Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    Not Article 218 (of what? not the Lisbon treaty), Article 238.

    Art. 238 (3)
    (b) By way of derogation from point (a), when the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.

    http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...ticle-238.html

    Absent the UK, this requires at least 20 states representing 288,324,200 people. The decision to take up negotiations with the UK (following a formal declaration to exit the union and a supporting majority vote in the EU parliament) can therefore be blocked by any combination of eight states or any states comprising at least 155,251,492 people. Germany and France together comprise 147,612,698 people and would therefore need a third partner of at least 7.6 million people to block such a decision (with 12 member states available of that size).
    See p. 3
    file:///C:/Users/Bonny/AppData/Local/Temp/lisbon-treaty-3edition.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post

    [Article 218]

    For acts of the European Council and of the Council requiring a qualified majority, members’ votes shall be weighted as follows:

    Austria 10
    Belgium 12
    Bulgaria 10
    Cyprus 4
    Czech Republic 12
    Denmark 7
    Germany 29
    Estonia 4
    Finland 7
    France 29
    Greece 12
    Hungary 12
    Ireland 7
    Italy 29
    Latvia 4
    Lithuania 7
    Luxembourg 4
    Malta 3
    Netherlands 13
    Poland 27
    Portugal 12
    Romania 14
    Slovakia 7
    Slovenia 4
    Spain 27
    Sweden 10
    United Kingdom 29

    Absent the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Romania and the Netherlands have a combined total of 53.2% of the “qualified” total.
    Which of this list do you guys think the US currently owns because of Russia?

    The only stumbling block there is immigration and that's also the key division with Germany.

    So immigration issue is the big dilemma in the negotiations.

    Hollande just wants to be bought off, Spain wants to make sure Scotland doesn't secede and enter the EU, but for Germany and the potential Eastern European block who would otherwise support Britain's interests, it's immigration.
    Last edited by citanon; 02 Jul 16,, 20:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Greece owes them. How convenient

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Not Article 218 (of what? not the Lisbon treaty), Article 238.

    Art. 238 (3)
    (b) By way of derogation from point (a), when the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.

    http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...ticle-238.html

    Absent the UK, this requires at least 20 states representing 288,324,200 people. The decision to take up negotiations with the UK (following a formal declaration to exit the union and a supporting majority vote in the EU parliament) can therefore be blocked by any combination of eight states or any states comprising at least 155,251,492 people. Germany and France together comprise 147,612,698 people and would therefore need a third partner of at least 7.6 million people to block such a decision (with 12 member states available of that size).
    Last edited by kato; 02 Jul 16,, 18:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    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.


    [Article 218]

    For acts of the European Council and of the Council requiring a qualified majority, members’ votes shall be weighted as follows:

    Austria 10
    Belgium 12
    Bulgaria 10
    Cyprus 4
    Czech Republic 12
    Denmark 7
    Germany 29
    Estonia 4
    Finland 7
    France 29
    Greece 12
    Hungary 12
    Ireland 7
    Italy 29
    Latvia 4
    Lithuania 7
    Luxembourg 4
    Malta 3
    Netherlands 13
    Poland 27
    Portugal 12
    Romania 14
    Slovakia 7
    Slovenia 4
    Spain 27
    Sweden 10
    United Kingdom 29

    Absent the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Romania and the Netherlands have a combined total of 53.2% of the “qualified” total.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Southern Europe that tried to goose step to German demands is still mired in recession and in some places out right depression.
    Meanwhile the German government just announced yesterday that it will not take out any new debts to fund government expenditures until at least 2020.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    z,

    Ireland and Iceland refused to follow the EU line and have recovered.
    careful there, you're starting to sound like Krugman ;-)

    btw, iceland has done far better than ireland, because it could devaluate its currency. if you cannot devalue currency, the only solution is a horrible "internal devaluation", IE wait until wages are cut so low enough to restore competitiveness.

    which is a double-edged sword and an extremely slow way to recover, because that also causes a fall in internal demand.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by Squirrel View Post
    So, taking loans against the credit of your neighbors to support bloated social welfare programs with no way to pay them back should be tolerated? Greece has been a financial sponge to the EU. They got their people accustomed to huge benefits programs in return for producing next to nothing. Greece created their situation, and made the rest of Europe pay for it.
    Europe's response was to make things worse, not better. Ireland and Iceland refused to follow the EU line and have recovered. Southern Europe that tried to goose step to German demands is still mired in recession and in some places out right depression.

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    Junker and Tusk are on borrowed time. It's the national leaders who will work this out.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    This is the difficult part isn't it.

    You want them to leave before they know what they can get after.

    is there a deadline to declare ? parliament has to vote on it.
    Juncker's position is that which Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty says - negotiations regarding future cooperation are taken up after a state's declaration to quit the union. That's why Cameron was asking for "informal negotiations", i.e. not negotiations like those that are referred to in Article 50. The preferable position of the UK would of course be to have draft documents all hashed out, then vote on exiting in parliament and officially declare the intention to quit; and the drafts then only needing relatively fast votes at EU level that would be doable within the two-year deadline that Article 50 gives for post-declaration negotiations.

    It's one of the reasons why Juncker is disliked by politicians - he likes to stick to rules, preferably verbatim. There's some other stuff where he has expressed opinions that go in the exact same direction, most recently CETA.

    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    although honestly given the performance of both parties, the first is probably a plus.
    In a first-past-the-post political system like the UK having more than two equally high performing parties ain't good for anyone, because that will just piss off everyone and lead to even worse troubles. Or Troubles.

    For a simple example, the rightwing AfD won two direct mandates in my state. With leads of around 0.1% and 0.6% over the next-biggest respectively. That's perfectly fine. The problem with that is that they won both of those while only getting around 22% of the ballot. Because there were five parties all scoring between 18 and 22%.

    Leave a comment:


  • tankie
    replied
    The young ones , darling we're the young ones ,

    https://youtu.be/Bn_6sU7O43w

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    The plebs voting against the wills of the oligarchy doesn't mean we shouldn't have a say. I would say it shows the opposite; the public deserves a greater say in what goes on than merely putting a few corrupt Senators/Reps and having nothing to do with appointing the charlatan self proclaimed experts who congregate in halls of power and the Federal workforce.
    no thanks. i'll take dealing with 50 idiots over 10 million idiots.

    especially in this case, where we're not dealing with just one "country" but with Scotland, Ireland, -and- England. as i said, my belief re: the referendum would remain the same if Remain had won; you'd have a bunch of pissed off English vice a bunch of pissed off Scots and Irish.

    everything i've seen thus far justifies my original belief that Leave is a good idea theoretically but will be executed in the worst way possible...if it is executed at all. both major parties melting down, Scotland openly talking once again about breaking off, even talks about the Troubles starting again.

    although honestly given the performance of both parties, the first is probably a plus. DEFINITELY a plus in regards to Corbyn and Boris Johnson.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    Both Juncker and Tusk have also declared that there will be no negotiations before a declaration.
    This is the difficult part isn't it.

    You want them to leave before they know what they can get after.

    is there a deadline to declare ? parliament has to vote on it.

    How to take a decision here.

    See, the one big unknown is nobody knows what UK's position is. They don't know themselves, they have to get new leadership to decide where to go. Sometime in Oct we are told.

    Cameron made sure there were no 'in case of brexit' plans in place with various ministries before the vote so as to not give the impression they were for it. So they are starting from scratch.

    There will understandably be considerable dragging of feet.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Jul 16,, 11:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    Within my company there is already a marketing newsletter out that aims to portray the marketing failure of the Remain campaign, of how the real competition to Remain was the disenfranchisement of the working class.
    What troubles me about this is the anti-globalisation drive. When its heard in India they say protectionist, push back against reform or liberalisation so now what will they call it when it just happened in the UK.

    People not benefiting and deciding to pull the plug. Jobless growth. Growing income disparity etc. The traditional solution is redistribution. Make sure poor don't get worse and rich don't get richer. Don't count on FDI when such policies are put in place.

    Anti-globalisation has been a hobby horse for the left for long. Well, its the same with the extreme right as well. When it comes to economics these two are on the same page, always want to shut the borders.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Jul 16,, 11:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • tankie
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    I would strongly disagree their politics is schizo.

    They called Germany twice and that led to world wars, guess who was at fault.
    Goran , good shot but ya missed out 1966 which i had great pleasure in watching , adolf merkel said ,, if we stay in , they would forgive us for the 3rd goal which DID cross the line ,, hahaha a game we won without losing on penalties to the old enemy .

    Unfortunately the scum element in the UK is rearing its ugly lame brain head now by attacking Polish ex military graveyards and Polish communities ,and muslim halal shops etc etc ?? mostly they are of the younger generation which if they had been bothered to vote maybe this would not have happened , us old c###s and the likes of the Polish who fought n died for liberation , maybe seeing what we have become with human rights bollox and crap sentencing for offenders , these are the same pissflaps crying for a 2nd referendum , because we ruined their lives ,, WRONG we just gave you one , and saved you from conscription into the new EU military , just how would they have coped the little darlings .

    I was sickened to see the actions of these bastards against , especially the Polish , whom I admire and thoroughly enjoy their company and having just been to Krakow , their country / culture / and the horrific history they went thro in ww2 , which of course the wannabe leaders of EU wish to rule over again , and our "youngsters " not all ? nearly helped them to achieve , they know SFA ref recent history , whinging moaning uneducated minnies .

    Long live the UK free from teutonic / french/ belgium / dictatorship ,hopefully ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, stuff it
    Last edited by tankie; 01 Jul 16,, 11:44.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X