Does anyone else think we should have triggered Article 50 by now?

[Hibbyradge]

May has told the EU it won't be triggered this year.

[HappyAsHellas]

If my understanding is correct, the two years till exit doesn't start till the article is lodged with the EU. I think they're waiting for the dust to settle a bit before committing to anything. May met with Merkel and discussed the open market, immigration etc. I think she'll have talks with all the big players before anything happens. The unelected presidents all want it done yesterday which is typical of how they react to anything that doesn't suit their agenda - it's not playing hardball, just clowns who fail to understand how things work in the real world.

[RyeSloan]

May has told the EU it won't be triggered this year. Why would we? Article 50 is not exactly overflowing in detail. I would assume that all parties would look to agree what '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' actually means in the real world before its invoked rather than trying to agree on the process months after it has started the clock ticking. Set out the framework that the negotiations will be based on, agree the participants, the decision making process etc (and of course each party needs to consider their most preferable outcome) THEN invoke the article would seem like a sensible approach to me....

[Beefster]

I think they're doing the right thing. There needs to be wide consultation before coming up with our strategy and wishlist for negotiations. Why start the stopwatch when we're not ready?

The Tories would get crucified if they went in unprepared and came out with a terrible deal.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Exactly.

Plus, we are doing the right thing in speaking to our partner countries first.

The EU exists to serve our interests, not the other way around and if the commission dont like it, tough.

[Peevemor]

Exactly.

Plus, we are doing the right thing in speaking to our partner countries first.

The EU exists to serve our interests, not the other way around and if the commission dont like it, tough.

Erm, I think it's meant to be a mutual thing.

If you have a business partner who announces that he intends to leave the company to go it alone but doesn't specify exactly when he's leaving, you're going to want him out as soon as possible. You're certainly not going to let him hang around indefinitely, taking part in the decision making process.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Erm, I think it's meant to be a mutual thing.

If you have a business partner who announces that he intends to leave the company to go it alone but doesn't specify exactly when he's leaving, you're going to want him out as soon as possible. You're certainly not going to let him hang around indefinitely, taking part in the decision making process.

Thats true, but i dont think its the same thing.

We are members of a club, and we are continuing to pay to be members of that club, therefpre we continue to expect the club facilities to be at our disposal.

We are effectively sounding out fellow club committee members about leaving, and how best to do that.

Plus merkel seems to support our approach. Its really little to do with the commission if our fellow members are happy.

[Glory Lurker]

I'm not sure. It depends on whether the uncertainty of a delay will give an opportunity for other anti-EU movements to get their acts together. There was a lot of talk about this a month ago, but obviously the media cycle has long since tired of looking at that possibility. It's tempting to assume that it is not happening otherwise it would be a news story. If it's not happening, then fair enough, take time to trigger the process. But is it happening?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'm not sure. It depends on whether the uncertainty of a delay will give an opportunity for other anti-EU movements to get their acts together. There was a lot of talk about this a month ago, but obviously the media cycle has long since tired of looking at that possibility. It's tempting to assume that it is not happening otherwise it would be a news story. If it's not happening, then fair enough, take time to trigger the process. But is it happening?

I dont mean to be obtuse, and im not trying to be confrontational, but in the nicest possible way that is not our problem, unless key member states raise it directly with us (which they may well do). Oir only interest is in securing the best deal for us, amd keeping strong links with key partner countries, particuarly Germany.

If our delay creates problems for the EU, that is for them to worry about.

[Glory Lurker]

I dont mean to be obtuse, and im not trying to be confrontational, but in the nicest possible way that is not our problem, unless key member states raise it directly with us (which they may well do). Oir only interest is in securing the best deal for us, amd keeping strong links with key partner countries, particuarly Germany.

If our delay creates problems for the EU, that is for them to worry about.

No, no problems. :aok:. We're just looking at it from different perspectives. For all its faults, I am a big supporter of the EU and don't want a decision in the UK that I profoundly disagree with to endanger the future of the EU.

[RyeSloan]

I'm not sure. It depends on whether the uncertainty of a delay will give an opportunity for other anti-EU movements to get their acts together. There was a lot of talk about this a month ago, but obviously the media cycle has long since tired of looking at that possibility. It's tempting to assume that it is not happening otherwise it would be a news story. If it's not happening, then fair enough, take time to trigger the process. But is it happening?

Oh it sure is happening and Italy seems the most likely place for the first domino effect to be felt. Couple of key challenges there in terms of the bank crisis resolution (will the EU stick to their rules and enforce a bail in thus impacting a lot of domestic holders of the bonds or will they fudge and do a bail out) and then their is Renzi's referendum on constitutional reform. Either or both could see a large move towards anti EU parties.

[Glory Lurker]

Oh it sure is happening and Italy seems the most likely place for the first domino effect to be felt. Couple of key challenges there in terms of the bank crisis resolution (will the EU stick to their rules and enforce a bail in thus impacting a lot of domestic holders of the bonds or will they fudge and do a bail out) and then their is Renzi's referendum on constitutional reform. Either or both could see a large move towards anti EU parties.

Thanks. Worrying times.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No, no problems. :aok:. We're just looking at it from different perspectives. For all its faults, I am a big supporter of the EU and don't want a decision in the UK that I profoundly disagree with to endanger the future of the EU.

Fair enough mate, im looking at it from a little britain point of view!

[Glory Lurker]

Fair enough mate, im looking at it from a little britain point of view!
:take that:greengrin

[Bristolhibby]

Fair enough mate, im looking at it from a little britain point of view!

Negotiations can (and should IMHO) end in a win/win for both parties.

We are going to have to live with (literally) The EU and its citizens and do business with them. Screwing them down may give us short term benefit, but "poison the well" long term.

Problem is I'm not even sure the UK knows what it wants or doesn't want from any negotiations yet. (That simply wasn't discussed by leave).

Interestingly compare the post Brexit scrutiny to the Indy Yes campaigns scrutiny of post Infependence planning. Like night and day. At least we know that voters (given the right media persuasion) ARE actually willing to take a punt.

J

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Negotiations can (and should IMHO) end in a win/win for both parties.

We are going to have to live with (literally) The EU and its citizens and do business with them. Screwing them down may give us short term benefit, but "poison the well" long term.

Problem is I'm not even sure the UK knows what it wants or doesn't want from any negotiations yet. (That simply wasn't discussed by leave).

Interestingly compare the post Brexit scrutiny to the Indy Yes campaigns scrutiny of post Infependence planning. Like night and day. At least we know that voters (given the right media persuasion) ARE actually willing to take a punt.

J

Yeah but we need to remain on good terms with the membet states, the commission etc will be far less important.

I dont understand your last point?

[JeMeSouviens]

Thats true, but i dont think its the same thing.

We are members of a club, and we are continuing to pay to be members of that club, therefpre we continue to expect the club facilities to be at our disposal.

We are effectively sounding out fellow club committee members about leaving, and how best to do that.

Plus merkel seems to support our approach. Its really little to do with the commission if our fellow members are happy.

I think that's about right but to continue the analogy we should be careful, as thundering about the clubhouse shouting about how crap it is and how we'll be much better off once we've resigned is likely to lead to a swift club committee meeting to call in the bouncers.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I think that's about right but to continue the analogy we should be careful, as thundering about the clubhouse shouting about how crap it is and how we'll be much better off once we've resigned is likely to lead to a swift club committee meeting to call in the bouncers.

Definitely, but i doubt the uk, seasoned as it is in diplomacy, will be doing that.

[Jack]

The longer it takes the more likely people are to forget/shrug their shoulders around the lies told to get the out vote.

Immigration from the EU will be a condition of trading. No change.

The contribution made by the UK while in the EU will still be there but paid for by business to enable trade and the regulations will still be there. No change.

People will find out we can and could have traded and in fact do trade with the rest of the world (although there are sanctions for dealing with some rogue countries but that's the same in or out) anyway. No change.

The English NHS will have received more money but nothing like what was 'promised'. No change.

Indeed it's unlikely anyone will notice the difference, until they go abroad for their cheep fags and can't bring them back, except the UK will have virtually no influence on how our nearest and +10% dearest trading partners evolve.

[Hibbyradge]

Just this bam, then..

http://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/

[Bristolhibby]

Yeah but we need to remain on good terms with the membet states, the commission etc will be far less important.

I dont understand your last point?

Last point was just around the post Brexit plan. There wasn't one. I was then comparing it to the massive scrutiny that the Yes campaign had, whereby they were pretty much demanded to predict the future in every tacit of independence.

My point was just how ill balanced the scrutiny was between the two referendums.

Last point was really about now people seem to be OK with taking a leap into the unknown, perhaps Independence won't be that daunting in the future.

J

[Bristolhibby]

The longer it takes the more likely people are to forget/shrug their shoulders around the lies told to get the out vote.

Immigration from the EU will be a condition of trading. No change.

The contribution made by the UK while in the EU will still be there but paid for by business to enable trade and the regulations will still be there. No change.

People will find out we can and could have traded and in fact do trade with the rest of the world (although there are sanctions for dealing with some rogue countries but that's the same in or out) anyway. No change.

The English NHS will have received more money but nothing like what was 'promised'. No change.

Indeed it's unlikely anyone will notice the difference, until they go abroad for their cheep fags and can't bring them back, except the UK will have virtually no influence on how our nearest and +10% dearest trading partners evolve.

This is how I think it will pan out. We will still have all the things that outers hated ("they took our jebs" immigrants and Big Brussles telling us what to do), but will have zero influence on the rules.

The money that we don't have to put into the EU will be squandered by a right wing Tory government on tax breaks for pensioners and it will all have been a waste of time.

Incidentally I don't know why we have turned down the 6 month presidency of the EU? It's not as if we arnt still members.

J

[JeMeSouviens]

Last point was just around the post Brexit plan. There wasn't one. I was then comparing it to the massive scrutiny that the Yes campaign had, whereby they were pretty much demanded to predict the future in every tacit of independence.

My point was just how ill balanced the scrutiny was between the two referendums.

Last point was really about now people seem to be OK with taking a leap into the unknown, perhaps Independence won't be that daunting in the future.

J

I think partly we've just been shown how much, even in a mostly online world, the press still drive the news agenda. Independence faced a wall of hostile media, Brexit was heavily supported.

[RyeSloan]

I think partly we've just been shown how much, even in a mostly online world, the press still drive the news agenda. Independence faced a wall of hostile media, Brexit was heavily supported.

Or maybe it's the fact that they were two separate things? Brexit is simply not comparable to Indy in my book, there is no currency issue for example nor any need to build from scratch the mechanisms of government. We have seen a couple of examples on the farm system and revenue Scotland of how hard expensive and time consuming these things are, none of which were addressed at the last referendum. Brexit while 'difficult' does not require a fundamental debate on which currency the nation will use, who will act as the central bank nor a complete recreation of the state machine.

As for the press driving the news agenda I'm not so sure and always see that as some sort of excuse for the losing side (who ever they may be) not being able to articulate their argument clearly enough. Brexit for example happened despite the government of the day directly mailing every household in the country to tell them how bad it would be, the prime minister repeatedly on tv and in the press backing Remain. But in the end of the day they simply couldn't articulate the fundamental reasons as to why we should actually stay.

[steakbake]

Not without any plans for how to handle it, no.

[--------]

Totally agree with the OP.

The quicker we're out, the quicker we can start becoming the Great British Empire again.

"God Who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet ...." :singing:


:wink:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Last point was just around the post Brexit plan. There wasn't one. I was then comparing it to the massive scrutiny that the Yes campaign had, whereby they were pretty much demanded to predict the future in every tacit of independence.

My point was just how ill balanced the scrutiny was between the two referendums.

Last point was really about now people seem to be OK with taking a leap into the unknown, perhaps Independence won't be that daunting in the future.

J

Thanks, i get you now - fair points

[lord bunberry]

On the flip side the delay is causing severe uncertainty.

[Sir David Gray]

On the flip side the delay is causing severe uncertainty.

There hasn't really been a delay though, it's only been a month since the vote and there's a lot of significant things to discuss before it's fully implemented.

[lord bunberry]

Totally agree with the OP.

The quicker we're out, the quicker we can start becoming the Great British Empire again.

"God Who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet ...." :singing:


:wink:


There hasn't really been a delay though, it's only been a month since the vote and there's a lot of significant things to discuss before it's fully implemented.
I'm n the meantime uncertainty prevails

[Keith_M]

Surely one of the biggest issues we have is that those who pushed for Brexit are not actually the people now having to negotiate it.

The previous and current Prime Ministers were both opposed to Brexit. Cameron decided he would would resign, therefore not having to trigger Article 50, and May now has to call for something she didn't want in the first place, with no apparent plan from those who pushed for it.

[Hibbyradge]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-betting-bookmakers-say-its-likely-article-50-might-never-be-triggered-2016-7

:hmmm:

[Glory Lurker]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-betting-bookmakers-say-its-likely-article-50-might-never-be-triggered-2016-7

:hmmm:

If we could be sure that the extremist elements of the Leave vote would not kick off, this would be fantastic. You obviously can't rely on the bookie market, but wee articles like this give me hope.