prospect of the UK changing its mind, given the size of its economy and that it is a net contributor to the EU, I'm pretty confident that the other member states and the EU commission would move heaven and earth to find a device to enable the UK to withdraw from its activation of Article 50.  Politicians are nothing is not pragmatic and would surely be able to adjust the Treaty to accommodate what all the member states want. 

I hope you are right because I genuinely believe it is in the interest of Britain to stay in and also in the interest of the EU for you guys to remain. Today I read an article that Goldman Sachs believe the Pound is going to devalue a further 10% at least, which would bring it almost down to parity with the Euro. Maybe that'll swing the mood, after all it could lead to Marmite disappearing from all supermarket shelves, not just Tesco's  On a more serious note, though, if this were to happen and remain the long term exchange level, it would have repercussions not just for people in the UK but the whole of Europe - that's a drastic shift. That's just one example of a more noticeable consequence, albeit not one of the main reasons to remain from my point of view.  

Your thinking poses a dilemma, if the UK were to be allowed to stay in after article 50 has been triggered, it would set a precedent and before you know it every country not happy could want to go down this route, i.e. bargaining hard until it gets what it wants, no matter the consequences. I don't think that's a valid form of negotiation within the EU, not least because the amount of time and resources, this will tie up. It is beyond what's acceptable. The whole of the EU will pretty much be tied down by this for two years at least. So the EU is stuck between a rock and a hard place, it can't give in. Hence, I am not that optimistic, I think once article 50 is triggered the UK is out, there is too much at stake. I hope I am wrong, only time will tell. 

Don Atkinson posted:

The use of the word intention is such that a change of intention is possible. This is the view also expressed by Donald Tusk.

....

These things are never as clear-cut as they should be.

 

Interesting. However, I remain sceptical for the reasons outlined above. But I agree, things probably aren't clear cut. 

Don Atkinson posted:

Fortunately it appears the issue has been resolved. I'm not convinced that ALL the Wallons were in agreement on this issue, or any other aspect of Ceta, but it does illustrate however, just how a very small section of the EU community can (and in future could) disrupt the reasonable wishes of the rest of the Community.

It seems so indeed, whether truly resolved is another question but who knows. Nobody is in agreement on this issue or any other aspect of CETA, I don't think, least of all the general public. I certainly don't want CETA, I don't think it will be good for the people of Europe, same with TTIP. Both agreements are primarily for large corporates with very little tangible benefits for the common people. The figures quoted showing a boost to the economy overall are questionable AFAIK. 

On your last point, I don't agree that it shows how "a very small section of the EU community can (and in future could) disrupt the reasonable wishes of the rest of the community". This can only happen on matters where all 28 countries have to agree unanimously. Not every decision in the EU falls into that bracket. However, a far reaching trade agreement does. Thankfully. 

totemphile posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Fortunately it appears the issue has been resolved. I'm not convinced that ALL the Wallons were in agreement on this issue, or any other aspect of Ceta, but it does illustrate however, just how a very small section of the EU community can (and in future could) disrupt the reasonable wishes of the rest of the Community.

 

It seems so indeed, whether truly resolved is another question but who knows. Nobody is in agreement on this issue or any other aspect of CETA, I don't think, least of all the general public. I certainly don't want CETA, I don't think it will be good for the people of Europe, same with TTIP. Both agreements are primarily for large corporates with very little tangible benefits for the common people. The figures quoted showing a boost to the economy overall are questionable AFAIK. 

On your last point, I don't agree that it shows how "a very small section of the EU community can (and in future could) disrupt the reasonable wishes of the rest of the community". This can only happen on matters where all 28 countries have to agree unanimously. Not every decision in the EU falls into that bracket. However, a far reaching trade agreement does. Thankfully. 

 

 

Yes. I didn't think it was necessary to state that, since we are really discussing the UK exit from the EU, and that does require a unanimous agreement regarding any Agreement. Although I'm not sure if EACH element of the Agreement need a unanimous vote, or just the overall Agreement.

Article 50 was written, AFAICT, so that the remaining EU members (27 now, but a lot fewer when the Treaty was drafted) couldn't prevent the departure. The departing member could leave after two years regardless of Agreement or not.

Rather ironically, (I seem to recall reading somewhere that) Article 50 was drafted by a Brit !!!

totemphile posted:

I hope you are right because I genuinely believe it is in the interest of Britain to stay in and also in the interest of the EU for you guys to remain. Today I read an article that Goldman Sachs believe the Pound is going to devalue a further 10% at least, which would bring it almost down to parity with the Euro. Maybe that'll swing the mood,

 

I'm no longer convinced that a decision now, not to leave after all, would reverse the devaluation of the ££.

I still consider the decision by the Conservatives to press ahead with leaving, is madness gone beserk, and would like to see a reversion to sensibility. But I consider the ££ would still take years to stabilise and recover somewhat. It usually takes more time for confidence to be regained than it takes to be lost.

PS. i'm not suggesting that ALL Brexit Voters  are mad or beserk or were duped by lies.

Don Atkinson posted:

Yes. I didn't think it was necessary to state that, since we are really discussing the UK exit from the EU, and that does require a unanimous agreement regarding any Agreement. Although I'm not sure if EACH element of the Agreement need a unanimous vote, or just the overall Agreement.

Ah, sorry, didn't read your comment to mean that you were referring to the UK exit from the EU only.

With regards to unanimous vote or not I found this:

"During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or decisions on its own withdrawal. On the EU side, the agreement would be negotiated by the European Commission following a mandate from EU ministers and concluded by EU governments “acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.” This means that the European Parliament would be an additional unpredictable factor in striking a deal.

However, if the final agreement cuts across policy areas within the preserve of the member states, such as certain elements of services, transport and investment protection – as many recent EU FTAs have done (for example with Peru and with Columbia) – it will be classed as a ‘mixed agreement’ and require additional ratification by every national parliament in the EU. The EU Treaties would also need to be amended to reflect the UK’s departure. In effect, this means that the final deal at the end of a negotiated UK exit from the EU would need to be ratified by EU leaders via a qualified majority vote, a majority in the European Parliament and by the remaining 27 national parliaments across the EU."

Source: http://openeurope.org.uk/today...plaining-article-50/

Article 50 was written, AFAICT, so that the remaining EU members (27 now, but a lot fewer when the Treaty was drafted) couldn't prevent the departure. The departing member could leave after two years regardless of Agreement or not.

Rather ironically, (I seem to recall reading somewhere that) Article 50 was drafted by a Brit !!!

Interesting.

Don Atkinson posted:

I'm no longer convinced that a decision now, not to leave after all, would reverse the devaluation of the ££.

I still consider the decision by the Conservatives to press ahead with leaving, is madness gone beserk, and would like to see a reversion to sensibility. But I consider the ££ would still take years to stabilise and recover somewhat. It usually takes more time for confidence to be regained than it takes to be lost.

PS. i'm not suggesting that ALL Brexit Voters  are mad or beserk or were duped by lies.

I think ultimately none of the promises of the Brexit camp will come to fruition and Britain will be worse off economically. So yes, it is madness gone berserk...

No. EU as it is will collapse anyway. in the end there will be no room for self entiteld leaders. after we trialed Verhofstad, Juncker and the lot at Den Haag we will build up again.. and i hope with our good friends and inspiration the British on board.

Well Chico, that is the view of some of my fellow instructors here, who voted to leave. They feel that we will be better off leaving before the EU falls appart.

A new, "re-formed" Europe might be a possibility. But if so, I think it is a long, long way into the future.

I was less than impressed by the childish response of Junkers (phffff !) to a question put by a journalist a few days ago. It undermines any argument that the EU is in any way mature.

Having just re-read my post above, I feel I should clarify.

I voted to Remain.

I would support a move whereby:-

the Gov research the benefits of Leave v Remain taking into account the Opinion Poll (aka Referendum)

we open discussion with the EU indicating an "Intention to Leave" (assuming the research confirmed that would be in our best interest), trigger Article 50 and use Donald Tusk's statement that Article 50 is not irrevocable.

we reserve the right (for the sake of clarity regarding Tusk's statement) to withdraw the Notification of Intention to Leave if negotiations lead towards a conclusion that this would be best.

I have no qualms whatsoever that our politicians should engage expert advice and make decisions on our behalf, especially on this major issue where the country is so narrowly divided and the electorate was asked to cast it's vote based on poorly presented factual information, clouded by scare-mongering and lies.

I hear people suggesting this would lead to an extended period of uncertainty. Piffle. We are already in an extended period of uncertainty which could easily extend beyond the two years following Article 50 trigger.

I also hear people whinging that a 51% majority is sacrosanct. It isn't.