If we vote for Brexit what happens

gfplux

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

Most of these arrangements end as the EU's current seven-year budget framework ends in 2020 - and since Brexit has been planned since 2016 it cannot be said that arrangements of any kind should apply since then and most certainly not since Article 50 was invoked. I note that you also seem to ignore the share of any assets accrued by the EU since the beginning of our membership.

Now I have seen a few saying the EU might collapse in these threads but never that this was a certainty. If the EU survives longer-term I, like others, believe that it will be a very different EU to that which we see now.
Why?
Because almost all the problems facing the EU which could lead to collapse (or change) are still there, they haven't gone away.

Populism - elections soon in Austria and looking like Italy too where the far right are popular in both countries & I see today that some in Italy want out of the Euro.
Greece - still struggling on and the EU continue being obstinate about bailouts whilst continuing demands.
Migrants - where to start? The Med. and Italy's thousands per week? Or Turkey who are still holding millions from Syria at the request of the EU who have paid billions for them to do so. And who continue to press the EU for concessions with threats regarding these refugees. Leading to illegal border fences within the EU and tensions with the Visegrad nations over "redistribution" of refugees.
Banking problems, not just with Deutsche Bank or the Italian banks but almost one trillion Euros worth of nonperforming loans across Europe. Even the Euro and the monetary union has been said by the ECB itself to be "in critical position" and in dire need of reform

These are just some of the things facing the EU right now.
As for the "duel" between two sides over Brexit, is it surprising given the combative tone of senior politicians across Europe?
Such language was hardly going to provoke a calm response now was it? In fact personally I think that what rebukes the EU has had so far have mostly shown typical British reserve. If the EU continue their belligerent stance that will change, I'm sure.

Think of how different things could have been if instead these EU politicians had taken a friendlier "Oh well, let's get on and see what we can work out" stance rather than threatening.
In fact Brexit itself may never have been on the cards had so many not been so vocally disparaging, and this at a time when TBH they should all have been quiet observers and no more.
But they weren't, so Brexit is happening and is likely to go forward under the guidance of May & team as we will see next week.

Have you looked at the financial settlement document presented this week by Micheal Barnier the chief EU negotiator.
This sets it all out. Perhaps you could object to some of the items listed.
Here is the link AGAIN. why are Brexiters ignoring this?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/draft-eu-position-papers-article-50-negotiations_en

gfplux

cogito wrote: »

If there are pre-agreed financial arrangements, why is it that the UK has rejected the EU's demands? We must of course honour any commitments that we have entered up to the point when we actually leave the EU but it would appear that the EU are looking for ongoing payments and offering nothing in return.

It shouldn't be a duel but the EU's belligerent attitude displayed by Juncker's leaked phone call to Merkel after the Downing Street dinner seems to indicate that the EU are looking for a fight. It is at least a display of the kind of arrogance that we have come to expect from members of the European Commission.

It was amusing that the Irish government asked Juncker why he didn't also call the other 26 government leaders. Pretty clear who pulls the strings.

The EU has not sent ANY demands to Britain and Britain has not rejected those non existent demands. That has all been played out as spin by BOTH sides.
The negotiations start W/C 19th June.
I am not sure you are making this comment after reading the positioning paper from the EU. It explains the EU's position and Britains obligations (as they see them) your comments don't seem to take that into account.

Link if you need it.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/draft-eu-position-papers-article-50-negotiations_en

Remarkably the EU are making their "Starting" negotiating position VERY clear. If they continue to be so transparent it will be an "entertaining" spectator sport.

wotsthat

It used to be fashionable to keep an eye on the performance of the UK vs Europe.

- Eurozone factory PMI hits 6 year high
- UK slowest growth of any G7 country in Q1 2017

Eurozone PMI is interesting. I had my doubts that the Eurozone economies were a basket case and think they've simply lagged the USA and UK in exiting the GFC.

The G7 numbers are just noise and within a rounding error - not that that would prevent them posted if the UK had been above the European members.

gfplux

Talking with a friend today and we both agreed.
Trump "may" be a disaster for the USA.
BUT
At the moment he is a godsend to Europe as Europe has never been more united than it is after his European visit.

cogito

always_sunny wrote: »

Show me an official document from the British government rejecting 'the' official bill from the European Union.

The only thing released at this stage is the cadence of negotiations and how the EU wants to proceed.
I do suspect there will be some pre-agreed commitments as there might be some assets but right now we have no details of these.

The EU is not looking for a fight (I understand that is the image on many British tabloids), the EU is looking to cut the UK lose as wished in the unrealistic timeframe proposed.

Even the leaked phone call you bring up, I am not sure where you see the EU wanting a fight.
If the demands from Britain seem unrealistic to the EU (as it has been expressed from the EU over and over) that is a statement of that.

The demands may appear very realistic from the British side and fair enough, it doesn't mean they must be met.

To paraphrase, you are saying that the only side to have made any demands is the UK. The EU's position is pretty clear from Juncker's utterances and the UK government was quite right to be outraged by them. At the very least, it was a mark of bad faith on Juncker's part and I hope this isn't a sign that the EU will try to use megaphone diplomacy to bully the UK. I wouldn't count on it.

wotsthat

gfplux wrote: »

Link if you need it.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/draft-eu-position-papers-article-50-negotiations_en

Remarkably the EU are making their "Starting" negotiating position VERY clear. If they continue to be so transparent it will be an "entertaining" spectator sport.

The EU have promised to be open and transparent throughout. Mrs May had to be dragged kicking and screaming through the courts (wasting taxpayer money doing so) to grudgingly concede she might update parliament sometime, maybe, if she feels like it.

cogito

gfplux wrote: »

Have you looked at the financial settlement document presented this week by Micheal Barnier the chief EU negotiator.
This sets it all out. Perhaps you could object to some of the items listed.
Here is the link AGAIN. why are Brexiters ignoring this?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/draft-eu-position-papers-article-50-negotiations_en

Yes, I have read it actually. It looks like a letter that I used to write to Santa Claus when I was a kid. Specific objections? OK. One example. That EU citizens rights should be subject to the Jurisdiction of the ECJ. Seriously?

And I see a lot about the UK's obligations but very little about the EU's obligations. The seem very keen that all the money should flow in one direction.

always_sunny

cogito wrote: »

Yes, I have read it actually. It looks like a letter that I used to write to Santa Claus when I was a kid. Specific objections? OK. One example. That EU citizens rights should be subject to the Jurisdiction of the ECJ. Seriously?

And I see a lot about the UK's obligations but very little about the EU's obligations. The seem very keen that all the money should flow in one direction.

It means EU nationals who moved to the UK under the FoM should be able to enjoy the same rights after withdrawal of the UK from the EU. (This would not mean future EU nationals would also enjoy it).

The same protection of rights should be applied to British nationals residing in the EU. (again not applicable to future ones).

So yes, seriously. Why should my [current] rights in the UK as an EU national be degraded? Currently I am under ECJ and I would expect the same to continue.

Will this create 2 tiers nationals? Sure, pre-Brexit and post-Brexit and that's fine.
What would you suggest the UK should do with the EU nationals currently residing in the UK?
Should we be treated as if we are on a sponsored visa?

cogito

always_sunny wrote: »

It means EU nationals who moved to the UK under the FoM should be able to enjoy the same rights after withdrawal of the UK from the EU. (This would not mean future EU nationals would also enjoy it).

The same protection of rights should be applied to British nationals residing in the EU. (again not applicable to future ones).

So yes, seriously. Why should my [current] rights in the UK as an EU national be degraded? Currently I am under ECJ and I would expect the same to continue.

Will this create 2 tiers nationals? Sure, pre-Brexit and post-Brexit and that's fine.
What would you suggest the UK should do with the EU nationals currently residing in the UK?
Should we be treated as if we are on a sponsored visa?

Specifically what rights would you lose if you were subject to UK courts as distinct from the ECJ? The UK courts are pretty diligent about upholding peoples rights - look how long it tok us to get rid of Abu Hamza for example.

It's simply absurd that foreign citizens should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which they live. I'd like to see the EU try that one on with another country like the US, Russia or China or any third world tin pot dictatorship.

always_sunny

cogito wrote: »

Specifically what rights would you lose if you were subject to UK courts as distinct from the ECJ? The UK courts are pretty diligent about upholding peoples rights - look how long it tok us to get rid of Abu Hamza for example.

It's simply absurd that foreign citizens should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which they live. I'd like to see the EU try that one on with another country like the US, Russia or China or any third world tin pot dictatorship.

Specifically what rights do you think the ECJ will impose that the British courts wouldn't.
Specially how many UK cases go to the ECJ that you believe ECJ involvement is such a big problem?

What it's absurd is that the UK has not made any clear provision of what it is intended to do with these foreign citizens who entered the country under agreed provisions.
The EU would not try the same on US, Russia or China because they're not part of the EU.

Do you think it'd be fair for EU nationals earning below the min salary threshold (£35k) and currently residing in the UK to be removed after the UK withdrawals?
Do you think it'd be fair for British nationals in the EU to be removed if they don't meet the immigration criteria?

Until the British gov has a clear plan then yes, the ECJ should be involved.
Post-Brexit is a different kettle of fish.