EU referendum are you in or out

[tufty]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/18/germany-theresa-may-eu-27-angela-merkel-article-50-citizens-rights

Germany has denied it rebuffed an attempt by Theresa May to seal an early deal on citizens’ rights post-Brexit, and reiterated that there was “complete unanimity” among the EU’s 27 member states that the subject could only be discussed once Britain had triggered article 50.

What does that mean then? We didn't say it couldn't be discussed, but it can't be discussed?

What that means is saying "Germany have rebuffed an attempt…" is biased bollocks, because the rules which the EU's 27 member states (including the UK) re bound by do not allow such discussions until Article 50 has been triggered.

[KlaxonCow]

the EU's 27 member states (including the UK) are bound by do not allow such discussions until Article 50 has been triggered.

28. It's 28 member states if you're also including the UK. But yes.

(And, yes, the UK itself is actually not allowed to enter into such discussions either, whilst we're still in the EU and bound by the same rules.)

And the reason for the existence of this rule is simply to prevent "divide and conquer". Getting Germany to agree to its own special deal, France to something else, a special favour to Poland, etc. - trying to break the unity and bribe each nation individually. That sort of thing. You negotiate with the whole EU, not its individual parts, trying to prise them apart from one another.

And not formally being able to discuss is just pragmatism. What the EU as a whole does is decided by all 27 members. Germany can say what it individually wants, but it can't speak for the whole EU until talks, negotiations and votes have been taken. So asking Germany individually as to what the whole EU is going to do correctly gets you the "I can't speak for the others" answer.

Why haven't the other EU countries had their talks and votes on this yet? Because the process has not been initiated by invoking Article 50. Officially, the UK is still an EU member state, as we have not formally declared our intention to leave. The legal process has not been started. This is, in terms of the legality and the procedures, a thing that's not happened yet.

Currently, Brexit is an internal matter for the UK, until we invoke Article 50. For all the EU knew, the Commons might not have voted for it. Westminster might have defied the electorate. They didn't. But for the EU to pre-empt that would have been the EU meddling in internal affairs beyond their remit.

Plus, it's simply a basic negotiating tactic that you don't go revealing your hand before it's all begun.

You might say "but isn't that what Theresa May's doing?" but I covered this already. It's perfectly understandable strategy to enter a negotiation giving the impression that "no deal is better than a bad deal" - even if it's not actually true - because it prompts the other side to take your concerns more seriously, if they don't want you to just walk off in a huff. That's fine and reasonable, which is why I didn't criticise that earlier.

(I've used such tactics myself while bartering in foreign lands, where bartering for everything is the standard practice. You should always give the impression that you're about to walk away, having bought nothing. That you have other options. You mention a non-existent stall elsewhere that was selling it cheaper. That sort of thing. This is normal in bartering - and don't worry, the other bloke will be pulling much the same tricks himself too - and it's really just saying "look, make this interesting for me or I'm walking". You're encouraging them to give you a serious offer.)

But to use human beings as emotional blackmail? Oh, that's very different. And, as I say, pragmatically stupid. It shows desperation, not confidence, before walking up to the negotiating table. You're implicitly declaring that, really, you've got nothing much else to be already resorting to taking hostages before it's even started. Dumb as hell.

May clearly is no poker player. It's a useless bluff. And, yes, it had better be a bluff, or she's just an unnecessarily evil cunt for no good reason, as it won't win us anything actually useful here.

It's just plain fucking stupid. She doesn't know what she's doing.

So, all in all, as previously mentioned, this whole characterisation is just biased bollocks.

[Absolute_Zero]

Biased, on my planet, would be demands for the UK to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK before invoking #50, whereas they aren't allowed to even discuss it until after.

Again, not bothered either way... but the tortured logic is entertaining.

[gravy]

We're entering negotiations after making it clear that we'll sacrifice free trade for hard immigration controls if needed.

Nowt wrong with having the same level of public certainty that we won't fuck the lives of people who have settled abroad.

Given a reluctance to do that the takeaway is it's something the Cons are willing to sacrifice but don't want to overtly say.

[KlaxonCow]

Biased, on my planet, would be demands for the UK to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK before invoking #50

Demands that are coming from UK citizens, our Second Chamber and some of the First Chamber's MPs.

These are not demands coming from the EU. These are demands coming from the UK.

(The EU has had nothing to say on the matter thus far. Save to, in fact, as mentioned above, discuss proposals to grant UK citizens the ability to retain their EU rights on an individual basis, if they want, completely independently of any future negotiating position - the very thing I'm saying we should have the good grace to do ourselves as well.)

Thus, it's totally a false equivalence to pretend this is anything alike.

Theresa May badgering the Germans, when she knows full well that Germany alone can't answer the question and, in fact, that she's breaking the rules herself to even do so - which is so obviously a political set-up to spin the EU as the "bad guys", it's quite embarrassing that you're falling for this transparent load of shit - is not equivalent to the UK's own Second Chamber (whose job, of course, is exactly to force scrutiny and amendment on the Commons, for pity's sake) demanding that we not behave like arseholes for no useful reason whatsoever, as it will not improve our negotiating position in the slightest, if it doesn't even make it worse.

It's biased bollocks, mate. You're just so biased that you can't even see it.

There simply is no equivalence here.

[Absolute_Zero]

Where did I suggest that the demands were coming from Europe? Clearly they're not, if they were, I would've quoted them.

When I wrote "the concern seems conveniently asymmetric." I'm talking about you. You raised the subject out of nowhere in response to "Parliament's role is restricted to ratification" vs active and ongoing negotiation.

I simply note the asymmetry of crocodile tears for the plight of EU nationals in the UK and not a peep for their counterparts. Is all.

[Absolute_Zero]

Perhaps I can illustrate... nothing formal needs to be agreed. The 27 could simply say, as the Government has, that in principle, we'd like to reach a position of reciprocity of mutually assured rights.

What's the problem? It's an aspiration, not a legal agreement.

[PFVA]

Will they be given that right?

Scottish independence: Nicola Sturgeon to seek second referendum

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-sco ... s-39255181

[Absolute_Zero]

Will they be given that right?

Almost certainly, the question is when. Before or after EU exit. The SNP will want to leave the UK before the UK leaves the EU. May will want it vice versa. May appears [to me] to hold all of the cards on the timing.

[gumboot]

Let's all form a new state of states that don't want to be a part of everything that happened last year.

Or maybe just join Canada, or something. California could be Canada's Alaska. Scotland its... umm... Scotland.

[PFVA]

Weren't they trying for CalExit go on referendum in 2018? I heard something that more people would take it serious now having to put up with Trump as President.

This thing with Scotland can get complicated in EU terms. EU had stated up front at the time of the referendum that would not support a independent Scottland applying for EU membership. Now after Brexit they may think different. UK leaves, they can back up independent Scottland joinning in. However Catalonia is going to say that they also want independence and be part of EU, and if Scottland can they can too.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Scotland could build a wall and make the Roman Empire pay for it.

[gilesgoat]

Scotland could build a wall and make the Roman Empire pay for it.

1989 Berlin wall falls ...

2016 ... (ongoing) walls are being built all over Europe and the world ..

2017 .. "U"K builds a wall around all the country sealing itself from the rest of the evil europe

2018 Civil unrest begins all over the places

202X .. big cities have electronic walls and hyper security all around, cities are sealed in "domes" and area there are the "inside" and "outside" zones .. special police forces are constituted to keep controls of "the zones" ..

Erm .. hum .. I think I read about this somewhere ...

[Harlequin]

THOSE SAYING ARTICLE 50 IS REVOCABLE:

Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50, says "you can change your mind while the process is going on." He told the BBC: "During that [two year] period, if a country were to decide actually we don't want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time. ... They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

Speaking in the House of Lords this month, Kerr added: "When the government says as a matter of policy that they will not withdraw the notification... they implicitly confirm that in law they could withdraw it and they could. It is revocable."

EU Council President Donald Tusk suggested last year that Britain could change its mind. "In my opinion, the only real alternative to a 'hard Brexit' is 'no Brexit'" he said last October, adding that once exit discussions are over Britain must "assess the outcome of the negotiations and determine if Brexit is really in their interest."

The House of Lords was advised by its own legal counsel that “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government. ... There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision."

[Absolute_Zero]

You might want to highlight the Supreme Court section.

The UK Supreme Court, in its decision requiring the House of Commons to vote on a bill triggering Article 50, said, "In these proceedings, it is common ground that notice under article 50(2) (which we shall call 'Notice') cannot be given in qualified or conditional terms and that, once given, it cannot be withdrawn." That, however, was merely a procedural assumption in the case. The court did not rule on the merits of the position. As a matter of law it remains undecided.

As for Kerr, he did a shit job in the first instance. Though to be slightly fairer than he deserves, Article 50 was never expected to be deployed; 'twas a sop... and iirc relates to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The technical argument is that according to Article 50, if no exit agreement is negotiated within two years, the treaty “shall cease to apply”. This is what is said to be indicative of the assertion that a State cannot withdraw its withdrawal.