Britain is leaving the EU

[innonimatu]

Are you saying that countries that use anothers currency have the "surrendered the essential thing about sovereignty."

Did countries whose currency was pegged to gold surrender there sovereignty.

That is a very good question, actually! I don't think it is exactly the same, because the peg with gold could and would be broken more easily than the use of another currency. The gold standard was not the same as using a foreign currency, and I will illustrate that with an historical example.

People forget that there was a modern experience with an "european currency" before the euro, that went beyond the simple gold standard. The Latin Monetary Union (wiki article just for an overview). It had a rather eventful history, and as with all international endeavors in finance was a continuous game of each country advancing its interests at the expense of others. Plus ça change...

The UK subscribed to the ideology and practice of the gold standard but (wisely) remained out of this currency union. Seems like they remember history better than the continentals.

 

[Silurian]

I think that is true to a certain extent.

Loss of a certain amount of sovereignty is a bit different to the essential thing.
Use of a gold backed currency will also lead to a loss of a certain amount of sovereignty unless you can control the supply of gold.

Many things can lead to the loss of a certain amount of sovereignty.
Treaties, military alliancies, foreign ownership of property etc.
But they all have advantages as well.

 

[ori]

re: Spain: indeed there is no veto and not need for approval by the 27 (a qualified majority being fine) - that might very well not be true for the free trade agreement that the UK also would like to negotiate unless it is included in the exit treaty. Meaning that Spain does not hold a veto power in regard to the Brexit treaty.

The veto they have been given (or that is included in what amounts to the opening of negotiations and may very well not be the end result) is much much broader:

After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.

if this stands, Spain is set to gain a veto power in perpetuity with regards to the rules under which Gibraltar is governed.

 

[innonimatu]

if this stands, Spain is set to gain a veto power in perpetuity with regards to the rules under which Gibraltar is governed.

So, back to business as it was in Gibraltar? I don't think that will worry the government of the UK very much. And Spain is not a country that can afford to make too much of an issue from Gibraltar, what with Ceuta and Melilla and Olivença....

 

[Colon]

re: Spain: indeed there is no veto and not need for approval by the 27 (a qualified majority being fine) - that might very well not be true for the free trade agreement that the UK also would like to negotiate unless it is included in the exit treaty. Meaning that Spain does not hold a veto power in regard to the Brexit treaty.

The veto they have been given (or that is included in what amounts to the opening of negotiations and may very well not be the end result) is much much broader:


if this stands, Spain is set to gain a veto power in perpetuity with regards to the rules under which Gibraltar is governed.

In short, the negotations haven't even begun and the UK has already been thoroughly outplayed by Spain.

 

[Cheetah]

Well, Brits are getting their blue passports back, at least. And for just £500 million, they're a real bargain...

The Home Office has confirmed it will spend almost £500m redesigning passports for British citizens once the UK has left the European Union, paving the way for a possible return to the old dark-blue style.

[...]

There was an outcry from some in the UK when the EU tried to have the phrase “Her Britannic majesty” removed from British passports, and another howl of protest in 2000 when Brussels attempted to introduce the 12-star European instead of the Queen’s crest.

The Home Office stressed that Brits will only have to pay for a new passport when their old one expires, regardless of whether or not the UK has left the EU by then.

Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell, chairman of the Flags and Heraldry Committee, was among the MPs who called for the return of the blue passports.

“It’s a matter of identity. Having the pink European passports has been a source of humiliation. It merged us into one European identity, which isn’t what we are.

“The old dark blue design was a distinct, clear and bold statement of what it means to be British, which is just what our citizens need as they travel abroad after Brexit.”

And just to make it all clear, Spain says they will not veto an independent Scotland entering the EU:

Spain has said it would not veto an attempt by an independent Scotland to join the EU, in a boost to Nicola Sturgeon’s campaign for a second independence referendum and the clearest sign yet that Brexit has softened Madrid’s longstanding opposition.

Alfonso Dastis, the Spanish foreign minister, made it clear that the government would not block an independent Scotland’s EU hopes, although he stressed that Madrid would not welcome the disintegration of the UK.

He also said Edinburgh would have to apply for membership, a process fraught with uncertainty that is likely to take several years. But asked directly whether Spain would veto an independent Scotland joining the EU, Dastis said: “No, we wouldn’t.”

 

[Colon]

What the hell?

 

[Ryika]

Looks like the media have found the next thing that they can totally over-react to.

 

[Lillefix]

What the hell?

Yes Telegraph. Military power is absolutely relevant in this respect.

 

[Colon]

I didn't really take much for the talk of "staying friends" to get tossed aside. I hate to think of what the Mail is saying right now. The only somewhat logical explanation for such a ridiculous overreaction would be that Brexiteers are having a rude awakening about how strong the UK's position in the negotations really is.

Also, no quotations marks surrounding experts?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Why does UK want to cripple our lovely cute navy? That is not nice.

Already histerical before brexit negotiations even started? Dont make us nuke your little island with this:

 

[Kozmos]

Ah the Royal Navy. That fearsome Leviathan that had to come begging for retirees to reenlist due to manpower shortages, that ruler of waves that covered up Typhoon nuclear launch test failure, that fields carriers with no jets or CATOBARS, that vaunted institution that got less Type 45s than planned for (which were also so noisy they could be heard 100 miles away by subs according to an Admiral) and elected not to renew their anti-ship missile stocks from 2018 on leaving them with 17 mile range guns in the era of modern warfare. Truly the world shudders at the sight of the Royal Navy.

 

[Lillefix]

Ah the Royal Navy. That fearsome Leviathan that had to come begging for retirees to reenlist due to manpower shortages, that ruler of waves that covered up Typhoon nuclear launch test failure, that fields carriers with no jets or CATOBARS, that vaunted institution that got less Type 45s than planned for (which were also so noisy they could be heard 100 miles away by subs according to an Admiral) and elected not to renew their anti-ship missile stocks from 2018 on leaving them with 17 mile range guns in the era of modern warfare. Truly the world shudders at the sight of the Royal Navy.

Of course compared to the Spanish navy that makes submarines that can't resurface after they dive it's probably pretty good.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

It already float. After several millions spent in a bunch of these:

 

[Ajidica]

Ah the Royal Navy. That fearsome Leviathan that had to come begging for retirees to reenlist due to manpower shortages, that ruler of waves that covered up Typhoon nuclear launch test failure, that fields carriers with no jets or CATOBARS, that vaunted institution that got less Type 45s than planned for (which were also so noisy they could be heard 100 miles away by subs according to an Admiral) and elected not to renew their anti-ship missile stocks from 2018 on leaving them with 17 mile range guns in the era of modern warfare. Truly the world shudders at the sight of the Royal Navy.

I'll never understand why the UK didn't approach the French to construct modified Charles de Gaulle style carriers. The French government has always wanted a second carrier and the CDG is fully interoperable with USN planes. The UK should know that ski-jump carriers are bargain basement versions used by countries more concerned with posturing than force projection. (The Invincibles are an exception because they were never designed to be carriers.)

 

[Kozmos]

I have no idea. I know they received cuts from every government since the 80s but there has also been some stunningly bad planning from the Admiralty and the Board in dealing with it. Toss the carriers for god's sakes, you'll barely have enough jets (the few maintenance heavy F-35 they'll get) operational to fill one anyway.

 

[Broken_Erika]

*Gasp* The Royal Navy using a foreign built ship?

 

[Silurian]

Regarding the A50 and separate trade etc agreement ratification process this paper from the Libdems explains it.

"The two-year timescale for the talks will, in practice, be considerably shorter, for two reasons. First, because negotiations cannot start immediately: the Commission has first to receive its negotiating mandate from the European Council, which is not expected to meet until 3-4 weeks after the UK issues the withdrawal notice. More significantly, time has to be allowed at the end of the process for the draft agreement to be formally adopted.

The process of adoption itself depends on the eventual scope of the agreement. If it is limited to the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, then the process is as set out in Article 50(2), which states that “[the agreement] shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament”. The UK government has added to this by undertaking to hold a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the matter is considered by the European Parliament. In other words, once a draft text is agreed among Member State governments it will be presented first to MPs at Westminster for approval or rejection, then to MEPs in Brussels, before finally coming to a special meeting of the European Council for formal adoption. This process will take several weeks at a minimum, and could run into months.

If, as the government intends, the outcome takes the form of a 'strategic partnership', including a Free Trade Agreement and a new customs agreement, then this will be treated as a, 'mixed agreement', requiring not only the agreement of the EU institutions but also the approval of all Member State parliaments, including some regional parliaments. Such an agreement could be rolled into the Article 50 agreement (which would render all the ‘divorce’ matters subject to ratification by national and regional parliaments as well as the trade issues), or it could be incorporated into a separate treaty. This would nonetheless need to be concluded within the two-year timeframe in order to avoid a hiatus during which preferential trading arrangements would fall away."

http://www.libdems.org.uk/brexit-challenge-paper-negotiations

 

[really]

Did anyone predict Gibraltar being such a big issue? I didn't see it coming.

Spain has nothing to lose from putting it on the table. I was reading some random person saying it shouldn't be on the table. He seemed to have missed the point that Spain can and have put it on.

 

[Silurian]

A project fear report from 7 March 2016

The Independent

"Fabien Picardo, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, has waded into the latest row with Spain over the Rock’s sovereignty, saying Madrid could “pounce” if the UK votes to leave the European Union in June’s referendum."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...d-pounce-if-uk-votes-for-brexit-a6917901.html