If we vote for Brexit what happens

Eric_the_half_a_bee

gfplux wrote: »

Now you say it has TOO MUCH Democracy.

Having a Remaining UK's ability to trade freely with Canada vetoed by Wallonia is not TOO MUCH democracy

TrickyTree83

gfplux wrote: »

What was wrong with the EU was it was NOT Democratic. Now you say it has TOO MUCH Democracy.
Anyway it does not matter as Britain is leaving. The sooner the better.

It's a perverse situation.

Do you think that a region in a country should be able to have an equal say in the trade policy of 27 other nations as well as it's own?

Because of the Belgian system of government - that's what's happened.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

Are you moving away from your oft mentioned idea that Germany and France dictate policy then?

Policy and treaty ratification are different things. Conflating the two misrepresents.

It's quite demonstrable that a policy on refugee allocation can be forced through against the wishes of countries within the EU, but that treaty ratification is still subject to unanimous agreement.

As I understand the EU are thinking to move away from the unanimous agreement model.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's quite demonstrable that a policy on refugee allocation can be forced through against the wishes of countries within the EU

And once again it all swings back to immigration....

But remind me again how many refugees Hungary will be accepting?;)

A_Medium_Size_Jock

nkomp18 wrote: »

It's upsetting how dysfunctional the EU is in these matters. Wallonia with a population of 3.6m managed to put an end to a 7 year deal that would benefit 550m people.

But this is perhaps a glimpse of what awaits Teresa May when she tries to find the "best deal possible" and then Wallonia comes out and say "no". Since the EU puts democracy above the benefit of its trade agreements, it is very possible that the UK will end up striking no deal at all.

Quite so.
I post below a copy (from another thread) of a post I made in mid-Sptember regarding Article 50:

It is up to both the EU AND the UK - though not perhaps quite as much the EU as you seem to imagine.

Just imagine:
The UK could - and I do stress "COULD" - say to the EU:
"We invoke Article 50. We will continue with the minimum required of us under current agreements until our two years hence - unless unreasonable demands are placed upon us, in which case take note that we will consider this a breach of existing EU Treaties and terminate our membership immediately."

What - reasonably (if you can manage that) could the EU do?
Legally, breaking a treaty signed with the UK would make it extremely difficult to seek any redress.
Also it could not force the UK into retaining membership.
And Scotland (like it or not) are STILL part of the UK.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

I draw your attention in particular to:
Quote:
In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State
Quote:
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
Quote:
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.
So potentially (to simplify) :
1* Article 50 presented to EU.
2* Loads of waffle, infighting & disagreement - but neither side agrees on future EU "wants".
3* Two years on, "goodbye".
The Lisbon Treaty itself clearly makes that scenario an option.

Also a small piece from John Redwood:

Quote:
Leaving the EU is a sovereign decision by a newly sovereign people. It is not something to negotiate with Germany. Offer to continue tariff-free trade, send them the letter and then leave. It should not take two years and does not need to. The rest of the EU are likely to want to carry on with tariff-free trade as they have more to lose from tariffs than us. All services are tariff-free whatever happens, under world rules.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/25/goodbye-eu-goodbye-austerity-britain/

Despite the assumption then that all power lies with "the EU" it would appear otherwise.
Also that much "negotiation" as described so frequently in regard to "Brexit" is not really necessary.
Seems pretty much like yet another excuse to tie up time and resources and to keep people in unnecessary jobs.
There is no need for it to be as difficult a process as many seem to imagine.

Like trade agreements - I mean, how many years and how many wasted man-hours for CETA?
Really?
A ridiculous waste IMHO - and TBH typical of the EU's love of bureaucracy.

cogito

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I do wish you lot would make up your minds.

Either the EU can force governments to comply or the EU can not force them to comply - Wallonia indicates the latter is true.

When a giant trade deal can be vetoed by a tiny Belgian province until it gets the changes it wants it makes a mockery of all the anti-EU rhetoric about loss of sovereignty and loss of control.

It makes a complete mockery of the EU itself which once upon a time called itself the Common Market. It's like Bradford stopping the UK from completing a trade agreement with Australia.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Policy and treaty ratification are different things. Conflating the two misrepresents.

It's quite demonstrable that a policy on refugee allocation can be forced through against the wishes of countries within the EU, but that treaty ratification is still subject to unanimous agreement.

As I understand the EU are thinking to move away from the unanimous agreement model.

It's not just treaties - there's loads of stuff the Council requires unanimous agreement for and, I know you don't believe it, each state in the EU remains sovereign.

The only way the unanimous agreement model would be abandoned would be by unanimous agreement. Good luck trying to imply Germany can just dictate that.

You're simply trying to justify the cake and eat it argument. Fair play - you're the first person I've seen try.

cogito

wotsthat wrote: »

Really? This makes you think it's not worth bothering the UK trying to secure a deal which might be better than just walking away in a flounce?

No, I don't think we should do that. We should try to negotiate some kind of deal but I'm pessimistic enough to believe that getting the 27 members of the EU to even agree what day it is could prove impossible.

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And once again it all swings back to immigration....

But remind me again how many refugees Hungary will be accepting?;)

It's not just treaties - there's loads of stuff the Council requires unanimous agreement for and, I know you don't believe it, each state in the EU remains sovereign.

The only way the unanimous agreement model would be abandoned would be by unanimous agreement. Good luck trying to imply Germany can just dictate that.

You're simply trying to justify the cake and eat it argument. Fair play - you're the first person I've seen try.

It's not an anti-immigration post, so don't try to paint it as such.

Hungary has a clear policy as a supposed 'sovereign' nation of not allowing migrants to flood across its border unchecked into central, western and northern Europe. So it erected a barrier and patrols the border.

It was recently told by Luxembourg, this is unacceptable and that continued action such as this may result in Hungary being expelled from the EU.

The refugee/migrant quota system was voted for in the EU by qualified majority, the Hungarians held a referendum and rejected it.

How can Hungary be considered sovereign when it is told it must comply with rules the Hungarian demos have rejected?

Edit: How can Greece be considered sovereign when it is told it must comply with ECB (German) diktats which were rejected by the Greek demos?

wotsthat

cogito wrote: »

No, I don't think we should do that. We should try to negotiate some kind of deal but I'm pessimistic enough to believe that getting the 27 members of the EU to even agree what day it is could prove impossible.

The mood music has changed hasn't it?

The Brexiteers were quite confident a sweet deal could be reached because the UK's awesome. Much more pessimism about that now.

The argument that WTO terms won't make much of a difference won't survive first contact either.