Anyone for a Brexit ?

[arcobob]

Please god, No. He's straight out of Dickens novel.

He comes over as a statesman of the old school, honest and trustworthy and able to command respect, not like the slick Del Boy politicians of the present crowd in the driving seat.

 

[arbel]

I've mentioned a few times that I am a follower of Charles Crawford. He writes some interesting stuff and covers quite a few points that we on TFF and this forum don't really take much notice of. He is an Outer but maybe not completely an Outer. Some of the stuff he writes I don't necessarily want to see happen. But being a retired Diplomat, I respect the fact that he knows a dam site more about the way these things work than certainly I and I suspect most of us do. Here is his latest article a to what may well happen after a Brexit. You Remainers on here might actually like the gist of it too!

Brexit v UKinEU (17): What Next?

Over at the FT (££) is an elegant piece by David Allen Green on the legal/constitutional steps that would be expected following a Brexit vote. Key point:

A vote for Brexit will not be determinative of whether the UK will leave the EU. That potential outcome comes down to the political decisions which then follow before the Article 50 notification. The policy of the government (if not of all of its ministers) is to remain in the EU. The UK government may thereby seek to put off the Article 50 notification, regardless of political pressure and conventional wisdom.

There may already be plans in place to slow things down and to put off any substantive decision until after summer. In turn, those supporting Brexit cannot simply celebrate a vote for leave as a job done — for them the real political work begins in getting the government to make the Article 50 notification as soon as possible with no further preconditions.

On the day after a vote for Brexit, the UK will still be a member state of the EU. All the legislation which gives effect to EU law will still be in place. Nothing as a matter of law changes in any way just because of a vote to Leave. What will make all the legal difference is not a decision to leave by UK voters in a non-binding advisory vote, but the decision of the prime minister on making any Article 50 notification.

I’ve posted this comment:

Note that the Cameron/EU Deal has this explosive point in the small print:

“It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist”

NB that the package comes into effect ONLY IF AND WHEN the UK formally notifies the EU that it’s staying in. If the UK votes to leave in the June referendum, the whole package vanishes like a puff of smoke!

http://charlescrawford.biz/2016/02/29/brexit-v-ukineu-2/

Be all that as it may, DAG is right to remind us that pretty much anything in the way the EU works can be changed on the hoof or not as long as all member states (and grudgingly the Commission and EP) go along with the changes.

So don’t get too transfixed on the TEU texts as such, even though they in a sense do set negotiating parameters of sorts.

In this dramatic case, namely where one member state for the first time votes to Leave the EU, there will be a huge unprecedented operational responsibility on the personal shoulders of every serious EU leader to keep things calm and find a sane way through.

Some of those leaders will come under intense political pressure to offer their own voters a referendum. Some may (rightly) feel politically threatened or personally affronted by this startling new situation caused by the UK and be determined to ‘punish’ the UK pour encourager les autres (while also not overdoing it lest their own country go the same way and risk heavy punishment too). Everyone will be flailing around looking for a Plan.

Unless everything collapses around our ears, that Plan will involve having lots of dull meetings. Lots!

So D Cameron BEFORE he triggers A50 (as he has to do to maintain any last wisps of political and personal credibility) will work like a maniac to take soundings of leaders in Berlin and Paris (with some Madrid/Hague/Rome/Warsaw as well) to identify a process that steers the whole problem into those boring meetings.

The smart best-case outcome is a process that involves something like the following:

Agreement in principle that the UK will end up with a quick dirty interim EEA/EFTA type deal after lots of bickering/bargaining

Agreement in principle that EU leaders will launch a new Strategic Dialogue on the EU’s Future, with a view to big treaty changes in (say) five years’ time that recalibrate the EU and indeed Europe as a whole into two parts: Eurozone Europe (a sort of new superstate bringing together only those willing to accept its disciplines); and Free Trade Europe (a looser formation based on intergovernmental arrangements)

This outcome calms markets. It ends once and for all the ‘ever-closer union’ nonsense except for those who really now want it. It allows a framework for bringing in Turkey/Ukraine/ex-Yugos and maybe even Russia in due course. It reboots the legitimacy of the whole project by offering a Two-Sizes-Available-To-All package that each country freely chooses. It settles in a principled way the post-Cold War problem that Europe has too many countries and too few good clubs.

Above all, it allows Cameron/Merkel/Hollande/Tusk etc to show personal leadership in a way that is genuinely strategic, historic and constructive. Win-Win!

Has anyone got a better idea?

Extremely interesting and informative. Great post. Thank you.

 

[arcobob]

I've mentioned a few times that I am a follower of Charles Crawford. He writes some interesting stuff and covers quite a few points that we on TFF and this forum don't really take much notice of. He is an Outer but maybe not completely an Outer. Some of the stuff he writes I don't necessarily want to see happen. But being a retired Diplomat, I respect the fact that he knows a dam site more about the way these things work than certainly I and I suspect most of us do. Here is his latest article a to what may well happen after a Brexit. You Remainers on here might actually like the gist of it too!

Brexit v UKinEU (17): What Next?

Over at the FT (££) is an elegant piece by David Allen Green on the legal/constitutional steps that would be expected following a Brexit vote. Key point:

A vote for Brexit will not be determinative of whether the UK will leave the EU. That potential outcome comes down to the political decisions which then follow before the Article 50 notification. The policy of the government (if not of all of its ministers) is to remain in the EU. The UK government may thereby seek to put off the Article 50 notification, regardless of political pressure and conventional wisdom.

There may already be plans in place to slow things down and to put off any substantive decision until after summer. In turn, those supporting Brexit cannot simply celebrate a vote for leave as a job done — for them the real political work begins in getting the government to make the Article 50 notification as soon as possible with no further preconditions.

On the day after a vote for Brexit, the UK will still be a member state of the EU. All the legislation which gives effect to EU law will still be in place. Nothing as a matter of law changes in any way just because of a vote to Leave. What will make all the legal difference is not a decision to leave by UK voters in a non-binding advisory vote, but the decision of the prime minister on making any Article 50 notification.

I’ve posted this comment:

Note that the Cameron/EU Deal has this explosive point in the small print:

“It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist”

NB that the package comes into effect ONLY IF AND WHEN the UK formally notifies the EU that it’s staying in. If the UK votes to leave in the June referendum, the whole package vanishes like a puff of smoke!

http://charlescrawford.biz/2016/02/29/brexit-v-ukineu-2/

Be all that as it may, DAG is right to remind us that pretty much anything in the way the EU works can be changed on the hoof or not as long as all member states (and grudgingly the Commission and EP) go along with the changes.

So don’t get too transfixed on the TEU texts as such, even though they in a sense do set negotiating parameters of sorts.

In this dramatic case, namely where one member state for the first time votes to Leave the EU, there will be a huge unprecedented operational responsibility on the personal shoulders of every serious EU leader to keep things calm and find a sane way through.

Some of those leaders will come under intense political pressure to offer their own voters a referendum. Some may (rightly) feel politically threatened or personally affronted by this startling new situation caused by the UK and be determined to ‘punish’ the UK pour encourager les autres (while also not overdoing it lest their own country go the same way and risk heavy punishment too). Everyone will be flailing around looking for a Plan.

Unless everything collapses around our ears, that Plan will involve having lots of dull meetings. Lots!

So D Cameron BEFORE he triggers A50 (as he has to do to maintain any last wisps of political and personal credibility) will work like a maniac to take soundings of leaders in Berlin and Paris (with some Madrid/Hague/Rome/Warsaw as well) to identify a process that steers the whole problem into those boring meetings.

The smart best-case outcome is a process that involves something like the following:

Agreement in principle that the UK will end up with a quick dirty interim EEA/EFTA type deal after lots of bickering/bargaining

Agreement in principle that EU leaders will launch a new Strategic Dialogue on the EU’s Future, with a view to big treaty changes in (say) five years’ time that recalibrate the EU and indeed Europe as a whole into two parts: Eurozone Europe (a sort of new superstate bringing together only those willing to accept its disciplines); and Free Trade Europe (a looser formation based on intergovernmental arrangements)

This outcome calms markets. It ends once and for all the ‘ever-closer union’ nonsense except for those who really now want it. It allows a framework for bringing in Turkey/Ukraine/ex-Yugos and maybe even Russia in due course. It reboots the legitimacy of the whole project by offering a Two-Sizes-Available-To-All package that each country freely chooses. It settles in a principled way the post-Cold War problem that Europe has too many countries and too few good clubs.

Above all, it allows Cameron/Merkel/Hollande/Tusk etc to show personal leadership in a way that is genuinely strategic, historic and constructive. Win-Win!

Has anyone got a better idea?

This is precisely how I feel and hope things will develop but we need strong men to fight our corner. An in vote will not invoke quite the same reaction and we will slip back into the laissez-faire attitude and stumble along like a nation engulfed in a giant mud slide.

 

[YPhrunts]

.

 

[Henarar]

The wording was

DO YOU THINK THE UNITED KINGDOM SHOULD STAY IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (THE COMMON MARKET)

YES (BOX)

NO (BOX)

Looks like lots of folk took that at face value and didn't read the small print

 

[YPhrunts]

Jacob Rees-Mogg is the man to get the Tory party to work their way out of the mess they have gotten themselves into. My respect for him has grown immensely during this campaign.

 

[YPhrunts]

I've mentioned a few times that I am a follower of Charles Crawford. He writes some interesting stuff and covers quite a few points that we on TFF and this forum don't really take much notice of. He is an Outer but maybe not completely an Outer. Some of the stuff he writes I don't necessarily want to see happen. But being a retired Diplomat, I respect the fact that he knows a dam site more about the way these things work than certainly I and I suspect most of us do. Here is his latest article a to what may well happen after a Brexit. You Remainers on here might actually like the gist of it too!

Brexit v UKinEU (17): What Next?

Over at the FT (££) is an elegant piece by David Allen Green on the legal/constitutional steps that would be expected following a Brexit vote. Key point:

A vote for Brexit will not be determinative of whether the UK will leave the EU. That potential outcome comes down to the political decisions which then follow before the Article 50 notification. The policy of the government (if not of all of its ministers) is to remain in the EU. The UK government may thereby seek to put off the Article 50 notification, regardless of political pressure and conventional wisdom.


That was about as clear as pea soup.
Put simply Cameron's negotiated concessions don't come into effect until it has been approved by the commissioners at the next Treaty review which will take place well after our referendum. If we vote leave Cameron's deal will 'vanish like a puff of smoke' at which point they will renege on the verbal agreement because they cannot change Treat law without all 28 countries agreeing it and we all ready know that Hungary was not happy with it.
They have to kick it out otherwise concessions might creep into other Treaties and that will be the downfall of the Union. Reform is not desirable and therefore not possible.
Then there is the likely outcome that the whole thing will get kicked into the long grass with endless meetings that go on over years and years until we all forget what the concession was about in the first place and we get back to a European Union telling us what to do.

There may already be plans in place to slow things down and to put off any substantive decision until after summer. In turn, those supporting Brexit cannot simply celebrate a vote for leave as a job done — for them the real political work begins in getting the government to make the Article 50 notification as soon as possible with no further preconditions.

On the day after a vote for Brexit, the UK will still be a member state of the EU. All the legislation which gives effect to EU law will still be in place. Nothing as a matter of law changes in any way just because of a vote to Leave. What will make all the legal difference is not a decision to leave by UK voters in a non-binding advisory vote, but the decision of the prime minister on making any Article 50 notification.

I’ve posted this comment:

Note that the Cameron/EU Deal has this explosive point in the small print:

“It is understood that, should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to in paragraph 2 above will cease to exist”

NB that the package comes into effect ONLY IF AND WHEN the UK formally notifies the EU that it’s staying in. If the UK votes to leave in the June referendum, the whole package vanishes like a puff of smoke!

http://charlescrawford.biz/2016/02/29/brexit-v-ukineu-2/

Be all that as it may, DAG is right to remind us that pretty much anything in the way the EU works can be changed on the hoof or not as long as all member states (and grudgingly the Commission and EP) go along with the changes.

So don’t get too transfixed on the TEU texts as such, even though they in a sense do set negotiating parameters of sorts.

In this dramatic case, namely where one member state for the first time votes to Leave the EU, there will be a huge unprecedented operational responsibility on the personal shoulders of every serious EU leader to keep things calm and find a sane way through.

Some of those leaders will come under intense political pressure to offer their own voters a referendum. Some may (rightly) feel politically threatened or personally affronted by this startling new situation caused by the UK and be determined to ‘punish’ the UK pour encourager les autres (while also not overdoing it lest their own country go the same way and risk heavy punishment too). Everyone will be flailing around looking for a Plan.

Unless everything collapses around our ears, that Plan will involve having lots of dull meetings. Lots!

So D Cameron BEFORE he triggers A50 (as he has to do to maintain any last wisps of political and personal credibility) will work like a maniac to take soundings of leaders in Berlin and Paris (with some Madrid/Hague/Rome/Warsaw as well) to identify a process that steers the whole problem into those boring meetings.

The smart best-case outcome is a process that involves something like the following:

Agreement in principle that the UK will end up with a quick dirty interim EEA/EFTA type deal after lots of bickering/bargaining

Agreement in principle that EU leaders will launch a new Strategic Dialogue on the EU’s Future, with a view to big treaty changes in (say) five years’ time that recalibrate the EU and indeed Europe as a whole into two parts: Eurozone Europe (a sort of new superstate bringing together only those willing to accept its disciplines); and Free Trade Europe (a looser formation based on intergovernmental arrangements)

This outcome calms markets. It ends once and for all the ‘ever-closer union’ nonsense except for those who really now want it. It allows a framework for bringing in Turkey/Ukraine/ex-Yugos and maybe even Russia in due course. It reboots the legitimacy of the whole project by offering a Two-Sizes-Available-To-All package that each country freely chooses. It settles in a principled way the post-Cold War problem that Europe has too many countries and too few good clubs.

Above all, it allows Cameron/Merkel/Hollande/Tusk etc to show personal leadership in a way that is genuinely strategic, historic and constructive. Win-Win!

Has anyone got a better idea?

That was about as clear as pea soup.
Put simply Cameron's negotiated concessions don't come into effect until it has been approved by the commissioners at the next Treaty review which will take place well after our referendum. If we vote leave Cameron's deal will 'vanish like a puff of smoke'. I we vote to remain they will renege on the verbal agreement because they cannot change Treaty law without all 28 countries agreeing it and we all ready know that Hungary was not happy with it.
They have to kick it out otherwise concessions might creep into other Treaties and that will be the downfall of the Union. Reform is not desirable and therefore not possible.

Then there is the likely outcome that the whole thing will get kicked into the long grass with endless meetings that go on over years and years until we all forget what the concession was about in the first place and we get back to a European Union telling us what to do. Right?

 

[Muck Spreader]

He comes over as a statesman of the old school, honest and trustworthy and able to command respect, not like the slick Del Boy politicians of the present crowd in the driving seat.

I would question the honest and trustworthy and being a former investment banker would confirm my suspicions, but he is on the farmers side so you can't knock him for that . I would like to see him on question time against George Monbiot.

I personally would like to see Dan Jarvis defect to the Conservatives or I might even vote Labour if he became leader.

 

[RobFZS]

I would question the honest and trustworthy and being a former investment banker would confirm my suspicions, but he is on the farmers side so you can't knock him for that . I would like to see him on question time against George Monbiot.

I personally would like to see Dan Jarvis defect to the Conservatives or I might even vote Labour if he became leader.

jarvis will be next labour leader when they grow up and want to be elected

 

[RobFZS]

 

[its yourself]

The problem for Scotland is that it probably does not have the population sufficient to generate the tax returns needed to go it alone. With the revenues for oil so low, it just isn't viable.
Anyway, there was a majority vote in Scotland to remain part of the UK and folk up there are far too canny to blindly chance their luck with going independent and then waiting years to see if they qualify to join the EU.
This is one case where we really are better off together and we will be needing Scottish skills and endeavor to get the UK rolling again.

We were promised if we voted no this vote was impossible.

We were promised voting no meant we were certain to stay in the EU.

We were promised if we voted no massive shipyard orders.

Not one of those promises has been kept.

 

[Breakthru]

Whats new! You always know when a politician is lying, his LIPS are Moving. Work out their personal and their sponsors agenda and you will get a bettewr view.

 

[Two Tone]

Mr Gove,
I take my hat off to you re tonight's Question time. My opinion of you grows ever greater the more I hear you re Brexit.
Well done!

 

[its yourself]

Whats new! You always know when a politician is lying, his LIPS are Moving. Work out their personal and their sponsors agenda and you will get a bettewr view.

Indeed.

The sponsors of leave have numerous fines for running cartels illegal trading and even illegal fishing.

£63 million of illegal fishing in fact.

The Gover even lied about his dad.

 

[Danllan]

We were promised if we voted no this vote was impossible.

We were promised voting no meant we were certain to stay in the EU.

We were promised if we voted no massive shipyard orders.

Not one of those promises has been kept.

That's most politicians sadly, and is just as of true up North as everywhere else, there are a very few who are genuinely good, decent, straight-talking people who will do their best to do what they say. The rest are prigs, liars and hypocrites of the first order; but we keep hoping they won't be...

@Two Tone You are right, I made sure I was in to watch him and he was very good. All the gravitas that has left the supposed leaders of the country seems to have gone to Michael Gove - I guess he is likely as a future PM.

 

[YPhrunts]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1404564916227029

As soon as that interview ended Andrew Neil piled into Ed Vaizey in the studio.

 

[Ashtree]

Isn't Nigel a real man's man! Always fighting for justice and the little guy. Never shirking his duties in the European Parliment to represent the fishermen of Britain. One can see the passion in his demeanour and hear the emotion in his voice as he fights the good fight for the fishing towns of Britain from Lands End to John O Groats.
Nige attended all of one meeting in forty three such meetings of the fishing committee of the EU Parliment , in his capacity as British representative in that committee.

Nigel and his followers complain Britain has no influence, and no power in Europe. Drowned out by the din created by 27 other twits they say.

Well if the British MEP's don't turn up to the meetings, how can they have influence.

When you stand for election, get elected, collect the fat salary and the generous expenses and then don't turn up for the day job, you can't expect results. Can you?

 

[its yourself]

That's most politicians sadly, and is just as of true up North as everywhere else, there are a very few who are genuinely good, decent, straight-talking people who will do their best to do what they say. The rest are prigs, liars and hypocrites of the first order; but we keep hoping they won't be...

@Two Tone You are right, I made sure I was in to watch him and he was very good. All the gravitas that has left the supposed leaders of the country seems to have gone to Michael Gove - I guess he is likely as a future PM.

Gove is the son of an Aberdeen fish merchant.

If you think he is on your side you have no idea of the man.

Or fish merchants.

 

[not sure]

We used to be Great Britain! We can again but if we dont leave why Can we not run the eu as well!
Reason we have a high population so majority rule!

 

[Henarar]

Isn't Nigel a real man's man! Always fighting for justice and the little guy. Never shirking his duties in the European Parliment to represent the fishermen of Britain. One can see the passion in his demeanour and hear the emotion in his voice as he fights the good fight for the fishing towns of Britain from Lands End to John O Groats.
Nige attended all of one meeting in forty three such meetings of the fishing committee of the EU Parliment , in his capacity as British representative in that committee.

Nigel and his followers complain Britain has no influence, and no power in Europe. Drowned out by the din created by 27 other twits they say.

Well if the British MEP's don't turn up to the meetings, how can they have influence.

When you stand for election, get elected, collect the fat salary and the generous expenses and then don't turn up for the day job, you can't expect results. Can you?

good post