UK forum members, BREXIT?

[vodka]

Simply, it can to happen that the EU don't want negociate more and the great bussiness and  corporations get tired and they decide  offshoring.

Or other countries may also end up exiting the EU, and it is the EU itself which disappears, or becomes relatively irrelevant.

Also my apologies, I have not replied to your earlier post, since it has been requested to keep on topic.

Seeing as the british politicians are fighting among them for signing the article 50 . i doubt that  people of  other countries wanted voted for go out the EU

[apis]

Since it is part of a massive deal, for the UK/EU. I would imagine that the "article 50" stage, is an important chance for them to begin to negotiate.
In other words, even while they trigger the "article 50", they can use its imminent initiation, to get some provisional agreement(s). If not, they wait until a better agreement has been made.

First you figure out how to untangle yourself from the EU, then you leave, then you start negotiating new trade deals. You can't begin making new deals until you knew what the situation looks like once the UK have left. And while it's a massive deal for the UK, it's not a massive deal for EU; it's actually a relatively small deal, that is why it will get lower priority than a deal with the US.

After article 50 is triggered the EU and the UK will begin untangling the web of treaties and agreements they already have. That process can take up to 2 years. During that time they will have to figure out things like:

• What to do with the UK citizens living in europoe and the EU citizens living in the UK (about 4.5 million people).
• What to do with reasearch projects in the UK currently funded by the EU.
• How to handle subsidies to UK so half of the farmers in the UK don't go bankrupt over night.
• And so on...

Once that is complete the UK will officially leave the EU. Only then will the UK and the EU be able to begin negotiating new trade agreements and under what conditions the UK can have access to the single market, and so on.

[MK14]

Seeing as the british politicians are fighting among them for signing the article 50 . i doubt that  people of  other countries wanted voted for go out the EU

Who cares what the politicians want. The UK Prime Minister, (pre-brexit), actually wanted  to remain in the EU.

It is the people, and the way they vote that matters. If it is popular among many people, to vote out (e.g. opinion polls).
Then it only takes one party to offer a referendum, if they get elected, to potentially get a referendum and hence their own "brexit", in other countries.

At least some people, me included, are getting angry at stuff like the terrible attack(s) in France. This can make people create their own versions of brexit. But I accept that is a matter of opinion/conjecture. It depends on if the EU or other factors are blamed.

[snipersquad100]

If Margaret Thatcher was still  prime minister, IsIs would now be known as WasWas.

[apis]

This thread was not meant for discussing recent attacks or ISIS, please can we stay broadly on topic and not get out of control.

Good idea.

How about a new mini-poll:

When do you think Article 50 will be triggered?

This year?
Next Year?
2018?
Never?

I would like to see it done sooner rather than later, but not rushed...

I think they should already have done it, but I suspect they never will. I have a feeling they will keep delaying for various reason until there is a new election. During that election the winning party will promise to stay in the EU after all. That way they will get new democratic legitimacy for staying, and then everyone will say it was for the best (which it probably is) and then they will pretend the referendum never happened.

[MK14]

Since it is part of a massive deal, for the UK/EU. I would imagine that the "article 50" stage, is an important chance for them to begin to negotiate.
In other words, even while they trigger the "article 50", they can use its imminent initiation, to get some provisional agreement(s). If not, they wait until a better agreement has been made.

First you figure out how to untangle yourself from the EU, then you leave, then you start negotiating new trade deals. You can't begin making new deals until you knew what the situation looks like once the UK have left. And while it's a massive deal for the UK, it's not a massive deal for EU; it's actually a relatively small deal, that is why it will get lower priority than a deal with the US.

After article 50 is triggered the EU and the UK will begin untangling the web of treaties and agreements they already have. That process can take up to 2 years. During that time they will have to figure out things like:

• What to do with the UK citizens living in europoe and the EU citizens living in the UK (about 4.5 million people).
• What to do with reasearch projects in the UK currently funded by the EU.
• How to handle subsidies to UK so half of the farmers in the UK don't go bankrupt over night.
• And so on...

Once that is complete the UK will officially leave the EU. Only then will the UK and the EU be able to begin negotiating new trade agreements and under what conditions the UK can have access to the single market, and so on.

I'm replying to the bolded section.
My understanding was that the new trade agreements and relationships would be part of the exit agreement.
I.e. The new trade agreements would start up, the instant we "physically" leave the EU.

But I am not brilliant with knowing how the EU works and does things. So I can easily accept being wrong here.

[MK14]

I think they should already have done it, but I suspect they never will. I have a feeling they will keep delaying for various reason until there is a new election. During that election the winning party will promise to stay in the EU after all. That way they will get new democratic legitimacy for staying, and then everyone will say it was for the best (which it probably is) and then they will pretend the referendum never happened.

In principle, the next UK general election, would not be until 2020, and doing "article 50", in 2020 would be a crazily long delay!
Apparently there are some new rules, that make calling an early election much harder. But I'm not very familiar with that stuff.

"Google says:"

The date range for these opinion polls is from after the previous general election, held on 7 May 2015, to the present day. Under fixed-term legislation, the next general election is scheduled to be held on 7 May 2020.

But I knew is was 2020, anyway.

[apis]

So Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson as foreign secretary, that was a bit odd. Not so much that he has insulted people/countries, but will he have the respect of his peers? Seems to me that would be important for a top diplomat. Appears like he is being rewarded by PM May with this position. Can't really make heads or tails of this.

Neither can I.

The least bad explanations that make any sense to me are that she is setting him up to fail (unlikely, since that is setting the UK up to fail), or that she is trying to keep the Tory party together (and bugger the negotiations and UK). More devious (and less likely) explanations can be invented, of course.

The most ridiculous explanation is that he is the best person to represent the UK.

My favorite conspiracy theory at the moment is that the EU and the UK elites planed the brexit all along. Brexit will show everyone that it sucks to leave EU, so support for the EU will go up in the rest of Europe. And once the UK inevitably ask to join again they will loose all the special deals and rebate that was rather unfair to everyone else.  O0

[apis]

Only then will the UK and the EU be able to begin negotiating new trade agreements and under what conditions the UK can have access to the single market, and so on.

I'm replying to the bolded section.
My understanding was that the new trade agreements and relationships would be part of the exit agreement.
I.e. The new trade agreements would start up, the instant we "physically" leave the EU.

But I am not brilliant with knowing how the EU works and does things. So I can easily accept being wrong here.

I'm no expert either but it's what the EU trade commissioner has said:

Britain will not be able to start talks on a new trade arrangement with the EU until other aspects of its exit have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström has said.

“There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is,” she said.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

[MK14]

Britain will not be able to start talks on a new trade arrangement with the EU until other aspects of its exit have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström has said.

“There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is,” she said.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

That makes a very big difference. Some voters might be annoyed at not knowing/realizing that, before they voted. Because in the meantime, UK companies may leave and/or not come to the UK, during the transitioning period.

I thought it was/is going to be a seamless process. Where by the instant the existing EU membership ends, we start up the new trade agreements etc.

[doobedoobedo]

Only then will the UK and the EU be able to begin negotiating new trade agreements and under what conditions the UK can have access to the single market, and so on.

I'm replying to the bolded section.
My understanding was that the new trade agreements and relationships would be part of the exit agreement.
I.e. The new trade agreements would start up, the instant we "physically" leave the EU.

But I am not brilliant with knowing how the EU works and does things. So I can easily accept being wrong here.

I'm no expert either but it's what the EU trade commissioner has said:

Britain will not be able to start talks on a new trade arrangement with the EU until other aspects of its exit have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström has said.

“There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is,” she said.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

She has one massive dose of sour grapes. You should use the EU's democratic process to get rid of her - Oh you can't 

Do you really believe that the major EU countries who are net exporters to the UK would allow what she says to happen?

[doobedoobedo]

Seeing as the british politicians are fighting among them for signing the article 50 . i doubt that  people of  other countries wanted voted for go out the EU

Who cares what the politicians want. The UK Prime Minister, (pre-brexit), actually wanted  to remain in the EU.

It is the people, and the way they vote that matters. If it is popular among many people, to vote out (e.g. opinion polls).
Then it only takes one party to offer a referendum, if they get elected, to potentially get a referendum and hence their own "brexit", in other countries.

At least some people, me included, are getting angry at stuff like the terrible attack(s) in France. This can make people create their own versions of brexit. But I accept that is a matter of opinion/conjecture. It depends on if the EU or other factors are blamed.

The EU really doesn't like referendums they very often give the wrong answer. Which in other countries means you have to keep having them until you get the right answer.

[apis]

Only then will the UK and the EU be able to begin negotiating new trade agreements and under what conditions the UK can have access to the single market, and so on.

I'm replying to the bolded section.
My understanding was that the new trade agreements and relationships would be part of the exit agreement.
I.e. The new trade agreements would start up, the instant we "physically" leave the EU.

But I am not brilliant with knowing how the EU works and does things. So I can easily accept being wrong here.

I'm no expert either but it's what the EU trade commissioner has said:

Britain will not be able to start talks on a new trade arrangement with the EU until other aspects of its exit have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström has said.

“There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is,” she said.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

She has one massive dose of sour grapes. You should use the EU's democratic process to get rid of her - Oh you can't 

Yes we can, the elected EU parliament can get rid of the commission if they want. And it looks a lot more democratic than the UK parliament to be honest.

Do you really believe that the major EU countries who are net exporters to the UK would allow what she says to happen?

She is from a country who are net exporters to the UK. The EU owe it to its own citizens to get as good deal as possible from the UK. The UK are the ones with the most to loose so they will not be in a position to make demands. 50% of UK trade is with the EU but only about 10% of EU total trade is with the UK.

No one in EU wanted this, but this is what the reality is, and now they will have to deal with it.

[tggzzz]

I thought it was/is going to be a seamless process. Where by the instant the existing EU membership ends, we start up the new trade agreements etc.

And the penny begins to drop. We are going to be crucified, pour encourager les autres.

[MT]

So Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson as foreign secretary, that was a bit odd. Not so much that he has insulted people/countries, but will he have the respect of his peers? Seems to me that would be important for a top diplomat. Appears like he is being rewarded by PM May with this position. Can't really make heads or tails of this.

Neither can I.

The least bad explanations that make any sense to me are that she is setting him up to fail (unlikely, since that is setting the UK up to fail), or that she is trying to keep the Tory party together (and bugger the negotiations and UK). More devious (and less likely) explanations can be invented, of course.
The most ridiculous explanation is that he is the best person to represent the UK.

I also put a pund bill behind he was appointed to finally ruin himself of any future political positions. After all he did win 'most offensive Erdogan poem' competition and he called Hillary a bitchy dragon or something similar.

The people of the UK has spoken, and she will just execute their will. Not a big deal. She cannot be blamed if the Brexit turns out to be a catastrophe as the people of the UK has specifically asked for it.

Our politicians should be leaders of public opinion, not followers of public opinion.

and what to do when the public opinion is wrong?

[doobedoobedo]

Only then will the UK and the EU be able to begin negotiating new trade agreements and under what conditions the UK can have access to the single market, and so on.

I'm replying to the bolded section.
My understanding was that the new trade agreements and relationships would be part of the exit agreement.
I.e. The new trade agreements would start up, the instant we "physically" leave the EU.

But I am not brilliant with knowing how the EU works and does things. So I can easily accept being wrong here.

I'm no expert either but it's what the EU trade commissioner has said:

Britain will not be able to start talks on a new trade arrangement with the EU until other aspects of its exit have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström has said.

“There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is,” she said.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

She has one massive dose of sour grapes. You should use the EU's democratic process to get rid of her - Oh you can't 

Yes we can, the elected EU parliament can get rid of the commission if they want. And it looks a lot more democratic than the UK parliament to be honest.

Do you really believe that the major EU countries who are net exporters to the UK would allow what she says to happen?

She is from a country who are net exporters to the UK. The EU owe it to its own citizens to get as good deal as possible from the UK. The UK are the ones with the most to loose so they will not be in a position to make demands. 50% of UK trade is with the EU but only about 10% of EU total trade is with the UK.

No one in EU wanted this, but this is what the reality is, and now they will have to deal with it.

Where she's from is irrelevant.

And if you think the whole EU is in it together, you're more deluded than I thought.
The southern countries won't last much longer. Italy's banks are in the pan. The Deutsche Bank Greek bailout with your money has to end at some point.

[MK14]

I thought it was/is going to be a seamless process. Where by the instant the existing EU membership ends, we start up the new trade agreements etc.

And the penny begins to drop. We are going to be crucified, pour encourager sites.

Brexit is a major change, so I've always realized that if we leave, there are likely to be a number of major and significant changes, at least some of which may (even badly) affect me. Anyway (ignoring my own vote), I have had no real control (1 vote yes, but out of 10's of millions) on the overall outcome. Because of the tens of millions of voters.

I just hope that overall, things end up for the best, for as many people as it can, if not everyone.

Even with a normal election (ignoring the way voting is split into constituencies/regions, which complicates the voting), maybe 60% of people vote for the winning government/Prime Minister and the other 40% don't. So you will have 40% of the population potentially being very unhappy with the government, for the next 5 years, after an election.
tl;dr
That's life I guess!

[doobedoobedo]

@MT: aren't Portugal about to be fined for insufficient destruction of their economy EU imposed austerity measures?

[apis]

[MK14]

That's brilliant!
So true, so so true!

[tggzzz]

The people of the UK has spoken, and she will just execute their will. Not a big deal. She cannot be blamed if the Brexit turns out to be a catastrophe as the people of the UK has specifically asked for it.

Our politicians should be leaders of public opinion, not followers of public opinion.

and what to do when the public opinion is wrong?

That's a separate issue.

[Howardlong]

Only then will the UK and the EU be able to begin negotiating new trade agreements and under what conditions the UK can have access to the single market, and so on.

I'm replying to the bolded section.
My understanding was that the new trade agreements and relationships would be part of the exit agreement.
I.e. The new trade agreements would start up, the instant we "physically" leave the EU.

But I am not brilliant with knowing how the EU works and does things. So I can easily accept being wrong here.

I'm no expert either but it's what the EU trade commissioner has said:

Britain will not be able to start talks on a new trade arrangement with the EU until other aspects of its exit have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström has said.

“There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is,” she said.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

Cecila Malmstrom, the unelected (but nominated, bless) trade commissioner, is the epitomy of everything that is wrong with the EU. Have you read the proposals for TTIP for example? No, because you can't. So much for accountability, transaparency and representation. She can, she's the unelected head honcho, but your elected MEP can't, not unless they lock themselves away in a room without phones and cameras or copying equipment. And you and me, no. Journalists, no.  Stuffed. We are not allowed to know anything of is agreement until it's a done deal.

This, from the most pro-EU media outlet in UK.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ttip-controversy-the-european-commission-and-big-tobacco-accused-of-cover-up-after-heavily-redacted-10473601.html

[tggzzz]

Only then will the UK and the EU be able to begin negotiating new trade agreements and under what conditions the UK can have access to the single market, and so on.

I'm replying to the bolded section.
My understanding was that the new trade agreements and relationships would be part of the exit agreement.
I.e. The new trade agreements would start up, the instant we "physically" leave the EU.

But I am not brilliant with knowing how the EU works and does things. So I can easily accept being wrong here.

I'm no expert either but it's what the EU trade commissioner has said:

Britain will not be able to start talks on a new trade arrangement with the EU until other aspects of its exit have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström has said.

“There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is,” she said.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/cecilia-malmstrom-eu-trade-commissioner-brexit-uk-wto

Cecila Malmstrom, the unelected (but nominated, bless) trade commissioner, is the epitomy of everything that is wrong with the EU. Have you read the proposals for TTIP for example? No, because you can't. So much for accountability, transaparency and representation. She can, she's the unelected head honcho, but your elected MEP can't, not unless they lock themselves away in a room without phones and cameras or copying equipment. And you and me, no. Journalists, no.  Stuffed. We are not allowed to know anything of is agreement until it's a done deal.

This, from the most pro-EU media outlet in UK.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ttip-controversy-the-european-commission-and-big-tobacco-accused-of-cover-up-after-heavily-redacted-10473601.html

In ways that matter to me (as opposed to, say, a sovereign and hangers on), the TTIP is a far greater threat to "sovereignty" than the EU. Outside the EU we will have to bend over and accept the TTIP.

[jancumps]

I thought it was/is going to be a seamless process. Where by the instant the existing EU membership ends, we start up the new trade agreements etc.

And the penny begins to drop. We are going to be crucified, pour encourager les autres.

No, you won't. There will be a deal that is a compromise for all - and most likely the best possible that can be agreed upon given the *rules and regulations*.
I don't think there will be presents though.


(I also think that, even though some parties say that there can be no pre-negotiations before submitting A.50, that the backroom negotiations are already at full speed)

[tggzzz]

(I also think that, even though some parties say that there can be no pre-negotiations before submitting A.50, that the backroom negotiations are already at full speed)

I would expect that to be the case. If the UK government could have discussions with the IRA during the troubles, it really ought to be possible to have them with the 27!