A programme is coming up on BBC Radio 4 that sounds as if it will be genuinely informative about Brexit. It's "Brexit, The Leavocrats". In it former head of the Civil Service, Gus O'Donnell, goes behind the scenes at the Department for Exiting the EU to find out what's going on. The programme airs on Wed morning (31 Aug) at 11.00 a.m. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07qbcb6

To be honest it will mean nothing in reality. The UK cannot negotiate any trade deals etc until Article 50 has been triggered as that is Treaty Law

To be honest it will mean nothing in reality. The UK cannot negotiate any trade deals etc until Article 50 has been triggered as that is Treaty Law

Can you put in a link to that law please ?

T.F.E.U

Under the article 50 procedure, member states must first negotiate the terms of their departure before negotiating a future deal with the EU.

That's not a link to the article ?

That is just the initials of the "Reform Treaty", the one welcher Gordon Brown promised we could have a referendum on and then refused us.

Under the terms of the T.F.E.U a member state cannot negotiate its own seperate trade deals as all member states are equal. Similarly, individual member states cannot make trade deals with third countries on their own.

Because the UK will remain a full member of the EU throughout the negotiating period set out in Article 50, it could only formally sign trade deals with other countries once it has left.

Here is a link to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty: http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

The EU is a customs union defined by the WTO. As such no member state can set their own tariff

The only way to change that is to exit the single market

Thanks legalistic at least someone knows what a link is.

I see nothing whatsoever in there about it being law you cannot negotiate a trade deal:

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.

This article from the Guardian seems to shed some light on what's happening.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/brexit-talks-uk-limbo-sequence-negotiations-eu

HB

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/

I concur with the previous link

Incidentally, there was a trail of Brexit the Leavocrats on Radio 4 yesterday. Gus O'Donnell was interviewed.

He was of the opinion that we need a firm idea of what kind of entity we wish to be outside of the EU before we start negotiating.

He basically said that we don't yet have a clue as to what we want !

That makes sense given that Brexit was essentially an "I hate all foreigners" campaign.

Apologies for the way my text won't come out in paragraphs. I've tried everything.

But do you not think that should have been explored and decided before the Referendum vote was called?

Of course it should, that's one of the crazy things about the Referendum.

HB

Theresa May is in a very difficult position of knowing that the Brexit process will prove to be very difficult and there will be many heated arguments. She has to try to keep as many people as happy as possible and at the moment she has no alternative but to say they are going ahead with Brexit to support the democratic vote. When anyone says that Parliament will attempt to block it or suggests another referendum, she has to get no.10 officials to make a statement saying it won't happen, Brexit is proceeding ahead etc. She has no choice.

My opinion for what it is worth, after reading a number of different articles, is that Brexit is unlikely to happen before the date of the next election in May 2020. Article 50 may not be triggered until late in 2017, if they wait for outcomes of elections in several EU country elections. It may not be triggered until 2018 or at all. Government have got quite a lot of work to do, looking at their negotiating positions on a huge number of issues. They have to understand the needs of businesses and rights of people etc. It is going to be very complex, once they get down to looking at the details. It is going to take much longer than the 2 years that article 50 initially allows. Why trigger article 50, until you have a clear position of what you want to achieve that meets all of your objectives ?

They might eventually get to a position, where circumstances mean that a government has to offer another referendum. No one can rule this out.

Another cause for debate is that in my opinion another Referendum will be needed by statute. That statute being the European Union Act 2011 and the referendum lock.

That stipuates that any renegotiation of any new Treaties with the EU before ratification will require a referendum.

Have a look at http://www.eureferendum.com there exit options are explored. Far more sensible than the chuntering coming out of the Westminster and Brussels bubbles.

To quote Donald Rumsfelds famous press conference.

" Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones "

I think the current Brexit position is pretty well summed up by this.

You nailed it to a tee UB.

Gina Miller's legal challenge on the whole Brexit matter, which is scheduled for a hearing in mid-October, should be interesting and might go to the Supreme Court: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-legal-idUKKCN10119V I'm also wondering whether, before the referendum, the government complied with s7(1) of the European Referendum Act 2015 by supplying all the information the electorate needed in order to make its decision: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/section/7/enacted

I meant to say European UNION Referendum Act 2015.