Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

mayonnaise

ilovehouses wrote: »

We can be pretty sure that Davis' department's own brexit analyses show something similar or worse otherwise they'd be put in the public domain to put pressure on the EU.

They might be forced to publish them sooner rather than later.

David Davis faces legal threat over secret reports on Brexit impact

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/13/david-davis-faces-legal-threat-over-secret-reports-on-brexit-impact

cogito

What David Davis should now be saying to Michel Barnier:

Thank you Michel. The EU will now consider whether these talks have made enough progress for the EU to be willing to discuss their ongoing relationship with the UK after Brexit. While you do that, the UK Government will consider whether the talks have made enough progress for us to have any confidence that the EU is serious about negotiating a deal with the UK. The UK needs to know whether you want a deal or not. Contrary to the wording and the spirit of Article 50, the EU has continued to refuse to discuss our ongoing relationship. I remind you of the terms under which these talks are taking place. Article 50 says that the EU shall “negotiate and conclude an agreement with the (departing) state setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”. I repeat the phrase: “…taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”. I must tell you that I shall report to the UK Government that after five months of talks, only limited progress has been made. Currently there is no sign that the EU intends to negotiate in accordance with Article 50 and to discuss the arrangements for our future relationship simultaneously with those for our withdrawal. The UK will not agree the terms of our withdrawal independently from those of our future relationship. Specifically the EU cannot seriously expect the UK to agree to pay a fixed sum of money before it knows whether a good deal on trade and other matters can be agreed. We have also been disappointed in the EU’s reaction to the papers that we have published on different aspects of our departure. The routine response from the EU has not been to use them as a basis of negotiation, but merely to criticise them as either lacking in detail or failing to set out what the UK wants. We have also spent time discussing topics that are frankly absurd. No other country accepts that the European Court of Justice should be the supreme court in their land in respect of EU citizens within those countries or for any other matter. Nor will the UK accept this. If the EU continues to refuse to discuss all aspects of our departure, we must conclude that they do not wish to negotiate any deal at all. Michel, I appreciate that you are negotiating in accordance with the instructions that you have been given by the Council of Ministers, so I say to the Council that they should immediately revise your instructions and remove all those requirements which prevent normal negotiation and authorise you to speedily agree a mutually beneficial deal. If this has not been done by 30th November 2017, the UK will have to conclude that it is not possible to negotiate a deal with the EU. If the UK Government draws this conclusion, then my delegation and I will not come to any more of these monthly talks. We will leave a team in Brussels and if the EU wishes to bring forward any matters, our team will listen to what you have to say and will report back to me. For some time now, the Department for Exiting the European Union has been making contingency plans for a departure from the EU without any agreement. If talks break down as I have just described, we will focus our efforts on preparations for exiting the EU at midnight on 29th March 2019 without any deal. In the context of our departure from the EU without a deal, the Council of Ministers, Presidents, Commissioners and MEPs should be aware of the following:
If we exit the EU without a deal, the law is quite clear: payments to the EU are requirements under the Treaties. From the moment that a state leaves the EU, the Treaties cease to apply and therefore no further payments are legally due.

http://brexitcentral.com/davis-tell-barnier-withdraw-negotiations-european-council-trade-talks/

Not much to disagree with, I think, although the usual apologists for the EU will no doubt be along to tell us that we should rollover and cave in.

Filo25

Cogito, out of interest do you think the UK should play hardball on this because you think the EU will blink first, or because you genuinely think an acrimonious Hard Brexit won't be an issue for the UK?

Filo25

ilovehouses wrote: »

Much of this Davis should've been making clear from day 1.

However, as he's a lazy bleeder who's scared to death of missing the party politics at home he hasn't been present for most of the negotiations.

Seems reasonable enough though - maybe with the odd paragraph thrown in so it doesn't sound like a rant.

Therein lies the core of the problem, negotiations so far seem to have been more driven by playing to the gallery at home rather than genuinely laying out our redlines and priorities and we're already 6 months of the way through the process.

TrickyTree83

cogito wrote: »

What David Davis should now be saying to Michel Barnier:

Thank you Michel. The EU will now consider whether these talks have made enough progress for the EU to be willing to discuss their ongoing relationship with the UK after Brexit. While you do that, the UK Government will consider whether the talks have made enough progress for us to have any confidence that the EU is serious about negotiating a deal with the UK. The UK needs to know whether you want a deal or not. Contrary to the wording and the spirit of Article 50, the EU has continued to refuse to discuss our ongoing relationship. I remind you of the terms under which these talks are taking place. Article 50 says that the EU shall “negotiate and conclude an agreement with the (departing) state setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”. I repeat the phrase: “…taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”. I must tell you that I shall report to the UK Government that after five months of talks, only limited progress has been made. Currently there is no sign that the EU intends to negotiate in accordance with Article 50 and to discuss the arrangements for our future relationship simultaneously with those for our withdrawal. The UK will not agree the terms of our withdrawal independently from those of our future relationship. Specifically the EU cannot seriously expect the UK to agree to pay a fixed sum of money before it knows whether a good deal on trade and other matters can be agreed. We have also been disappointed in the EU’s reaction to the papers that we have published on different aspects of our departure. The routine response from the EU has not been to use them as a basis of negotiation, but merely to criticise them as either lacking in detail or failing to set out what the UK wants. We have also spent time discussing topics that are frankly absurd. No other country accepts that the European Court of Justice should be the supreme court in their land in respect of EU citizens within those countries or for any other matter. Nor will the UK accept this. If the EU continues to refuse to discuss all aspects of our departure, we must conclude that they do not wish to negotiate any deal at all. Michel, I appreciate that you are negotiating in accordance with the instructions that you have been given by the Council of Ministers, so I say to the Council that they should immediately revise your instructions and remove all those requirements which prevent normal negotiation and authorise you to speedily agree a mutually beneficial deal. If this has not been done by 30th November 2017, the UK will have to conclude that it is not possible to negotiate a deal with the EU. If the UK Government draws this conclusion, then my delegation and I will not come to any more of these monthly talks. We will leave a team in Brussels and if the EU wishes to bring forward any matters, our team will listen to what you have to say and will report back to me. For some time now, the Department for Exiting the European Union has been making contingency plans for a departure from the EU without any agreement. If talks break down as I have just described, we will focus our efforts on preparations for exiting the EU at midnight on 29th March 2019 without any deal. In the context of our departure from the EU without a deal, the Council of Ministers, Presidents, Commissioners and MEPs should be aware of the following:
If we exit the EU without a deal, the law is quite clear: payments to the EU are requirements under the Treaties. From the moment that a state leaves the EU, the Treaties cease to apply and therefore no further payments are legally due.

http://brexitcentral.com/davis-tell-barnier-withdraw-negotiations-european-council-trade-talks/

Not much to disagree with, I think, although the usual apologists for the EU will no doubt be along to tell us that we should rollover and cave in.

Hard to argue against the treaty that has been signed isn't it.

I'd love to see if people can argue against black and white text signed by the EU member states. The current way they are negotiating is not in accordance with the treaty.

mayonnaise

cogito wrote: »

What David Davis should now be saying to Michel Barnier:

If we want the UK to become the pariah of the world, that's what he should say, yes.
And from the day he does, not a single country on earth will dare to enter into any kind of bilateral agreement with the UK as we can't be trusted to stick to our obligations and commitments.
Why do you hate the UK so much?

TrickyTree83

mayonnaise wrote: »

If we want the UK to become the pariah of the world, that's what he should say, yes.
And from the day he does, not a single country on earth will dare to enter into any kind of bilateral agreement with the UK as we can't be trusted to stick to our obligations and commitments.
Why do you hate the UK so much?

It is sticking to the obligations in accordance with the Lisbon treaty.

Having read article 50 I can concur that it reads as cogito posted. Take a look for yourself.

mayonnaise

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It is sticking to the obligations in accordance with the Lisbon treaty.

Having read article 50 I can concur that it reads as cogito posted. Take a look for yourself.

Parliamentary Business, House of Commons, January 2017:

At a press conference on 6 December, M. Barnier said that it was legally impossible for the EU to negotiate a “new partnership” agreement with the UK until the narrow terms of the UK’s “divorce” from the EU were complete. These “divorce” terms were reported to include demands for payments from the UK to cover pensions and other budgetary commitments, as well as a number of narrow technical and legal matters that would need to be resolved.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmexeu/815/81506.htm (55.)

And here is our own Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union's view on this:

David Davis concedes that trade talks cannot begin before Brexit divorce talks.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-davis-caves-into-eu-timetable-demand-on-first-day-of-brexit-talks-2017-6

TrickyTree83

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 an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[5] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_50_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union

They HAVE to negotiate what we're asking for them to negotiate, or they will be in breach of the treaty. It would appear we're in accordance with the Lisbon treaty so far and have been amicable to the EU's demands to have phased talks. If these phased talks stall, as they have done, it's not beyond our remit according to the treaty to demand that talks on the future relationship also take place.

TrickyTree83

ilovehouses wrote: »

You could argue that 'taking into account future arrangements' doesn't extend beyond, for example, EU citizens, a divorce bill and the Irish border.

There's nothing that implies trade talks have to start at the same time. The trading position of a third country was known on the day of the referendum.

setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union

It says nothing of phased talks that are contingent on money, but explicitly states that arrangements for the withdrawal and the future arrangement talks take place during the negotiations. That means at some point they have to, otherwise it will be the EU in breach of their own treaty.