Brexit - shifting sands ?

[Alan Klein]

Yes, very much so - just sometimes with the occasional off-topic detour.

And though it's more than likely that the UK will Brexit next year, it's not 100% guaranteed, primarily because the current parliamentary impasse could give way to a variety of unexpected turns. The Irish , for one (there are others) have indicated that they would agree to extend Article 50 talks - though this would require the UK to ask for an extension and all 27 EU member states to agree to one. 

Earlier this month, MPs on the HoC Brexit select committee said the Article 50 should be extended so that parliament should have more time to examine any final deal - all based on the assumption that May will secure a deal (anything but a foregone conclusion). Apart from the ultra right-wing , it's generally considered preferable that the UK exit with a deal rather than the so called hard Brexit - and no, I doubt that many are convinced on the merits of leaving the world's largest free-trading block just to jump into the arms of the Donald.

More akin to jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

If Trump and Juncker make a deal, Britain will be part of it.  They'll still be in the EU.  Once they leave, they'll have to make a direct deal with the US.  Britain should sign something on the side with the US when the Juncker deal is executed that the formulas will remain the same between the US and Britain after Brexit.  Otherwise they'll have to negotiate with Trump and who knows what he'll offer then.  Britain will be in a less powerful negotiating position and the terms might turn out worse.  Just a suggestion to our British friends. 

Curious about Juncker.  Does he need approval of all the EU nations to sign a trade deal?

[jeremyrh]

Curious about Juncker.  Does he need approval of all the EU nations to sign a trade deal?

Yes I think he does, which is how the TTIP treaty was rejected.

[Rob C]

If Trump and Juncker make a deal, Britain will be part of it.  They'll still be in the EU.  Once they leave, they'll have to make a direct deal with the US.  Britain should sign something on the side with the US when the Juncker deal is executed that the formulas will remain the same between the US and Britain after Brexit.  Otherwise they'll have to negotiate with Trump and who knows what he'll offer then.  Britain will be in a less powerful negotiating position and the terms might turn out worse.  Just a suggestion to our British friends. 

Curious about Juncker.  Does he need approval of all the EU nations to sign a trade deal?

A better suggestion to those friends would be: "don't walk away from your best customer on the merits of lies and pipe dreams. Try a little reality and pragmatism instead. There is still time!"

[Jeremy Roussak]

And though it's more than likely that the UK will Brexit next year, it's not 100% guaranteed, primarily because the current parliamentary impasse could give way to a variety of unexpected turns. The Irish , for one (there are others) have indicated that they would agree to extend Article 50 talks - though this would require the UK to ask for an extension and all 27 EU member states to agree to one. 

That's not strictly accurate. Any extension to the two-year notice period must be agreed by the Council of Europe and by the departing member state, but not necessarily at the request of the departing state.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

Yes I think he does, which is how the TTIP treaty was rejected.

Requiring all 29 members of the EU to agree to a final deal with the US is not good for a settlement.  It's always harder to get numerous sides to agree to terms rather than just two. If there's no deal, I could see Trump starting his auto tariffs.  Since they affect Germany the most, that could precipitate a Gerxit.   Now wouldn't that be something. 

[Alan Klein]

Alan, it could affect me, and more than in one way. Actually, I don't know if we pay any tariffs in Canada, but typically the car prices are higher here than in US, even for Mercedes Sprinter vans. Whether that is due also to some taxes or greedier car dealers, I don't know. But as I mentioned in some previous post, when those 20% tariff rumors started, they had a profound effect on the Canadian automobile industry. For example, Magna and Linamar, the Canadian automobile part manufacturers lost 15%, resp. 30% in their value in the last two months. Once Donald waves his magic wand, those stocks would hopefully bounce back to their pre-tariff talks, and since I hold a smallish position in Linamar, I might be able to buy from my profits that Mercedes cabriolet for my winter vacations in Florida. Such a car should be cheaper there than in Canada, so if I buy it while down there, I could save money twice. If things go according to my plan, of course, you could join me on a drive from or to Florida. We should get a CB radio and a really good radar detector.

You're still going to Florida?  I thought it warmed up in Canada due to climate change. 

[LesPalenik]

You're still going to Florida?  I thought it warmed up in Canada due to climate change. 

I go to Florida only in the winter. The summer here is almost as hot as in Miami.
If it's good enough for the president, it's good also for me.   

[Manoli]

That's not strictly accurate. Any extension to the two-year notice period must be agreed by the Council of Europe and by the departing member state, but not necessarily at the request of the departing state.

/* levity-mode-on

which conjured up this vision of the PM, at the despatch box, addressing the House of Commons  “The President of the Council of Europe, and its 27 members, have invited the United Kingdom to extend their membership in the EU for a further year beyond March 2019, and HM Government have gratefully accepted”

Imagine what that would do to Jacob Rees-Mogg and his ERG group ...

/* levity-mode-off


The EU fact sheet dated March 2017, (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.pdf)only refers to the required unanimity to extend the period.  I read it as being understood/implied, in this context,  that such request would, of necessity, come from the UK itself - and if not a request certainly an indication of a predisposition to accepting such an offer - particularly as acceptance would result in

the Member State remains a member of the European Union, with all the rights and obligations that derive from membership ...

[Jeremy Roussak]

The EU fact sheet dated March 2017, (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.pdf)only refers to the required unanimity to extend the period.  I read it as being understood/implied, in this context,  that such request would, of necessity, come from the UK itself - and if not a request certainly an indication of a predisposition to accepting such an offer - particularly as acceptance would result in

As ever, it would pay to read the source rather than an interpretation. Article 50 is readily available online, clearly written and very short.

Jeremy

[Manoli]

As ever, it would pay to read the source rather than an interpretation. Article 50 is readily available online, clearly written and very short.

And article 50.3 says

. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.


Jeremy - there is a difference between precision and pedantry.

Given the disarray and split both between and within the various parties in parliament, it is inconceivable, today, that such an extension could/would be proposed/considered without it being at the request of the UK Government - IMO.

What steps and hoops UK GOV would need to go through to get there, is another question - one, that perhaps, you could enlighten us on.



Edit: added ‘IMO’ for clarity.

[Alan Klein]

Could Britain hold up trade negotiation settlement between the EU and the US to get concessions from the EU for its Brexit?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Could Britain hold up trade negotiation settlement between the EU and the US to get concessions from the EU for its Brexit?

In principle no, there is a deadline after article 50 was effected (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39143978). Only in the unlikely hypothetical case that the remaining EU members unanimously decide to not follow the rules as they were set out and known to the UK, could there be e.g. a delay. Besides, the UK lacks trade negotiators because that function was executed on their behalf by the EEC and EFTA. So they threw the child away with the bathwater.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

In principle no, there is a deadline after article 50 was effected (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39143978). Only in the unlikely hypothetical case that the remaining EU members unanimously decide to not follow the rules as they were set out and known to the UK, could there be e.g. a delay. Besides, the UK lacks trade negotiators because that function was executed on their behalf by the EEC and EFTA. So they threw the child away with the bathwater.

Cheers,
Bart

It's not clear to me. Someone earlier said a trade deal between the EU and America requires all 29 countries to sign off, including Britain  (they'll still be in the EU). If Britain refuses to sign off unless they get a better Brexit deal, is that possible?

[Jeremy Roussak]

And article 50.3 says
...
Jeremy - there is a difference between precision and pedantry.

Yes, I'd read it; and I'm being precise. You are confusing law and practice, or in this case theoretical practice.

Jeremy