Brexit

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I would accept the a deal the same as the Canadian one but I doubt that can be ironed out in two years.

Yeah, their negotiations began in 2009. Found a little summary of the key benefits the EU says it'll get from that deal:

- remove customs duties
- help make European firms more competitive in Canada
- make it easier for EU firms to bid for Canadian public contracts
- open up the Canadian services market to EU companies
- open up markets for European food and drink exports
- protect traditional European food and drink products (known as Geographical Indications) from being copied
- cut EU exporters' costs without cutting standards
- benefit small and medium-sized EU firms
- benefit EU consumers
- make it easier for European professionals to work in Canada
- allow for the mutual recognition of some qualifications
- create predictable conditions for both EU and Canadian investors
- make it easier for European firms to invest in Canada
- help Europe's creative industries, innovators and artists
- support people's rights at work and the environment.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-foc ... explained/

more heat than light wrote:So, if remoaners gotta remoan, what do leavers have to do?

...be racist xenophobes?

I've just read this on the BBC site in reference to what article 50 says.

It's pretty short - just five paragraphs - which spell out that any EU member state may decide to quit the EU, that it must notify the European Council and negotiate its withdrawal with the EU, that there are two years to reach an agreement - unless everyone agrees to extend it - and that the exiting state cannot take part in EU internal discussions about its departure.
It says any exit deal must be approved by a "qualified majority" (72% of the remaining 27 EU states, representing 65% of the population) but must also get the backing of MEPs. The fifth paragraph raises the possibility of a state wanting to rejoin the EU having left it - that will be considered under Article 49.
It was written by the Scottish cross-bench peer Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. He has said he thought it would be most likely used in the event of a coup in a member state and had never imagined it being used for Brexit. The full text can be found here.

What's interesting about this is that a deal agreed in the next two years only need a 'qualified majority' to agree on it. Where'as the Canadian deal needed I believe 100% agreement. My assumption is once the two years are up that we would need 100% agreement for any deal.

Karl wrote:OK, I'm going to block you from posting in this thread now. It's not for your point of view - there are plenty of Leave voters in this thread - it's for posting in a really rude and obnoxious way. We allow banter and strongly-worded arguments, but if we tell you to knock it off then we expect you to knock it off, and you haven't.

Everyone else: please move on and don't reply to his posts or discuss the fact that he's been blocked, as he can't reply and it's not fair on him. If anyone has a problem with this, please take it to a thread in Feedback. Cheers.

This was on the last page. I specifically asked for this thread to move on. My request was ignored, and I just had to delete an abusive post aimed at the member in question. I am now quite annoyed. I don't have time to babysit this thread all day, so if it happens again I'll be throwing bans around.

Garth wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I would accept the a deal the same as the Canadian one but I doubt that can be ironed out in two years.

Yeah, their negotiations began in 2009. Found a little summary of the key benefits the EU says it'll get from that deal:

- remove customs duties
- help make European firms more competitive in Canada
- make it easier for EU firms to bid for Canadian public contracts
- open up the Canadian services market to EU companies
- open up markets for European food and drink exports
- protect traditional European food and drink products (known as Geographical Indications) from being copied
- cut EU exporters' costs without cutting standards
- benefit small and medium-sized EU firms
- benefit EU consumers
- make it easier for European professionals to work in Canada
- allow for the mutual recognition of some qualifications
- create predictable conditions for both EU and Canadian investors
- make it easier for European firms to invest in Canada
- help Europe's creative industries, innovators and artists
- support people's rights at work and the environment.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-foc ... explained/

The whole thing was also nearly scuppered by a single region in Belgium. That's the kind of obstacles UK negotiators need to overcome in less than a quarter of the time.

I'm sick and tired of Bridgend wankers coming to my city and vomiting on my pavements. I think we should take back control and stop them coming over here whenever they like and doing whatever they want. A quick passport check on the 10pm service from Newport to Carmarthen should do it.

This isn't a question, I just wanted to let you know of my views.

Karl wrote:

Karl wrote:OK, I'm going to block you from posting in this thread now. It's not for your point of view - there are plenty of Leave voters in this thread - it's for posting in a really rude and obnoxious way. We allow banter and strongly-worded arguments, but if we tell you to knock it off then we expect you to knock it off, and you haven't.

Everyone else: please move on and don't reply to his posts or discuss the fact that he's been blocked, as he can't reply and it's not fair on him. If anyone has a problem with this, please take it to a thread in Feedback. Cheers.

This was on the last page. I specifically asked for this thread to move on. My request was ignored, and I just had to delete an abusive post aimed at the member in question. I am now quite annoyed. I don't have time to babysit this thread all day, so if it happens again I'll be throwing bans around.

Indeed, it seems like some can't tell the difference between being left, right, centre, spinning or upside down, and acting like a huge banana split. I'm not going to waste my time scooting around with bum wipes either.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I've just read this on the BBC site in reference to what article 50 says.

It's pretty short - just five paragraphs - which spell out that any EU member state may decide to quit the EU, that it must notify the European Council and negotiate its withdrawal with the EU, that there are two years to reach an agreement - unless everyone agrees to extend it - and that the exiting state cannot take part in EU internal discussions about its departure.
It says any exit deal must be approved by a "qualified majority" (72% of the remaining 27 EU states, representing 65% of the population) but must also get the backing of MEPs. The fifth paragraph raises the possibility of a state wanting to rejoin the EU having left it - that will be considered under Article 49.
It was written by the Scottish cross-bench peer Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. He has said he thought it would be most likely used in the event of a coup in a member state and had never imagined it being used for Brexit. The full text can be found here.

What's interesting about this is that a deal agreed in the next two years only need a 'qualified majority' to agree on it. Where'as the Canadian deal needed I believe 100% agreement. My assumption is once the two years are up that we would need 100% agreement for any deal.

72% is high, but I guess it means a small region of Belgium can't scupper it.

That's just the exit deal though and would have to be agreed by the UK and 72% of the EU within 2 years. After that we would need the agreement of 100% of the EU in order to make any deals.

Lagamorph wrote:

Garth wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I would accept the a deal the same as the Canadian one but I doubt that can be ironed out in two years.

Yeah, their negotiations began in 2009. Found a little summary of the key benefits the EU says it'll get from that deal:

- remove customs duties
- help make European firms more competitive in Canada
- make it easier for EU firms to bid for Canadian public contracts
- open up the Canadian services market to EU companies
- open up markets for European food and drink exports
- protect traditional European food and drink products (known as Geographical Indications) from being copied
- cut EU exporters' costs without cutting standards
- benefit small and medium-sized EU firms
- benefit EU consumers
- make it easier for European professionals to work in Canada
- allow for the mutual recognition of some qualifications
- create predictable conditions for both EU and Canadian investors
- make it easier for European firms to invest in Canada
- help Europe's creative industries, innovators and artists
- support people's rights at work and the environment.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-foc ... explained/

The whole thing was also nearly scuppered by a single region in Belgium. That's the kind of obstacles UK negotiators need to overcome in less than a quarter of the time.

That's what I thought until I read that under article 50 an exit deal only needs to be agreed by a qualified majority (72% of the remaining 27 EU states, representing 65% of the population).

It's pretty short - just five paragraphs - which spell out that any EU member state may decide to quit the EU, that it must notify the European Council and negotiate its withdrawal with the EU, that there are two years to reach an agreement - unless everyone agrees to extend it - and that the exiting state cannot take part in EU internal discussions about its departure.
It says any exit deal must be approved by a "qualified majority" (72% of the remaining 27 EU states, representing 65% of the population) but must also get the backing of MEPs. The fifth paragraph raises the possibility of a state wanting to rejoin the EU having left it - that will be considered under Article 49.
It was written by the Scottish cross-bench peer Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. He has said he thought it would be most likely used in the event of a coup in a member state and had never imagined it being used for Brexit. The full text can be found here.

I don't know what happens if the deal isn't agreed in two years though, I assume any deal would then have to be agreed by 100% like the Canadian deal was.

Wow.

Agree a trade deal or we'll stop intelligence sharing as well.

Well done May. That'll put the gooseberry fools up them!

Lucien wrote:

Karl wrote:

Lucien wrote:I'm ever-so-slightly against Scottish independence, but a lot of days it's 50/50. The things you mentioned there are marks against staying in the UK, for me.

I live in Swansea and I'm sick and tired of Bridgend wankers coming to my city and vomiting on my pavements. I think Swansea should take back control and stop them coming over here whenever they like and doing whatever they want. A quick passport check on the 10pm service from Newport to Carmarthen should do it.

This isn't a question, I just wanted to let you know of my views.

Thanks Karl, your two serious and non-condescending posts have been noted.

Other than in size and scale, what is the difference between Swansea wanting to "take back control" and end free movement and the UK wanting to do that?

Nobody actually wants to go to Swansea.

Hime wrote:Nobody actually wants to go to Swansea.

It's a fair point.

Hexx wrote:Wow.

Agree a trade deal or we'll stop intelligence sharing as well.

Well done May. That'll put the gooseberry fools up them!

This is my problem with the whole thing. It's an almighty stupid decision being compounded by people in positions of responsibility doing stupid things. It is entirely possible we could get a half decent deal out of this, but it is entirely impossible with the current bunch of ideologues in charge of doing the deal.

James Obrien on LBC with another caller today.

Give me one positive thing that will improve your life by leaving the Eu.

"man on the moon"
"risk"
"its gonna implode in 10 years"

FFS. These people that have voted away my future childs future (possibly) and literally do not have a proper argument.

Brexits gonna brexit.

I must say I do think that the EU may well implode in the future. It did become too big. I would have been happy with an EU containing the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Luxembourg. Maybe Sweden and Austria. Not Spain or Italy. For the record this isn't about EU immigration, just economics. I don't have an issue a lot of the Eastern European immigration. I believe they've certainly helped our economic growth majority appear to be here to work and start a new life. But I believe their economies do not fit in with the more economically developed countries. Spain is on massively borrowed time and struggling massively, it needs to get out of the EU as well. Economically currently I don't think we needed too.

The threat though of mass immigration to the eu from Africa and the Middle East is a whole different ball game.

Moggy wrote:Other than in size and scale, what is the difference between Swansea wanting to "take back control" and end free movement and the UK wanting to do that?

Yeah. IMO It's harder than it looks to come up with a reason why the UK 'taking back control' from the EU is 'good', but Scotland from the UK is '50/50' and Swansea from the rest of South Wales is ridiculous or whatever.

'Taking back control' can't be presented as this inherently good thing that you can just maximise irrespective of other considerations.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I must say I do think that the EU may well implode in the future. It did become too big. I would have been happy with an EU containing the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Luxembourg. Maybe Sweden and Austria. Not Spain or Italy. For the record this isn't about EU immigration, just economics. I don't have an issue a lot of the Eastern European immigration. I believe they've certainly helped our economic growth majority appear to be here to work and start a new life. But I believe their economies do not fit in with the more economically developed countries. Spain is on massively borrowed time and struggling massively, it needs to get out of the EU as well. Economically currently I don't think we needed too.

I do see your point there, even if I disagree with it. The EU should be working to improve the lives in the poorer European countries (and I think they do), not leaving them out.

Look at the difference to Ireland since it joined the EU. It went from one of the poorest places in Europe, to having a reasonable economy – so reasonable in fact that Photek might be buying a 4K TV from Northern Ireland.

All countries have the same issue though, the rich American states v the poorer ones. London v Cornwall. The answer isn’t to cut bits off or leave in some sort of race to the bottom, but to work together and try and raise everybody up.

The threat though of mass immigration to the eu from Africa and the Middle East is a whole different ball game.

That has little to do with the EU though. The EU disappearing wouldn't stop migration from poorer parts of the world.

Karl wrote:

Karl wrote:OK, I'm going to block you from posting in this thread now. It's not for your point of view - there are plenty of Leave voters in this thread - it's for posting in a really rude and obnoxious way. We allow banter and strongly-worded arguments, but if we tell you to knock it off then we expect you to knock it off, and you haven't.

Everyone else: please move on and don't reply to his posts or discuss the fact that he's been blocked, as he can't reply and it's not fair on him. If anyone has a problem with this, please take it to a thread in Feedback. Cheers.

This was on the last page. I specifically asked for this thread to move on. My request was ignored, and I just had to delete an abusive post aimed at the member in question. I am now quite annoyed. I don't have time to babysit this thread all day, so if it happens again I'll be throwing bans around.

At the risk of being banned (but it's Ok because I'm so strawberry floating hard ), when you get time, have a look at his posting habits in other topics. He seems to take the same approach when he disagrees with other people, regardless of topic.

BBC Five Live asking if it's now time for remainers to accept Brexit. strawberry float off is it. This ain't final yet.