Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

TrickyTree83

ilovehouses wrote: »

Explicit means 'stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt'. i.e. it doesn't explicitly state future arrangement talks must take place during negotiations.

Article 50 doesn't require the EU or the leaving state to conclude a trade deal before leaving. It's clutching at straws.

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

It does. That's quite explicit and all encompassing. The entirety of our future relationship with the EU must be part of the talks in arranging our withdrawal from the EU.

At some point trade talks must happen whether the EU is happy with the progress in other areas or not. By leaving negotiation on future trading arrangements until other issues have been resolved risks the EU not complying with the Lisbon treaty, article 50.

That's the treaty everyone signed. There is no escaping that for the UK or the EU.

Filo25

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It does. That's quite explicit and all encompassing. The entirety of our future relationship with the EU must be part of the talks in arranging our withdrawal from the EU.

At some point trade talks must happen whether the EU is happy with the progress in other areas or not. By leaving negotiation on future trading arrangements until other issues have been resolved risks the EU not complying with the Lisbon treaty, article 50.

That's the treaty everyone signed. There is no escaping that for the UK or the EU.

Maybe I'm missing something but isn't that going to happen anyway, obviously talks may not get any further than their current stage and we may therefore get the hardest of hard Brexits with WTO terms and little cooperation between ourselves and the EU, but as far as I can see that would still amount to settling the framework for our future relations with the EU, they just wouldn't be very good relations!

TrickyTree83

ilovehouses wrote: »

It says what it says and nothing else.

You saying the entirety of our future relationship with the EU must be part of the negotiations and a lack thereof is evidence of EU non-compliance is what you imply; not what is explicit.

This has been scrutinised for months. It's unlikely brexit central have just spotted something which everyone else has missed. Why didn't Davis just say on day one that the EU's negotiating position was flawed?

Because right now, it's not flawed, there is still over a year until the negotiations need to conclude.

But article 50 clearly states that the arrangements for our future relationship with the EU, all of them, need to be addressed during negotiations. Other points in the article state that the negotiations will last 2 years unless unanimously agreed by the EU member states to extend that period.

So our future relationship, including trade, must be negotiated and ratified within 2 years (possibly more) according to the treaty. That may be a no deal scenario as we're unable to move past the financials together. But even that no deal scenario needs to be discussed and ratified.

Herzlos

Exactly; they haven't refused to discuss the future trading relationship. They are just refusing to discuss it until we've got the first lot of questions out of the way, just like we agreed.

It really feels like we're stalling so we can complain about how the bad EU is mean to us.

TrickyTree83

Filo25 wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but isn't that going to happen anyway, obviously talks may not get any further than their current stage and we may therefore get the hardest of hard Brexits with WTO terms and little cooperation between ourselves and the EU, but as far as I can see that would still amount to settling the framework for our future relations with the EU, they just wouldn't be very good relations!

Yeah I'm aware, I said as much in the post above.

A no deal scenario still needs to be discussed and ratified by the EU and the UK.

My point is only that trade negotiations and arrangements need to take place whether the EU want to or not due to the treaty. Their current position is at odds with the treaty should this position continue through to March 2019 (or longer in the event of an extension).

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

Exactly; they haven't refused to discuss the future trading relationship. They are just refusing to discuss it until we've got the first lot of questions out of the way, just like we agreed.

It really feels like we're stalling so we can complain about how the bad EU is mean to us.

I don't think it's so we can complain. I think we entered into that arrangement in good faith in the knowledge that the discussion on trade must happen at some point according to the treaty.

cogito

Filo25 wrote: »

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?

I don't see it as playing hardball at all. It takes two to negotiate and it appears to me that the EU simply aren't engaging in the process. TBH, I never expected that they would move an iota from their position papers as it is not their style to do so. Disengaging from the sham is not playing hardball but a sad recognition that there is no point in hammering your head against a brick wall.

Also, there is no such thing as a hard brexit. Leaving is leaving. Continuing to pay for access to the single market and customs union is not leaving.

Filo25

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Yeah I'm aware, I said as much in the post above.

A no deal scenario still needs to be discussed and ratified by the EU and the UK.

My point is only that trade negotiations and arrangements need to take place whether the EU want to or not due to the treaty. Their current position is at odds with the treaty should this position continue through to March 2019 (or longer in the event of an extension).

If it is obvious there will be no deal, then I would think the rest of the talks would take a negligible amount of time to complete, so I don't forsee it being a much of an issue.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I don't think it's so we can complain. I think we entered into that arrangement in good faith in the knowledge that the discussion on trade must happen at some point according to the treaty.

Then why aren't we being more pro-active with negotiations? Why don't we turn up with the preparations we agreed to?

A competent team could have moved on from day 1 discussions by now and we could be working on trade.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

Then why aren't we being more pro-active with negotiations? Why don't we turn up with the preparations we agreed to?

A competent team could have moved on from day 1 discussions by now and we could be working on trade.

You appear to believe there's no movement on the UK side, clearly there has been. I don't know what movement there has been on the EU side, presumably some. But the point remains that our request to start other discussions due to the length of time it has taken to get this far is a sensible one.

I certainly wouldn't want those batting for me to just roll over in order to conclude things as quickly as possible. In cricket we'd call that match fixing.