Brexit - the end of the beginning - the negotiations begin

And no one should be called bigoted and brain dead because they chose to vote out. It's simply rude.

It strikes me when reading some of the comments on here that there are some gransnetters on here (and perhaps others elsewhere) who sound very much as if they would approve of the UK getting a poor deal from the EU, so certain are they that the EU is the only way to go. Britain voted out (by a small majority) and we have to get on with it now and hope our negotiators are able to secure a good deal for us all.

www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-25/what-are-the-key-brexit-issues-and-where-do-the-u-k-and-eu-stand

Article 50, from the ukandeu link.

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 theCouncil, 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 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Quite clear that UK cannot take part in any negotiations concerning it, and that we can ask to rejoin if we want to.

If May is still insisting on using EU citizens living here as a bargaining chip by the time of the election, I would imagine their partners and families who have a vote will not be voting Tory. 3 million of them.

Thanks for your input, fitzy. Always worth reading. Here's the text of that article. I particularly like the reference to the "apocalyptic rhetoric" from Brussels and the calm statement that what Juncker has said about different galaxies is "overblown". Now there's a surprise, not.

The article
"The EU member states are 27, and yet they manage to speak with one voice. Minutes into their meeting on Saturday, European heads of state and government agreed their Brexit negotiation position. Britain is only one, yet the government is struggling to convey a message to Brussels that does not get lost in translation. EU sources have told The Times that they hear one thing from civil servants, then another from Theresa May. That is concerning.

Last Wednesday the prime minister sat down to dinner with Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, and Michel Barnier, chief Brexit negotiator. They were confounded by an apparent volte-face from the UK on the sequencing of talks. Oliver Robbins, the mandarin overseeing Brexit, had reportedly offered assurances that the “withdrawal settlement”, covering issues like Britain’s divorce bill and citizens’ rights, could be addressed before the start of trade talks. At dinner Mrs May is reported to have said otherwise.

EU diplomats also say that they are confused over the roles assigned to the British negotiating team. “We do not know who to call,” one diplomat said. Downing Street claims that there is nothing to be confused about, explaining that the prime minister will lead the negotiations, supported by the secretary of state and senior officials. EU negotiators could be forgiven for thinking that clears up little. Mrs May made a promising start to negotiations with her letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council. Now she has been tripped up by a failure to be clear on mechanics and process. It should not be that difficult to explain.

The gritty detail of negotiations is likely to be handled by neither David Davis nor Mrs May, but civil servants. Mr Davis’s job should be to direct his diplomats on anything of a political, not technical, nature. He will make his decisions in the knowledge that he holds his position only at Mrs May’s pleasure, and must retain her confidence to survive. Mrs May surely appreciates that she cannot be in the room for every word of the negotiation, but the last word will always be hers.

If mixed messages from Britain are dismaying, the apocalyptic rhetoric from Brussels should be taken with a pinch of salt. Mr Juncker has weighed in with his characteristic brio, accusing Mrs May of living in a “different galaxy”. He claims that “no deal” is now more likely than agreement.

That is overblown. Even the two disagreements that seem most intractable can be resolved. The first is over money. Britain will almost certainly pay something to the EU to cover financial commitments already made. The EU thinks that the sum should be big. The UK thinks that it should be small. Neither side has budged on this yet, but no wonder: talks have barely begun.

The second sticking point is sequencing. The UK — or Mrs May, at least — says that trade talks should run at the same time as exit talks. The EU says that the divorce deal, including the bill, must be settled first. In time, both sides are likely to row back a little. The first day of talks will not be about trade. It is also unnecessary, however, to proscribe any such talks until billions of euros have changed hands. Negotiators could perfectly well agree a set of principles for the calculation of the divorce bill first, then delegate the spreadsheet fiddling to technocrats while pressing on with talks about the future. Compromises will be possible — so long as the government is able to make its position clear."

I had heard that Welshwife. Maybe you should read the Guardian and not the Times, Fitzy.

Or here.

ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/the-article-50-negotiations/

WW- Just had a look at A50 and I think I see what you are getting at, and why the UK feel they can give as much input as they like. A50 says that if a state decides to leave, the Union will negotiate terms in line with guidelines set out by the EU Council at that time. The Council has set up guidelines, which include the idea of phased negotiations. However, there is nothing in A50 which makes it clear that the other party is in any way bound by these guidelines. To my mind, the wording implies only that the guidelines set out the negotiating position of the EU. All just supposition on my part though.

WW I hadn't heard that. If there is a legally enforceable agreement we're stuck with it. But if there are any loopholes I would have no qualms about slipping through them. It looks to me as though any agreement can't be that watertight, or Juncker would have been bleating about it all along and no doubt would have waved a copy of the agreement at May over the Downing St. dinner along with the Canadian trade agreement!

Before any of these talks started it was pointed out that the 'rules' about a country leaving the EU were set out in the same document as the A50 - it actually said that once A50 was triggered the leaving country then had no more input and the remaining members of the EU would meet and decide the manner in which the country would leave - what the deal would be. They would have no input - so the fact that the UK has any input at all is a bonus. I saw these facts a number of times and so they must have made mainstream media.
The UK are causing the upheaval and the EU will allow us to change our minds should we realise how difficult it is and that our position will be nothing like as good as it is now.

This article on the current "war between the galaxies" makes sense to me. Hopefully you will be able to open it, but I have had problems sharing some of these Times articles in the past.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/talking-tough-g8j3qprh7?shareToken=fb482608604463fa369b8fcbfad8ac19

Apologies for the numerous typos - I'm sure you can translate!

DJ you may well be right as to what will happen in practice give the stinger bargaining position of the EU. But ther is absolutely no point of principle in their favour on this point. Around the negotiating table we are one to one - the EU and the UK. They have no more right to think they have sole custody of process and agenda that we do. But that isn't how they seem to see it. As I've mentioned before, do you think they will attempt to dictate to Trump how trade negotiations will proceed? I know the situation is very different but the principle is the same.

Fitzy, 27 of them, 1 of us. Of course they will set the agenda, no matter how much May kicks and screams.

"British Prime Minister Theresa May told European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday she wanted a "deep and special relationship" with the European Union, trying to warm the atmosphere before Brexit talks begin."

Should Philip be worried?

Absolutely DJ. But others ought to accept we need to stand up for ourselves. We can't just sit back and let them set the agenda, faking looks of incredulity if so much as suggest that we ought to have some say in the process.

They thought all reports they would do were scaremongering Jen!!

Like someone said on the news tonight, why are so many people surprised that a union is acting like a union?

She did, I come into that category as well and I'm equally offended. I too have some fantastic friends in Europe who are still visited on a regular basis, but like petra hate the EU and their arrogant bullying attitude to other nations smaller, weaker and inevitably totally dependent on them with no hope of escape, with a deep dislike and scepticism. Why are they so worried that other country's might want to leave? Surely if they are so wonderful, why would anyone want to, why would we?!!!! They can't really have much confidence in their own organisation if they're really concerned about others trying to escape.

durhamjen
Twisting words again. paddyann called all leavers bigoted and brain dead.

I guess the answer, Annofarabia, is that it was nothing personal!

She called all Brexiteers bigoted and brain dead!

She didn't call you that. That was your first post, wasn't it, so how could she call you that?

Margaret many of us agree with most of what you say but the separation negotiations are not simply a matter of applying a few rules we all agreed. For example, there was no agreed process which insisted that trade talks must wait until separation terms are agreed. It's just that that order of things works better for the EU. Nor is the calculation of the UK's leaving bill just a matter of adding up a list of items and figures sent to us by the Commission. The EU is rightly looking after its own. I voted remain, have a great deal of respect for the Union (albeit that it is a long, long way from perfect), but we now have to look out for ourselves. We are in a weak position (of our own making) but the EU can't expect us to sit quietly and wait for the next instruction as to how negotiations will proceed. We are not in another Galaxy as Juncker suggests, but, for the purposes of these negotiations, we are not to be treated as though we are still a member. Did the TTIP negotiations proceed via instructions from the Commission to Obama? I wonder how Trump will take to that process?

Paddyann