If we vote for Brexit what happens

Arklight

Conrad wrote: »

Brexit fears mount in Spain
Maintaining the UK’s relationship with the single market is a top priority for Spanish fruit and vegetable exporters, according to Fepex.
“Fepex considers it a priority to continue with a single market without borders between the EU and the UK
http://www.fruitnet.com/fpj/article/171734/brexit-fears-mount-in-spain


HOLLAND FEARS
"Any restriction on free trade with Britain would inevitably be at the cost of Dutch exports, prosperity and employment," it said.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-netherlands-idUKKBN16S17A?il=0


Belgium Business

CDC The special working party set up by the Belgian government following the decision of the British people to leave the EU has presented its final report. Belgian business is looking for the closest possible trade ties with the UK after the country quits the free trade bloc.

http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2879376#

The issue here though is that you are highlighting national interests and it isn't national governments that Theresa May is going to be facing off against for the next two years.

She'll be negotiating with the European Union - whose main objective is to preserve the integrity of the European Union, rather than the interests of Spanish fruit and veg exporters.

Or, more specifically it looks like a panel of career diplomats appointed by the European Commission:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39236683

Of course no one wants to be poorer from Brexit, but the EU can't give the UK the same access outside the club as inside, because everyone will want to leave and then they won't have jobs anymore.

And they like their jobs Conrad, oh yes they do.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

As the day of presenting Article 50 to the EU draws closer, here is a peek at the duplicity shown by the EU from the start:
At the ceremony of the signing of the original Treaty Of Rome way back in 1957, it seems that the pages signed were in fact blank!
Yes you read that right, blank sheets of paper.
So why not delay the signing?
Because (it seems) " the French feared that General de Gaulle, then out of office, would return to the presidency and block the treaty."
(See the Telegraph link below.)

"We found afterwards that the Treaty of Rome, the actual document, had blank pages because the treaty was put together very quickly and the Italians were not very organized, so the actual document they had to fill in afterwards,"

https://www.thelocal.it/20170321/original-treaty-of-rome-was-blank-reveals-veteran-reporter

Also on the BBC here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39365281


Now I understand there will be some scepticism regarding this.
I fully expect the cries of "EU hater" or worse which will no doubt follow (well, I have been compared to Josef Goebbels and effectively called a Nazi in the past few days alone.) but hey, sticks and stones and all that.

The thing is, this has been mentioned before too.
Back in 2014 here:

The only solution that was found was to sign the treaty on a blank sheet, with only one page where the names of the heads of state and government appear on top.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/public-affairs/news/eu-secret-revealed-rome-treaty-was-signed-on-blank-sheet/

Also back in 2007 here:

Pierre Pescatore, a Luxembourg lawyer who helped draft the treaty, said yesterday that the six founding fathers were publicly pictured signing a thick document that was empty of text, apart from title and signature page. He said: "They signed a bundle of blank pages. The first title existed in four languages, and also the protocol at the end. Nobody looked at what was in between."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1546631/How-EU-leaders-signed-a-blank-cheque.html

As I say, I fully expect a slew of derogatory comments BUT my point is this:
How legal is it?
Rather, how legal is the whole European Union?
I mean these great leaders signed a blank sheet of paper, that much seems pretty clear by now.
Does that not imply that legally there never was a signing of The Treaty Of Rome?

As my last link says:

"The revelation that the Treaty of Rome was signed as a blank document is entirely in keeping with the way the EU has developed ever since."

mayonnaise

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

As the day of presenting Article 50 to the EU draws closer, here is a peek at the duplicity shown by the EU from the start:
At the ceremony of the signing of the original Treaty Of Rome way back in 1957, it seems that the pages signed were in fact blank!
Yes you read that right, blank sheets of paper.
So why not delay the signing?
Because (it seems) " the French feared that General de Gaulle, then out of office, would return to the presidency and block the treaty."
(See the Telegraph link below.)


https://www.thelocal.it/20170321/original-treaty-of-rome-was-blank-reveals-veteran-reporter

Also on the BBC here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39365281


Now I understand there will be some scepticism regarding this.
I fully expect the cries of "EU hater" or worse which will no doubt follow (well, I have been compared to Josef Goebbels and effectively called a Nazi in the past few days alone.) but hey, sticks and stones and all that.

The thing is, this has been mentioned before too.
Back in 2014 here:

http://www.euractiv.com/section/public-affairs/news/eu-secret-revealed-rome-treaty-was-signed-on-blank-sheet/

Also back in 2007 here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1546631/How-EU-leaders-signed-a-blank-cheque.html

As I say, I fully expect a slew of derogatory comments BUT my point is this:
How legal is it?
Rather, how legal is the whole European Union?
I mean these great leaders signed a blank sheet of paper, that much seems pretty clear by now.
Does that not imply that legally there never was a signing of The Treaty Of Rome?

As my last link says:

Shocking. Just shocking.
Glad to see you're on the case though.
Keep up the good work.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Arklight wrote: »

The issue here though is that you are highlighting national interests and it isn't national governments that Theresa May is going to be facing off against for the next two years.

She'll be negotiating with the European Union - whose main objective is to preserve the integrity of the European Union, rather than the interests of Spanish fruit and veg exporters.

Or, more specifically it looks like a panel of career diplomats appointed by the European Commission:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39236683

Of course no one wants to be poorer from Brexit, but the EU can't give the UK the same access outside the club as inside, because everyone will want to leave and then they won't have jobs anymore.

And they like their jobs Conrad, oh yes they do.

Besides again ignoring the fact that some outside the EU currently get free access as repeatedly shown in this thread, you're missing quite a few bits out.

European Commission to publish negotiating guidelines based on the mandate the EU leaders give it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39143978

Between October 2018 and March 2019 - The Houses of Parliament, European Council and European Parliament vote on any deal

So (in short) these EU leaders decide on negotiations and then the EU Parliament votes upon a resulting deal.
Are you forgetting what makes up the EU Parliament?
Elected MEP's from across the EU.
Who must reach a majority decision before any agreement is passed.

Even before Brexit, this group have found it difficult to agree on quite a variety of things.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mayonnaise wrote: »

Shocking. Just shocking.
Glad to see you're on the case though.
Keep up the good work.

Thank you.
In return, please keep up your valued contributions to the debate.

kabayiri

Arklight wrote: »

The issue here though is that you are highlighting national interests and it isn't national governments that Theresa May is going to be facing off against for the next two years.
...

Of course it is national governments. The EU is just a centralised mouthpiece.

You seriously believe that Germany would sit back and allow the EU to pursue a high minded principle which might undermine their multi-billion Euro car market?

Tell me what has had the greater impact on the refugee crisis. The EU declarations, or the unilateral invite by Merkel. It is pretty clear that she has no problem intervening when she sees fit.

kabayiri

Thinking outside of UK/EU, this Brexit A50 period could present some interesting opportunities for outside parties couldn't it?

I'm sure Turkey; Russia; USA; they might all spot an opportunity to capitalise on events.

Tromking

kabayiri wrote: »

Of course it is national governments. The EU is just a centralised mouthpiece.

You seriously believe that Germany would sit back and allow the EU to pursue a high minded principle which might undermine their multi-billion Euro car market?

This will certainly test the theory that the EU and its constituent national governments will not seek to cause harm to its own peoples just to punish an errant UK.
I think many underestimate the latent desire to protect and preserve the 'project' by the Euro elites.

Thrugelmir

Arklight wrote: »

The issue here though is that you are highlighting national interests and it isn't national governments that Theresa May is going to be facing off against for the next two years.

She'll be negotiating with the European Union

You appear badly informed if that's your understanding. :doh:

mrginge

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Thank you.
In return, please keep up your valued contributions to the debate.

Sorry jock, you appear to have quoted the wrong post.