If we vote for Brexit what happens

mrginge

Shakethedisease wrote: »

All over social media at the moment and am only posting it because it's relevant to the thread, lots of people are discussing it elsewhere... and it sounds strangely plausible. ( Heseltine sacked as advisor at 83 etc ). Definitely no room for deviation from some so far un-named end point is there ?

Thanks shakey. This backs up an article I read the other day that said the govt is very close to agreeing trade agreements with the US, China, Japan, and also creating a commonwealth-wide free market.

CKhalvashi

mrginge wrote: »

Thanks shakey. This backs up an article I read the other day that said the govt is very close to agreeing trade agreements with the US, China, Japan, and also creating a commonwealth-wide free market.

However the UK isn't allowed to negotiate any free trade deals, in fact it's not allowed to negotiate any trade deals at all.

I would assume there are penalties for breach of contract with the EU, and I would encourage the EU (as is part of the purpose of this site) to ensure their full legal rights are met, with any claim for damages coming from the £60bn the Chancellor is setting aside.

vivatifosi

CKhalvashi wrote: »

However the UK isn't allowed to negotiate any free trade deals, in fact it's not allowed to negotiate any trade deals at all.

I would assume there are penalties for breach of contract with the EU, and I would encourage the EU (as is part of the purpose of this site) to ensure their full legal rights are met, with any claim for damages coming from the £60bn the Chancellor is setting aside.

They won't be breaching their contract though. They are meeting the other countries to scope out which countries are interested in talks. They meet 52 countries, say half are interested in deals, then they have their list ready for when deals are possible.

kabayiri

CKhalvashi wrote: »

However the UK isn't allowed to negotiate any free trade deals, in fact it's not allowed to negotiate any trade deals at all.
...

A50 can take up to 2 years. It isn't set to be that long.

Once out the government can do whatever they want, trade wise.

kabayiri

mayonnaise wrote: »

No dissenting voices allowed.

Just like Sturgeon/SNP then.

Or Corbyn even.

In fact, the only party with clear dissenting voices from their elected MP is UKIP (correction) !

mrginge

CKhalvashi wrote: »

However the UK isn't allowed to negotiate any free trade deals, in fact it's not allowed to negotiate any trade deals at all.

I would assume there are penalties for breach of contract with the EU, and I would encourage the EU (as is part of the purpose of this site) to ensure their full legal rights are met, with any claim for damages coming from the £60bn the Chancellor is setting aside.

It doesn't matter what you think or assume.

it was on the internet so it is true.

CKhalvashi

vivatifosi wrote: »

They won't be breaching their contract though. They are meeting the other countries to scope out which countries are interested in talks. They meet 52 countries, say half are interested in deals, then they have their list ready for when deals are possible.

Big difference between scoping out and actually negotiating.

The impression given was definitely of the latter (which is not ok), when the reality is likely closer to the former (which is).

Rinoa

CKhalvashi wrote: »

However the UK isn't allowed to negotiate any free trade deals, in fact it's not allowed to negotiate any trade deals at all.

I would assume there are penalties for breach of contract with the EU, and I would encourage the EU (as is part of the purpose of this site) to ensure their full legal rights are met, with any claim for damages coming from the £60bn the Chancellor is setting aside.

EU countries break EU rules on a regular basis. I've never heard of any penalty of note being administered.

Interesting that you actually want the EU to punish the UK. Can I ask why?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

CKhalvashi wrote: »

However the UK isn't allowed to negotiate any free trade deals, in fact it's not allowed to negotiate any trade deals at all.

I would assume there are penalties for breach of contract with the EU, and I would encourage the EU (as is part of the purpose of this site) to ensure their full legal rights are met, with any claim for damages coming from the £60bn the Chancellor is setting aside.

Wrong.
The UK can negotiate whatever deals it wants and with whoever it wants.
There is absolutely no way that the EU could prevent this, legally.

The signing and ratification of such agreements prior to exit from the EU may be another matter - though quite how the EU would enforce this should they become so belligerent as to necessitate such actions is questionable.

The EU may in fact be breaking their own guidelines if they insist trade talks cannot take place before the UK formally leaves the EU. Article 8 very clearly states that the EU itself must have good relations with and cause no harm to neighbouring countries.

So just as you would encourage the EU to "ensure their full legal rights are met", I would also expect the UK to do the same.

Much of the wording of Article 50 and indeed The Treaty on the European Union is recognised as being of such a vague nature that enforcement would be problematic.

CKhalvashi

Rinoa wrote: »

EU countries break EU rules on a regular basis. I've never heard of any penalty of note being administered.

Interesting that you actually want the EU to punish the UK. Can I ask why?

I encourage anyone to use the rights that they have, irrespective of who they are, if it will benefit them. Encouraging people not to do so sort of makes this point completely pointless.

Just out of interest:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/775939/European-Union-EU-big-four-plans-two-speed-Europe-Brexit

Big Four EU nations agree to pursue plans for “two-speed Europe”

Brussels is braced for an almighty power struggle between member states and eurocrats after the bloc’s big four last night agreed to pursue a new policy of allowing member states to pick and choose their level of commitment. Germany, France, Italy and Spain will lobby for a new “two-speed” Europe in which core countries can integrate their systems at breakneck speed whilst those who are more eurosceptic are allowed to hang fire. The system is designed to allow the more developed Western nations to press ahead with wide-reaching reforms, particularly to the euro, without dragging along less reluctant members.

So, anyone want to give what a good excuse to follow through with this is now? Trying to see this as neutrally as possible I can't see one, as it will give us the chance to pick and choose what we can't now.

Maybe the time of the government would be better spent supporting our neighbours, rather than opposing them. We're outside the Euro, Schengen etc already, so it's something that's already there in part, and if this goes horribly wrong (I hope it doesn't for your sake, but it's a possibility) then to rejoin will take time, with no opt outs at all.