Discuss the political fallout and other issues around Britain's exit, Brexit for short, from the EU.
For the sake of clarity, I'm including the full text of Article 50.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. 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) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Been reading the a summary of the deal here. This is similar to the Swiss position. On very simple terms there are 23 different panels that meet annually to assess if the UK law is properly aligned to EU directives. If not the EU will retaliate and are legally covered to do so. So, the UK will now have to apply directives from a body no longer has any say in. Or is could not and face economic harm that would be legally permitted.
Makes a degree of sense from the EU perspective. With the new Swiss-EU framework still awaiting ratification by the Swiss it's probably best to put the UK in a position similar to the Swiss so neither can start to siezing on concessions.
Of course Switzerland and the UK could form team of sort so they can combine their relative economic weights to gain a better deal for their own citizens. Maybe there are other nations of similar development and economic status that they could align with to gain even greater influence not only regionally but globally..... Nah, that's crazy talk. It'd never work.
Especially since the US will need to take years to get out of the slide towards isolationism in trade...
One thing I havent found an answer to (not that I have searched either).
The deal says EU and UK cant change their laws to cause unfair competition between them.
But doesn't it go both ways. Can EU change laws to reduce CO2 emissions for example, without UK saying they are hurting UK companies?
Since the business effects of moving towards carbon neutrality are more likely to hurt (ie, cost money to) the businesses that have to reduce CO2, I am not sure how that would play out... In other words, I don't think it's an issue that applies in that particular case.
There's probably some language dealing with global warming that trumps the competition stuff.
Edit - looks like, as of August, the entire tranche of EU environmental law was expected to be adopted as "retained law", but since that makes it domestic UK law, the EU court cases that much of it depends upon would no longer apply as precedent. So lots of it could change. It does look as if the UK does not have anything like the robust environmental law enforcement institutions that are found in the EU, though.
Since the business effects of moving towards carbon neutrality are more likely to hurt (ie, cost money to) the businesses that have to reduce CO2, I am not sure how that would play out... In other words, I don't think it's an issue that applies in that particular case.
There's probably some language dealing with global warming that trumps the competition stuff.
Well, it could be; 'to sell goods in EU, companies need to have zero net carbon emission, so UK companies could no longer sell in EU, unless they also reduced their emissions'. That is a classic trade war tactic; 'you can only sell soda in our markets if the flasks/cans have this specific shape' etc.
Global warming is also just one example. Another, which afaik is specifically mentioned in the text, since EU was worried about the conservative government in UK, is labor rights. So UK agreed they wouldn't take away current labor rights apparently. But makes you wonder if EU cant improve labor right requirements either, without UK having the ability to retaliate.
Yes, but isn't there a clause that says an arbitration panel will rule on whether the rule changes are, essentially, made in good faith for a useful purpose? So that would then rule that it was an unfair trade action and allow retailiation. That principle riddles the agreement, probably for just this reason.
Yes, but isn't there a clause that says an arbitration panel will rule on whether the rule changes are, essentially, made in good faith for a useful purpose?
I dont know. I guess that is what I was asking 
Have only heard some headlines so far.
I've seen a *lot* mentions of arbitration panels, presumably to balance the fact that actual treaties are not in place governing most of this stuff.
Hopefully they do a good job then. While I am a fan of trade deals in general, there has been some ugly cases around the world, where smaller countries got sued to hell and back again by large companies, for trying to implement laws to reduce smoking etc. Probably not a big issue here, when it is a trade deal between a large country and a large group of countries.
Well of course it also depends on domestic politics. Luckily the UK's political situation is stable and the governing bodies all cooperate to put the voters wishes into practice with little delay...
Lol Robear.
Shadout what you are referrring to is the "level playing field" provision. Basically there will be a minimum that neither side can go below and this minimum will be agreed on an annual basis. Both sides are free to make far better regulations than the minimum but they cannot go below it and harm trade to their benefit.
And the clever students in the back will note that those are the same rules for EU directives. The UK just agreed to accepting EU directives going forward. And In the vast majority of cases Member States just copy the directive almost word for word anyway as it's been agreed at Council level by the relevant Ministers. The UK of course will now have to copy the text they are given. Or create better regulations that reduce their competitive advantage.
Johnson referred to this as the "ratchet" clause and to be very fair to him he's not wrong. It's precisely the point of this process.
Again, the UK could just decide to not do this and, well, you know the rest.
Again, the UK could just decide to not do this and, well, you know the rest.
Wait... Operation Sea Lion?
So now the UK is even more subservient than it was. Now, the EU tells the UK what to do, and the UK has no pushback whatsoever. They either comply with what Brussels decides, or face economic collapse.
Great job, conservatives! That's how to freedom... put yourself in the same shackles, but remove yourself from the regulatory process so you can't object to them. You've just turned yourselves from lords into peasants.
Axon wrote:Again, the UK could just decide to not do this and, well, you know the rest.
Wait... Operation Sea Lion?
Expect this time its about sending less ships and heavy vechicles to Britian.
Well, there are road and rail crossings now, yeah...
Lol Robear.
Shadout what you are referrring to is the "level playing field" provision.
Thanks, that is a good link.
I guess this is what I was looking for.
The rebalancing mechanism is a way for either side to change the baseline standards both sides commit to over time. If one side raises its standards and the other does not, it can impose tariffs, subject to independent assessment.
It sounds like it goes both ways. UK might have to adhere to EU directives. But EU might also have to adhere to UK laws? In theory anyway. Of course it seems way more likely that EU will be the one changing the standards in general. And as Robear said, those disputes will be handled through an arbitration panel.
No agreement on services, including finance, is wild. One of the areas where roles were reversed, with UK having a big interest in a deal, while France and Germany could look at stealing some financial companies. Seems like that might very well still happen.
Well, there are road and rail crossings now, yeah...
Somebody walked through the channel tunnel last week apparently. You’re not supposed to be able to do that......
On Twitter earlier there was a Bloomberg article being promoted by "UK Govt" talking about how Brexit is actually fantastic for the UK because they could potentially negotiate a ton of great deals and, mostly, about how they could reduce taxes, duties, and fees to grab companies from the EU. It was a very pie in the sky kind of piece.
I love how it's good because "they could negotiate great deals". Like the ones they have negotiated since 2016?
Some smaller stores I follow have announced they can't sell in UK in 2021 since it will cost too much to set up the tax paperwork. They are working on it but they had no timeline.
As an American this is odd to me and I feel bad for the UK members who now can't shop where they want online.
Some smaller stores I follow have announced they can't sell in UK in 2021 since it will cost too much to set up the tax paperwork. They are working on it but they had no timeline.
As an American this is odd to me and I feel bad for the UK members who now can't shop where they want online.
For what it is worth, this is nothing to do with Brexit. This is entirely because of a change is import tax duty the UK gov't is making in January.
On Twitter earlier there was a Bloomberg article being promoted by "UK Govt" talking about how Brexit is actually fantastic for the UK because they could potentially negotiate a ton of great deals and, mostly, about how they could reduce taxes, duties, and fees to grab companies from the EU. It was a very pie in the sky kind of piece.
The Level Playing field section of the treaty means that's exactly what they cannot do. Well, they can but face legally allowable sanctions. You're assessment doesn't even have to get idea that they could even economically battle the EU.
Again, be very careful reading anything about Europe in the US media. From my experience it's incredibly UK centric and often just parroting a political narrative of one of it's parties.
I love how it's good because "they could negotiate great deals". Like the ones they have negotiated since 2016?
Being very fair to the UK, they have been busy organising roll over agreements. Of course you could point out that it amounts to tiny amounts apart from Japan, Norway and Switzerland and those countries are in trade deals with the EU that gives both entities oversight over any other arrangements.
Good luck to them but if they get better terms than say the EU, EU or China they would be bucking a trend going back decades if not centuries.
Yeah, that's my point, Axon. The idea was that the UK was hobbled, or held back, by intrusive regulations imposed on them by "faceless bureaucrats in Brussels". With an undertone of "the EU will never last, and anything they can do, we can do better, faster and cheaper". In that light, looking for things that have gotten *better* since 2016, I suspect there's little to see.
Again, be very careful reading anything about Europe in the US media. From my experience it's incredibly UK centric and often just parroting a political narrative of one of it's parties.
I normally like BBC for international sources of news, but I suppose they would be slightly UK centric as well. Do you have another international news source that wouldn't have a UK bias, preferably in English?
It's Germany-centric, but there's Deutsche Welle in English:
https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-...
What a mess this whole thing is ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainme...
I guess we will see a lot of articles like that during the next weeks.
ooops, wrong post
Racism + narcissism is a helluva drug!
Axon wrote:Again, be very careful reading anything about Europe in the US media. From my experience it's incredibly UK centric and often just parroting a political narrative of one of it's parties.
I normally like BBC for international sources of news, but I suppose they would be slightly UK centric as well. Do you have another international news source that wouldn't have a UK bias, preferably in English?
I can give you chapter and verse but the BBC is not what it used to be. It's useful for at least some very basic information but it repeats talking points and opinions that are wrong in the pursuit being perceived as balanced. And I say this as somebody who adored the BBC for most of my life and it's devaluing is difficult to watch.
Short answer is the Financial Times and the Irish Times (which republishes FT articles as well). Long answer is it's very much on a case by case basis. The problem with a good portion of the UK media is that it will just make things up and finding the truth can be difficult due to the language barrier. It's partly why they work so well.
As AUs_TBirD points out, a good few German publications have English translations. Der Speigal is my German go to but The South German is perfectly readable with Google translate . Le Monde (and L'Equipe for my dose of the French's perspective on Rugby) doesn't have a translation but Google will do decent job here as well. At least my speaking French isn't too bad
Le Monde leans heavily to the right, though. Just sayin’.
Pages