Brexit

gfplux

I am late to this debate and have not read any of the first NINE pages.
However I do agree with post 370 and 379 the last paragraph.
The debate for the "man" in the street should come down to simple good or bad things about staying a member of the EU.
What treaty's say or wether it will be difficult to withdraw do not matter to the vast majority.
Simple good or bad one liners are the best argument either way.

Can we have some of those please, from both sides.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

I am late to this debate and have not read any of the first NINE pages.
However I do agree with post 370 and 379 the last paragraph.
The debate for the "man" in the street should come down to simple good or bad things about staying a member of the EU.
What treaty's say or wether it will be difficult to withdraw do not matter to the vast majority.
Simple good or bad one liners are the best argument either way.

Can we have some of those please, from both sides.

simple one liners are always wrong

BobQ

schneckster wrote: »

I didn't quote Article 50 for fear of my posts becoming too wordy (a well placed fear, obviously! ). However, since you insist:........

I can now see the confusion!

The text you have now quoted is Article 49A of the Treaty of Lisbon, but Article 50 of the revised Treaty of the EU.

(Treaty of Lisbon)

The following new Article 49 A shall be inserted:

‘Article 49 A

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude........

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT

If you've counted the times I mentioned Article 50, I trust you will have read what I said about it.

I have. In post 175 you said

Not to mention Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which demands the EU signs a free trade agreement with any nation that leaves

Article 49A of Lisbon states that the EU and the leaving state shall negotiate a deal on the arrangements for leaving. It does not guarantee a free trade agreement will result, as you now acknowledge.

I am not saying it could not happen, only that blind faith that it will happen is misplaced. We could end up with a very acrimonious negotiation. We are party to hundreds of international treaties between the EU and other nations, all of which would need to be renegotiated, our citizens have acquired rights under EU law (as have EU citizens in the UK) that cannot be swept aside by a national parliament without a degree of negotiation.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

The relevance is that when BobQ refers to Article 49A, he is talking about Article 49A in the original text of the Treaty of Lisbon.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT

As you can see Article 49A in the original treaty, says exactly the same thing as Article 50 in the current consolidated version of the treaty.

The EU does a lot of that sort of thing.

See: Renumbering/equivalences tables of E.U. Treaties
http://www.hssph.net/legalrm/Research_book_2-Edition_Appendix_4.pdf

Thank you. Had I read your post first I would have saved half an hour finding tgis out for myself!:)

BobQ

schneckster wrote: »

Ah! I understand now. Like many people, I was unaware there are two versions of the Lisbon Treaty, or was one the failed EU Constitution?

And yes, they do it a lot... more people have to guess, the less they can disagree, I suppose! :rotfl:

BobQ, I stand corrected.

Schneckster

As far as I can see there is a document called the Treaty of the European Union (TEU). Everytime there is an agreed change they have a Treaty of (whatever) that agrees the amendments to the latest TEU. Once the Treaty is accepted by the nations, the TEU is then up-issued with the agreed changes.

BobQ

gfplux wrote: »

I am late to this debate and have not read any of the first NINE pages.
However I do agree with post 370 and 379 the last paragraph.
The debate for the "man" in the street should come down to simple good or bad things about staying a member of the EU.
What treaty's say or wether it will be difficult to withdraw do not matter to the vast majority.
Simple good or bad one liners are the best argument either way.

Can we have some of those please, from both sides.

The problem is that if leaving the EU causes our GDP to rise or fall, or jobs to be created or lost, this is very important. It may not be simple but will impact on the man in the street.

BobQ

schneckster wrote: »

OK, BobQ:
1. Deutsche Bank - I guess the name itself is a clue. Its HQ is in Frankfurt, but is looking at whether to move its UK business? If we left the EU, then surely moving its UK business out of the UK makes any business it conducts in the UK more complicated. If they employ 9000 people in the UK, then clearly the UK business is significant enough for them not to want to lose. The company I work for has a US office to reduce complications and make it more cost effective so the headlines for Deutsche's comments seem very strange.
2. HSBC are already moving so clearly the possibility of Brexit has had no bearing on their decision. One of their reasons is increases in regulations which, as we know, come from the EU. Not to mention that 11 EU members are trying to bring back the Tobin Tax with France & Germany in that number. Perhaps if we leave the EU, reduction of regulatory burdens will entice them back again.

I agree nothing is certain.

Deutsche bank employ 9000 people in the UK and find that satisfactory for operating in the EU. They have indicated this review is due to the possibility of Brexit. The fact they may relocate some of these jobs is not important on its own but if lots more firms move it will matter, including to SMEs

The concern should be that not all firms will even declare they are thinking about this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32689167

http://www.smallbusiness.co.uk/blog/2487246/the-consequences-of-a-brexit-for-small-companies.thtml

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I agree nothing is certain.

Deutsche bank employ 9000 people in the UK and find that satisfactory for operating in the EU. They have indicated this review is due to the possibility of Brexit. The fact they may relocate some of these jobs is not important on its own but if lots more firms move it will matter, including to SMEs

The concern should be that not all firms will even declare they are thinking about this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32689167

http://www.smallbusiness.co.uk/blog/2487246/the-consequences-of-a-brexit-for-small-companies.thtml

a great many companies threatened to leave the UK when we didn't join the Euro
can you recall the result?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

a great many companies threatened to leave the UK when we didn't join the Euro
can you recall the result?

That really is a fallacious argument.

Being physically located within the single market is an order of magnitude more important to some business activities than saving a few points on exchange rates.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That really is a fallacious argument.

Being physically located within the single market is an order of magnitude more important to some business activities than saving a few points on exchange rates.

the argument is about the validity and credibility of the opinions of many company boards and whether they are
-correct
-and lead to the 'threatened actions.

as many observe they will act in their own best interests at the time.

the impact of being in a single market is indeed more important than a few points on a exchange rate which is why it is so important to leave and gain the benefits of allowing tariff free imports and avoiding the increasing costs of the increasing layers of regulation.

we have the example of Generali, who put his money where his mouth is and left the dead weight of european regulation to live in a small dynamic economy instead.