The Student Room Group

EU said UK is now a third world country?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by BobSausage


None of those articles are to do with the OP's claim. They arent relevant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222

was the article and she mentions third country, which is not the same as third world. In the context of the article third country has a specific meaning, which anyone who bothered to read the article can clearly see.
Original post by Alba2013
Sorry, the EU Trade Commissioner is the one who said this third country thing, and she's implying that the ~2 years of negotiations are only about the terms of exit out of the EU, not trade.

"First you exit then you negotiate," Cecilia Malmstrom told BBC Newsnight.

Which potentially means that after exit negotiations, WTO regulations would kick in until a trade agreement is reached with the EU.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
a UK-EU trade agreement would of course be part of any "exit agreement"

until that time, the UK is, quite simply, still part of the EU (in legal- if not necessarily in political- terms)
Original post by mariachi
a UK-EU trade agreement would of course be part of any "exit agreement"

until that time, the UK is, quite simply, still part of the EU (in legal- if not necessarily in political- terms)


My understanding is that the article is relevant because that is not her understanding of what the process will be i.e not about a trade agreement, just about exit. Did you read the article?
Reply 43
Avatar for Whomp
Whomp
15
Original post by Shumaya
Are you being serious? Did you even bother to read the links you posted?


...yes. I don not understand your point? No where does it say Britain is a third country, but becoming of a third WORLD country. Is there anywhere is the articles that contradicts this. What even is a third country? A country split into thirds? The third country to oppose the Eu?
Original post by 999tigger
My understanding is that the article is relevant because that is not her understanding of what the process will be i.e not about a trade agreement, just about exit. Did you read the article?
yes, I did

however : an exit agreement has, necessarily, to deal with the "four freedoms" : freedom of movement for goods, services, investments, people

how it will be organised, what sort of limits - if any- will be included, is anybody's guess : people, these days, are looking mostly at the EU's agreements with Norway and Switzerland as examples - but this principle is not cast in iron

as to Cecilia Malstroem's declarations, the crucial point is this :

"The referendum - which of course we take note of and respect - has no legal effect. First there has to be notification, which the next prime minister will do, I hope swiftly. And then that process can start."

so, first you start with notification, then exit negotiations. And, of course that trade will be part of the exit negotiations: in fact, it is a hugely important part of it

best
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by mariachi
yes, I did

however : an exit agreement has, necessarily, to deal with the "four freedoms" : freedom of movement for goods, services, investments, people

how it will be organised, what sort of limits - if any- will be included, is anybody's guess : people, these days, are looking mostly at the EU's agreements with Norway and Switzerlandas examples - but this principle is not cast in iron


My understanding and the whole point of the article is that it describes a two stage process. Exit and then trade after exit. The UK will be left in a default position of third country status. If you have read the article then I'm mystified why you can't see this.
Original post by 999tigger
My understanding and the whole point of the article is that it describes a two stage process. Exit and then trade after exit. The UK will be left in a default position of third country status. If you have read the article then I'm mystified why you can't see this.
read my modified post

in fact, what would "exit negotiations" deal with, if they do not deal with the "four freedoms" (goods, services, investment, people) and how they are organised ?

yes, Cecilia's declarations are somehow imprecise and ambiguous, I agree
Reply 47
Avatar for Whomp
Whomp
15
Original post by 999tigger
None of those articles are to do with the OP's claim. They arent relevant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222

was the article and she mentions third country, which is not the same as third world. In the context of the article third country has a specific meaning, which anyone who bothered to read the article can clearly see.


Right. I'll just shut up now.
Reply 48
Avatar for Zacken
Zacken
22
Original post by ckfeister
Does this sound stupid to anyone else?



No, but you certainly do. Learn to read.
Original post by mariachi
read my modified post

in fact, what would "exit negotiations" deal with, if they do not deal with the "four freedoms" (goods, services, investment, people) and how they are organised ?

yes, Cecilia's declarations are somehow imprecise and ambiguous, I agree


I think you dont see the difference between an exit agreement and a trade agreement. One is simply extrucating the coubntry and running down existing arrangements, whereas the other is focused on things moving forward. Its a question of timetabling, paying what £ is owed and dealing with things like the status of EU residents in each others country.

If the artucle is to be believed , then I don't think she is pimprecise or ambiguous at all. The implications of what she is saying are very alarming.
Original post by 999tigger
The implications of what she is saying are very alarming.


Not least for the EU countries, who export more to Britain than they export from it.
Original post by BobSausage
Right. I'll just shut up now.


No need, but the OP was about a specific article and statement made by an EU commissioner. That makes it relevant. She didnt say what the OP suggested she did, hence the whole thread being false.

Its a different question if you wnat to get the likes of the Daily Mail harking on about the threat of the UK becoming a third world country.
Original post by 999tigger
I think you dont see the difference between an exit agreement and a trade agreement. One is simply extrucating the coubntry and running down existing arrangements, whereas the other is focused on things moving forward. Its a question of timetabling, paying what £ is owed and dealing with things like the status of EU residents in each others country.

If the artucle is to be believed , then I don't think she is pimprecise or ambiguous at all. The implications of what she is saying are very alarming.
until the UK exits the EU, it is (by definition) part of it : normal Single Market and Customs Union rules apply

after notification of the UK's request to leave, an exit agreement (based on Lisbon article 50) has to define the detailed conditions at which the UK will exit : it will take two years or more to negotiate this detailed "exit agreement", which will have to be ratified by EU Council, European Parliament and UK Parliament

if the "exit agreement" were to say simply: "the UK exits the EU" , it would take 20 seconds to negotiate : I am afraid that it is much more complex than that, and that the "exit agreement" will have to define detailed rules for most sectors of EU policy and the UK's relationship with them

again : I agree that Malstroem's statement is quite ambiguous. In any case, Maelstrom's opinion is by no means necessarily the EU's position.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 53
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
Original post by ckfeister
Cheaper for people to buy our stuff.


So Brexit has made things cheaper for Europeans but more expensive for the Brits.

Are Leavers secretly trying to screw this country while making other countries better off?
Original post by mariachi
until the UK exits the EU, it is (by definition) part of it : normal Single Market rules apply

after notification of the UK's request to leave, an exit agreement (based on Lisbon article 70) has to define the detailed conditions at which the UK will exit : it will take two years or more to negotiate this "exit agreement"

if the "exit agreement" were to say simply: "the UK exits the EU" , it would take 20 seconds

I am afraid that it is much more complex than that

again : I agree that Malstroem's statement is quite ambiguous


No idea why you are telling me this. I never said otherwise. I just pointed out if nothing is done after activation, then we simply cease to be a memmber after two years. the article wasnt comprehensive, it was short, but it was enough to suggest alarming implications on the process of exit for the UK. that was the point, which you still dont seem to be taking on board.
Original post by 999tigger
No idea why you are telling me this. I never said otherwise. I just pointed out if nothing is done after activation, then we simply cease to be a memmber after two years. the article wasnt comprehensive, it was short, but it was enough to suggest alarming implications on the process of exit for the UK. that was the point, which you still dont seem to be taking on board.
what makes you think that nothing will happen for two years ?

also, the "two years' limit" for negotiations can be extended (by bilateral agreement): given the huge complexity of the issues involved, it is very likely that this will happen

in any case, common sense would tell us that, in the two years+ negotiation period, the future structure of EU/UK relations will be defined

what else ?
Original post by Maker
So Brexit has made things cheaper for Europeans but more expensive for the Brits.

Are Leavers secretly trying to screw this country while making other countries better off?
that would be generous...

in reality, everyone is worse off, and e.g. ISIS fans are rejoicing at the discord and disruption among the "kuffar" (disbelievers) http://www.oneindia.com/india/isis-on-brexit-rambo-cameron-promised-finish-us-ended-up-job-2136792.html

" Muslims are uniting across the world, but Europe is splitting. With the help of God, victory is closer."

" it is the rise of the ISIS which brought about the fall of Britain."
(edited 7 years ago)
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/third-party.html

How is this even a thread?
Original post by mariachi
what makes you think that nothing will happen for two years ?

also, the "two years' limit" for negotiations can be extended (by bilateral agreement): given the huge complexity of the issues involved, it is very likely that this will happen

in any case, common sense would tell us that, in the two years+ negotiation period, the future structure of EU/UK relations will be defined

what else ?


I never said I thought that would happen. I gave an example to illustrate the fact negotiations are about exit and not trade deals if the article is followed.

Extension requires unanimous agreement from the EU council.

You really have missed the point of the article and significance of her statement.
Original post by 999tigger
I never said I thought that would happen. I gave an example to illustrate the fact negotiations are about exit and not trade deals if the article is followed.
negotiations about exit clearly include how trade (and free movement of people, participation in some policies, budget contributions etc etc ) should be regulated- so as, in the words of the Lisbon treaty (article 50) to define "the framework for its (the UK's) future relationship with the Union". What else ? what should be negotiated for two plus years, if not that ?


Original post by 999tigger
You really have missed the point of the article and significance of her statement.
the article was only a summary press report about some ambiguous statements by Malstrom : it is not the EU's position, by any means

as far as articles go, this is the important one (emphasis added) :

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.

Best
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you