Brexit

[pegelli]

The triggering of Art50, is the act by which the UK leaves the EU.

With all due respect I think this is not the way it works. The way I read article 50 is that the UK leaves the EU after it has concluded an exit agreement or two years after they serve the notice under article 50 (triggering as you call it), whichever comes first. So after the UK serves this notice they're still a member of the EU for a maximum of 2 years, so serving the notice is not the actual exit of the UK from the EU.

Article 3 says that during this (max 2 year) negotiation all existing treaties are still in effect. That's why article 1 calls the notice "declaring the intention to withdraw" and article 2 about negotiating the conditions of withdrawal. My logic would be that as long as you're still negotiating the conditions of withdrawal you're still not effectively withdrawn, so still a member.   

[Manoli]

Quite right. I should have said:

The triggering of Art50 is the formal act by which the UK notifies its intention to leave the EU.

It's irreversible (at least in theory).
And what did Cecilia and virtually every EU head of state say?
"First there has to be notification, .."

And the reasons for that should be blindingly obvious to one and all.

[RSL]

Hear, hear, Rajan. And may Britain's exit from bondage be as auspicious.

[pegelli]

Quite right. I should have said:

The triggering of Art50 is the formal act by which the UK notifies its intention to leave the EU.

It's irreversible (at least in theory).
And what did Cecilia and virtually every EU head of state say?
"First there has to be notification, .."

And the reasons for that should be blindingly obvious to one and all.

I fully agree Manoli. But there is no legal reason (after the notification is given) to not have parallel negotiations on the exit agreement and the future trade agreement(s). There might be practical or tactical reasons to first do the exit agreement but that's a different matter. I think that's what Jeremy was trying to say (and I agree with).

Cecilia said: "The UK cannot begin negotiating terms for doing business with the bloc until after it has left". which means she claims you first have to conclude the exit agreement before you can start negotiating the new trade agreements. Obviously she is entitled to her opinion, but there's nothing in article 50 which would make that legally required. Even to the contrary, article 2 says: .....shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union..... So you have to start talks on the future trade deals, otherwise you can't conclude an exit agreement which takes into account the future relationship.

[Manoli]

There might be practical or tactical reasons to first do the exit agreement but that's a different matter.

Pegelli,

Where in the BBC quote does the word 'agreement' appear ? It doesn't.
Quote me one EU head of state that has used exit 'agreement' in this context ? You can't because they haven't.

Read the quote again:

There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.  "The referendum - which of course we take note of and respect - has no legal effect. First there has to be notification, which the next prime minister will do, I hope swiftly. And then that process can start."

The reason that 'notification', in this case, is synonymous with 'exit' is because the act of notification is non-reversible. It becomes a 'fait-accompli' from which there is no turning back.

This is the very reason that Brexit-eers are so eager to invoke Art50, (and bypass due parliamentary process) - it becomes a done deal. Done. Finished.

Nevertheless, there are legal challenges pending and the outcome is unknown. If you want to understand the issue better, listen to Jo Maugham QC in the clip I've linked to above, explaining some of these issues. But please, in the meantime, can we finish with this fabricated nonsense and not further any more spin and blatant falsehoods.


Edit:

So you have to start talks on the future trade deals, otherwise you can't conclude an exit agreement which takes into account the future relationship.

This is another nonsense. The exit and trade negotiations are separate and entirely distinct. See post#405.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Manoli, I believe you are confusing "serving notice under article 50" with "GB leaving the EU"

I think what Jeremy is saying that there is no problem to start negotiations of trade deals before leaving (which is maximum 2 years after providing notice under article 50).

But there is indeed nothing in article 50 that would legally force the EU start negotiations before serving the notice.

Exactly. Article 50 expressly provides for negotiations after notice has been given; there is nothing that provides for or discourages negotiation before notice has been given; and the notion, put forward by the idiot commissioner, that negotiation can start only after we have left is absurd.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Pieter,

Confusion doesn't enter into it. I know not of what Jeremy meant, only of what he wrote and the context in which it was written.

This is what, according to the BBC, Maelstrom said:
"First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is"

The triggering of Art50 is the formal act by which the UK leaves the EU.

She's wrong, as is obvious. Perhaps what she meant to say was "First you give notice that you intend to exit ..."; but that isn't what she said. Of course, English isn't her first language.

Notice under Article 50 is not the "formal act by which the UK leaves the EU"; it is the formal act by which a country gives notice that it intends to leave the EU. Since it contains no provision by which that notice may be withdrawn, and since it provides for an extensible deadline of two years for withdrawal, the mistake is perhaps pardonable, but it's a mistake nevertheless.

Because when you write:

the expression 'quite the contrary' implies that there IS an obligation to start negotiations prior to receiving notification under Art 50. There is no such obligation.

It doesn't imply anything of the kind. As I think has become apparent, you are confusing giving notice under Article 50 with actually leaving.

Jeremy,

I've got no argument with you, we've conversed, via Lula, often enough and you've always come over as reasoned, amiable and courteous. Hopefully we can continue in the same vein, without the patronising tone ?

Manoli

Of course we can, but you must respond to what I write, not to what you imagine I've written. You have made that mistake several times in this thread, which is why my patience was eventually exhausted.

I don't know if English is your first language: what we are discussing here is interpretation of text, which requires precision.

Jeremy

[Paulo Bizarro]

Exactly. Article 50 expressly provides for negotiations after notice has been given; there is nothing that provides for or discourages negotiation before notice has been given; and the notion, put forward by the idiot commissioner, that negotiation can start only after we have left is absurd.

Jeremy

There is the EU bureaucracy for you:) I never worry about the minutia of what has been written. In practical terms, people try to get on with their business; for example, in Portugal, many a Port wine company (many of them British...) have already started inquiring and negotiating in order to not disturb, and clarify, present deals, and future conditions, respectively.

[Manoli]

Jeremy,

You are quite right in regard to my misinterpreting your earlier use of the word 'impliedly'. I had drafted a retraction, but on reviewing the thread see that I failed to post it. So without further ado, on that point you are correct. I misread. I apologise.

On the second point, and most of your post #469, you do yourself no credit.
You persist in selectively misquoting what the BBC actually reported Maelstrom as saying.  For what reason, I know not,  if not to add yet more spin and further your own narrow agenda?

Furthermore, why do you persist, more than twelve hours after I've posted an unequivocal clarification (posts #464 and #467) in mis-quoting me and trying to muddy waters if not for the very same reason?

I've published the whole quote (twice) and a link to the BBC article. You've published none. Do so.

Of course we can, but you must respond to what I write, not to what you imagine I've written. You have made that mistake several times in this thread, which is why my patience was eventually exhausted.

I don't know if English is your first language: what we are discussing here is interpretation of text, which requires precision.

Indeed, but as can be seen from the above, I'd suggest you practise what you preach. Substitute your exasperation with some reciprocal precision and you'll feel a lot better.

Manoli

[Manoli]

... and the notion, put forward by the idiot commissioner, that negotiation can start only after we have left is absurd.

Jeremy, again, go back, read the whole quote and if you're then still struggling - call 999.

[Jeremy Roussak]

On the second point, and most of your post #469, you do yourself no credit.
You persist in selectively misquoting what the BBC actually reported Maelstrom as saying.  For what reason, I know not,  if not to add yet more spin and further your own narrow agenda?

Furthermore, why do you persist, more than twelve hours after I've posted an unequivocal clarification (posts #464 and #467) in mis-quoting me and trying to muddy waters if not for the very same reason?

I've published the whole quote (twice) and a link to the BBC article. You've published none. Do so.

Indeed, but as can be seen from the above, I'd suggest you practise what you preach. Substitute your exasperation with some reciprocal precision and you'll feel a lot better.

Manoli

Manoli,

I have no "agenda" save accuracy, and I've not misquoted anything. Let's look at exactly what the woman is reported as having said to the BBC.

Ms Malmstrom, the EU Trade Commissioner, underlined that detailed talks to shape the UK's new trading relationship with the EU should not start until after the process of leaving politically, under an Article 50 process lasting up to two years.
"There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.
"The referendum - which of course we take note of and respect - has no legal effect. First there has to be notification, which the next prime minister will do, I hope swiftly. And then that process can start."

The section in bold is obviously and simply wrong, as a quick perusal of Article 50, which I set out in an earlier post, clearly indicates.

There's no more to be said. Manoli, I don't know who you are, what your nationality is (save that you are somewhere well to the East of the UK, being 3 hours ahead of our time) or why you are so persistently misreading what I write, but I grow tired of repeating myself.

Jeremy

[pegelli]

Pegelli,

Where in the BBC quote does the word 'agreement' appear ? It doesn't.
Quote me one EU head of state that has used exit 'agreement' in this context ? You can't because they haven't.

Read the quote again:

The reason that 'notification', in this case, is synonymous with 'exit' is because the act of notification is non-reversible. It becomes a 'fait-accompli' from which there is no turning back.

This is the very reason that Brexit-eers are so eager to invoke Art50, (and bypass due parliamentary process) - it becomes a done deal. Done. Finished.

Nevertheless, there are legal challenges pending and the outcome is unknown. If you want to understand the issue better, listen to Jo Maugham QC in the clip I've linked to above, explaining some of these issues. But please, in the meantime, can we finish with this fabricated nonsense and not further any more spin and blatant falsehoods.


Edit:
This is another nonsense. The exit and trade negotiations are separate and entirely distinct. See post#405.

Manoli, there's no need to be upset or use strong language. I'm not trying to argue with you. For me it's having a sensible discussion that will hopefully further the understanding of the issue.

Re. your first point, pls. read my posts, I never said anybody used the term exit agreement, it's merely a term of article 50. It all hinges on the fact how you define the exit. You say that giving notification under article 50 is the exit, because it's irreversible. However my interpretation is that exit is the actual ending of the membership of the UK to the EU (two years later or after agreeing an exit agreement is signed in case that's earlier). My point is that most EU officials say that no negotiations can start before the notification is given, and I agree with that. However Ms. Malmstrom said that trade negotiations can only start after the UK exits, which is correct if you define exit like you do but incorrect if you follow my interpretation of exit.

Re. your second point, I have never said anything about the legal process the UK must follow before giving notice under article 50. I know there's a lot of debate on it and actually I don't care how it turns out. I don't understand why you suddenly bring this up as a response to what I said.

Re. your third point, read my posts, I never said that exit agreement negotiations and new trade agreement negotiations were the same. My point is that Ms. Malmstrom's words implied that these talks need to be sequential while I say that article 50 doesn't preclude these negotiations to be conducted in parallel. To the contrary, article 50 says that the exit agreement needs to be consistent with the framework of the future relationship, so how can you do that if no talks on the future relationship are being held before the exit agreement is reached.

[Manoli]

... but I grow tired of repeating myself

Jeremy,

Quote the relevant part and you won't need to!

The first part of your emboldened quote are not Maelstrom's words but part of the BBC report.
The second part (the part you carefully and persistently omit), reads:

"The referendum - which of course we take note of and respect - has no legal effect. First there has to be notification, which the next prime minister will do, I hope swiftly. And then that process can start."

and is entirely consistent with Art50.

Oh, and incidentally, last time I looked, Milan was only one hour ahead of the UK, not three. Nevertheless, London born and bred Brit, rarely if ever further East than Athens and so far never further West than NYC. Hell, I've even been to Manchester, once.

Now, can we move on ?

Manoli

[Manoli]

Manoli, there's no need to be upset or use strong language. I'm not trying to argue with you. For me it's having a sensible discussion that will hopefully further the understanding of the issue.

Pegelli, I didn't intend any offence but Jeremy is nothing if not obstinate (at times)! I'm travelling but will try and respond asap. Apologies if I offended you in any way, 'twas certainly not my intention.

M

[pegelli]

Just for the sake of factual correctness, the first sentence in the BBC interview that Ms Malmstrom says is:

First you exit, then you negotiate your new relationship

I also interpret from the interview that Ms Malmstrom defines as "exit" the end of the ~2 year process and not the notification, but the interview is not 100% clear about that

[pegelli]

Pegelli, I didn't intend any offence

Apology accepted, but then in the future pls. refrain from asking quotes for items I never said and don't call stuff I said nonsense, while in actual fact I think you misread what I wrote.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Came across this on the Internet. It would be interesting to see further breakdown of those numbers. For instance, UK emigration is not only to EU, but historically and currently also to many other countries, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, U.S., Canada... Also, seeing it as a percentage of the overall population might also be quite useful. Anyone has such numbers?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If you thought circles of confusion are confusing in photography, try this:

[Jeremy Roussak]

Oh, and incidentally, last time I looked, Milan was only one hour ahead of the UK, not three. Nevertheless, London born and bred Brit, rarely if ever further East than Athens and so far never further West than NYC. Hell, I've even been to Manchester, once.

You need to correct your profile, then: it indicates that your local time is three hours ahead of what is currently BST.

I assume it rained.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Quote the relevant part and you won't need to!

The first part of your emboldened quote are not Maelstrom's words but part of the BBC report.

And the second sentence appears on the page to which you refer in quotation marks, just like the words you favour. Taken together, they show that the woman is unable to be consistent even across two sentences. She's a bureaucrat, but even so one might expect her to have acquired some familiarity with the subject on which she pontificates.

Jeremy