Who is going to be the next Prime Minister?

[JohnD]

tried

And what did the British courts decide?

You have never seen me applauding murderers.

BTW, you know who wrote the ECHR?

 

[Himaginn]

It's why agreements take so long to negotiate.

Only up to a certain point: after that point, agreements take as long as either, some, or all of the parties want them to take.

Are you really of the opinion that the negotiations on a trade agreement are intentionally drawn out?

I am of the opinion that some negotiations are intentionally drawn out, yes.

That doesn't bode well for all those 50 odd agreements we have to negotiate with other countries.

 

[securespark]

tried

And what did the British courts decide?

Not the British courts. The case I linked to has not got there yet.

 

[JohnD]

the report that says "One-legged Albanian murder suspect can be extradited?"
and "Judge Zani said: ‘I have considered all of the arguments very ably made on your behalf as well as the elements you have given me, but I’m afraid I have rejected each of them?’"

 

[securespark]

Ah, yes. Wasn't suggesting you were "applauding murderers".

And I was just complaining that these hypocritical bastards even try it on.

 

[Himaginn]

Sorry I was just starting to respond to your comments when I was called away.
To continue:

Doesn't that belief suggest that the agreement is only desirable by one of the parties and the other party does not particularly want an agreement.

That doesn't really follow; by entering into discussions at all, both parties implicitly want an agreement. In the case of Brexit (as it is current, and precipitated this thread), it was Brexit (i.e. the situation) that the EU didn't want.

So you are suggesting that as the EU didn't want Brexit, it will intentionally stall trade negotiations?
I could accept that. But as John said, it makes a mockery of the Brexiteers comment of EU will be begging us to buy/sell with them.

In which case, do you think the negotiation for a trade agreement between UK and EU will be desirable by UK or EU?

See above, and (as the UK voted "Leave", the negotiation is implicitly desirable by the UK (or, at least, as tolerable "means to an end"), and the converse is therefore true for the "Please Remain!"-leaning EU.

You consider that the Remainers will intentionally stall any trade agreement negotiations with EU.
With EU intentionally stalling and Remainers intentionally stalling, how long do you think it will be before we have a Trade Agreement in place?

Which one will intentionally slow down the negotiation?

It's in the EU's interest to stall negotiations - after two years of Article 50 being triggered, UK would revert to WTO rules (unless agreement had already been reached, or the EU members allowed an extension). Stalling the negotiations would act as a warning to other potential "leavers".

I think John's comment has addressed this sufficiently.

Do you not think that the complexity and perpetual 'need to consult and re-consider' causes the time frame to be long and drawn out?

You've answered for me - thank you - with your use of "perpetual". Demonstrates the mentality behind these protracted "negotiations".
That, and the time frame consists of a. time required, plus b. additional time added by the parties themselves. But I said that at the start.

As John said, the two year time frame refers to the divorce proceedings, not the negotiations on any new arrangement.
How much longer do you think it will be before a new agreement will be in place?
Another two years, five years, ten years, and this is just the trade agreement with EU?
What about the other 50 odd agreements that are needed?

 

[sooey]

Leadsom is in the ballot. Happy days, I hope she wins it. As a true believer in Brexit she's the only one who will try to deliver it. I might even consider voting tory if she gets it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Leadsom is in the ballot. Happy days, I hope she wins it. As a true believer in Brexit she's the only one who will try to deliver it. I might even consider voting tory if she gets it.

What did you expect?


I would comment on your very understanding attitude on the Conservative leadership voting method.
You seem quite happy that, while Theresa May had an absolute (subject to definition) majority of the first ballot, it eventually goes to the party membership who very well may vote for the other candidate.

Why do you not accept so gracefully that the reverse applies for the referendum result.
I.e. the people vote and then it goes to the M.P.s.

 

[sooey]

It is being decided according to the rules set out beforehand, just like the referendum was. And having one man one vote for the whole party, majority wins is more democratic than just giving the power to a bunch of MPs. Again, just like the referendum.

 

[sooey]

What did you expect?

I expected her to get stitched up like they were trying to do. I'm glad she didn't and I think she might have a strong chance now because a lot of the grass roots tories want out I've heard.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

It is being decided according to the rules set out beforehand, just like the referendum was. And having one man one vote for the whole party, majority wins is more democratic than just giving the power to a bunch of MPs. Again, just like the referendum.

+1