And I know it makes you feel like an expert to spout whatever suits you, but there are limits to what an EU member can negotiate, especially with a country that already is trading with the EU. Otherwise there would be a whole mess.
Posted on 10/11/2016 6:48:37 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Britain wanted to create a formal task force to work with Norway on a post-Brexit free trade agreement, but the Norwegian rejected the overture according to a new report.
Business daily Dagens Næringsliv reported that the UK’s international trade secretary, Liam Fox, lobbied his Norwegian counterpart, Minister of Trade and Industry Monica Mæland, for Norway to join the United Kingdom in establishing a task force to prepare a new trade agreement for when the Brits formally leave the EU.
But when Fox’s request was relayed to the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, it was rejected. According to Dagens Næringsliv, the ministry’s director general for European affairs, Niels Engelschiøn, thought that joining the UK in a special task force would jeopardize Norway’s European Economic Area (EEA) agreement. …
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.no ...
Its a politcal/ideological union. The “common market” was just the initial wedge.
The EU is now a fascist construct - more like Germany’s 4th Reich
Trump wins, England has a new trade partner in the U.S., on terms favorable to both sides.
Not just “now”. The Red House Report indicates that it was exactly that “then”, when the European Coal and Steel Community (the EU’s first iteration, with the same form of government in place as today) came to be in 1951.
Brexit proves you wrong.
No more of this “back of the queue” antagonistic rhetoric.
We now get to see exactly what Obama wanted to put at the front of the queue.
On the part of the EU?
Britain ain’t out yet. If the EU’s flouting their own laws while Article 50 isn’t “triggered”, there will be way more once it is, and Theresa May’s stupid enough to do it instead of invoke “rebus sic stantibus”.
Article 50 itself shows how wrong you are despite whatever the Brits do.
Thanks for adding.
Norway, Germany, and France, among others, are engaged in economic musical chairs. When the music stops, someone will have to pay for the errors of Greece, Italy, and Spain. It won’t be pretty but perhaps good for a laugh.
By excluding the UK from EU discussions already, the EU has already violated Paragraph 4, treating the “Brexit” the referendum decision as itself a formal declaration of withdrawal from the EU to the European Council when it is not. (Funny that no revote was needed in this case, too.) That is more than enough for invocation of clausula rebus sic stantibus. If the Treaty of Lisbon omits that clause, then it is automatically invalid.
- Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Sounds a little like Norway is getting bullied, fearing the loss of the EEA privileges if they negotiate with the UK. Perhaps they just made that fear up out of some sort of paranoia and nobody in the EU whispered in their ears, but that's telling too, isn't it?
What “errors”? Implying there are “errors” is a vindication of the social market economy, as if there were any way to do that right. The only “error” was joining, frankly; and both Greece and Italy paid heavily politically rather than merely economically, having their rulers appointed directly by the EU in Italy’s case particularly.
That’s what I said myself. If the EEA members are acting this way, they truly have lost their sovereignty just as full EU members have.
So what we have here is a total lack of respect by the UK on formal agreements because it is not allowed for them to negotiate a trade deal while still in the UK.
While Norway shows they are much more responsible and civilized. Not everyone cares to live like an uncultured barbarian. Which when you look at the history of Europe, explains why there is an E U.
not allowed for them to negotiate a trade deal while still in the EU.
This is HUGH. Not to mention SERIUS.
There’s nothing that says they aren’t allowed to negotiate a trade deal while still in the EU; certainly not Article 50; and that’s aside from how the EU is behaving at present, and what Norway is citing. Unless you are admitting what the EU is, per the point of view that I continually present? Submit or else? Surrender sovereignty or else? Throwing out national rights to have outside powers representing the social market economy negotiate for you is “civilized”?
No tea partier talks in such an Obamaite fashion as you do, with all due respect. Or acts so evasively. Tea partiers are direct.
At least it isn’t Sirius. That’d be a real dog.
And I know it makes you feel like an expert to spout whatever suits you, but there are limits to what an EU member can negotiate, especially with a country that already is trading with the EU. Otherwise there would be a whole mess.
If you were being direct, I would have understood what you were saying. And I still don’t, so I apologize for that. Snarkiness is not directness.
And claiming that one is seemingly behaving like an expert (which I don’t claim to be) is another liberal tactic. As is posting meme-ish photos.
Is there something you’re trying to tell me? Can you frame it in the context of US constitutionalism? because this subject is about a region of the world that does not behave within that framework.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.