Mixing
Is EU Treaty Article 50 (2) paradoxical?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Article 50(2) of the Treaty of the European Union (the “Maastricht Treatyâ€Â) sets out that the European Union Withdrawal Agreement should take account of the terms for the departing Member State’s future relationship with the EU.
It states:
- 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.
But at the same time, EU law prohibits trade agreements between the EU and member states, so the future relationship definitionally remains open until the Article 50 process is completed.
Can someone square this circle for me?
To restate:
The future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet the 50(2) agreement needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
united-kingdom european-union article-50
edited 19 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,163221
asked 6 hours ago
Ben
1,702922
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Article 50(2) of the Treaty of the European Union (the “Maastricht Treatyâ€Â) sets out that the European Union Withdrawal Agreement should take account of the terms for the departing Member State’s future relationship with the EU.
It states:
- 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.
But at the same time, EU law prohibits trade agreements between the EU and member states, so the future relationship definitionally remains open until the Article 50 process is completed.
Can someone square this circle for me?
To restate:
The future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet the 50(2) agreement needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
united-kingdom european-union article-50
edited 19 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,163221
asked 6 hours ago
Ben
1,702922
How does the paragraph underneath that, containing the phrase "So the Withdrawal Agreement will be followed shortly after we have left by one or more agreements covering different aspects of the future relationship." not answer your question?
– DonFusili
4 hours ago
Can you cite the specific provisions of EU law that supposedly "prohibit trade agreements between the EU and member states"? It seems to me that such a trade agreement can't so much be prohibited as logically impossible. It would be like prohibiting the Labour party from entering into a coalition with Jeremy Corbyn.
– phoog
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Article 50(2) of the Treaty of the European Union (the “Maastricht Treatyâ€Â) sets out that the European Union Withdrawal Agreement should take account of the terms for the departing Member State’s future relationship with the EU.
It states:
- 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.
But at the same time, EU law prohibits trade agreements between the EU and member states, so the future relationship definitionally remains open until the Article 50 process is completed.
Can someone square this circle for me?
To restate:
The future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet the 50(2) agreement needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
united-kingdom european-union article-50
edited 19 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,163221
asked 6 hours ago
Ben
1,702922
Article 50(2) of the Treaty of the European Union (the “Maastricht Treatyâ€Â) sets out that the European Union Withdrawal Agreement should take account of the terms for the departing Member State’s future relationship with the EU.
It states:
- 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.
But at the same time, EU law prohibits trade agreements between the EU and member states, so the future relationship definitionally remains open until the Article 50 process is completed.
Can someone square this circle for me?
To restate:
The future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet the 50(2) agreement needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
united-kingdom european-union article-50
united-kingdom european-union article-50
edited 19 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,163221
asked 6 hours ago
Ben
1,702922
edited 19 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,163221
asked 6 hours ago
Ben
1,702922
edited 19 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,163221
edited 19 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,163221
edited 19 mins ago
Burt_Harris
1,163221
1,163221
asked 6 hours ago
Ben
1,702922
asked 6 hours ago
Ben
1,702922
asked 6 hours ago
Ben
1,702922
1,702922
How does the paragraph underneath that, containing the phrase "So the Withdrawal Agreement will be followed shortly after we have left by one or more agreements covering different aspects of the future relationship." not answer your question?
– DonFusili
4 hours ago
Can you cite the specific provisions of EU law that supposedly "prohibit trade agreements between the EU and member states"? It seems to me that such a trade agreement can't so much be prohibited as logically impossible. It would be like prohibiting the Labour party from entering into a coalition with Jeremy Corbyn.
– phoog
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
How does the paragraph underneath that, containing the phrase "So the Withdrawal Agreement will be followed shortly after we have left by one or more agreements covering different aspects of the future relationship." not answer your question?
– DonFusili
4 hours ago
Can you cite the specific provisions of EU law that supposedly "prohibit trade agreements between the EU and member states"? It seems to me that such a trade agreement can't so much be prohibited as logically impossible. It would be like prohibiting the Labour party from entering into a coalition with Jeremy Corbyn.
– phoog
4 mins ago
How does the paragraph underneath that, containing the phrase "So the Withdrawal Agreement will be followed shortly after we have left by one or more agreements covering different aspects of the future relationship." not answer your question?
– DonFusili
4 hours ago
How does the paragraph underneath that, containing the phrase "So the Withdrawal Agreement will be followed shortly after we have left by one or more agreements covering different aspects of the future relationship." not answer your question?
– DonFusili
4 hours ago
Can you cite the specific provisions of EU law that supposedly "prohibit trade agreements between the EU and member states"? It seems to me that such a trade agreement can't so much be prohibited as logically impossible. It would be like prohibiting the Labour party from entering into a coalition with Jeremy Corbyn.
– phoog
4 mins ago
Can you cite the specific provisions of EU law that supposedly "prohibit trade agreements between the EU and member states"? It seems to me that such a trade agreement can't so much be prohibited as logically impossible. It would be like prohibiting the Labour party from entering into a coalition with Jeremy Corbyn.
– phoog
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
No, "take account" only refers to the negotiations. The agreement would be done at EU level and only take effect after the department member state leaves. It is allowed to make such negotiations, just not to enact the trade deal until the departing member has departed.
answered 4 hours ago
user
5,19321126
The Maastricht Treaty states: “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement (my emphasis) with the State... taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Unionâ€Â.
– Ben
2 hours ago
1
' conclude ' here just means that the negotiations are compete, and their the provisions of the treaty are defined. The negotiated treaty can't come in to effect until the leaving nation had exited. There is no paradox here
– PhillS
2 hours ago
Thank you. But the future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet 50(2) needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
– Ben
1 hour ago
6
Why can't it be defined before leaving the EU? The whole point of Article 50 is to give a two year period before leaving to define the future relationship.
– user
1 hour ago
1
@Ben future relationship includes things like the border(s) and citizens' rights. Clearly, these are part of the negotiation now and it would be irresponsible to wait until the country has left to start negotiating about those issues.
– JJJ
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
"user"'s answer is almost certainly right, but some challenge it on a technical reading of the words.
If they prevail, there is still no paradox. The articles themselves, as a general principal of law, are stronger than the individual laws, so the laws step aside.
Or alternatively, one could hold that article 50 is most specific and so has the governing law in question and permits the agreements to be made even though they would not otherwise be allowed.
answered 26 mins ago
Joshua
35118
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
No, "take account" only refers to the negotiations. The agreement would be done at EU level and only take effect after the department member state leaves. It is allowed to make such negotiations, just not to enact the trade deal until the departing member has departed.
answered 4 hours ago
user
5,19321126
The Maastricht Treaty states: “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement (my emphasis) with the State... taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Unionâ€Â.
– Ben
2 hours ago
1
' conclude ' here just means that the negotiations are compete, and their the provisions of the treaty are defined. The negotiated treaty can't come in to effect until the leaving nation had exited. There is no paradox here
– PhillS
2 hours ago
Thank you. But the future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet 50(2) needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
– Ben
1 hour ago
6
Why can't it be defined before leaving the EU? The whole point of Article 50 is to give a two year period before leaving to define the future relationship.
– user
1 hour ago
1
@Ben future relationship includes things like the border(s) and citizens' rights. Clearly, these are part of the negotiation now and it would be irresponsible to wait until the country has left to start negotiating about those issues.
– JJJ
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
No, "take account" only refers to the negotiations. The agreement would be done at EU level and only take effect after the department member state leaves. It is allowed to make such negotiations, just not to enact the trade deal until the departing member has departed.
answered 4 hours ago
user
5,19321126
The Maastricht Treaty states: “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement (my emphasis) with the State... taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Unionâ€Â.
– Ben
2 hours ago
1
' conclude ' here just means that the negotiations are compete, and their the provisions of the treaty are defined. The negotiated treaty can't come in to effect until the leaving nation had exited. There is no paradox here
– PhillS
2 hours ago
Thank you. But the future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet 50(2) needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
– Ben
1 hour ago
6
Why can't it be defined before leaving the EU? The whole point of Article 50 is to give a two year period before leaving to define the future relationship.
– user
1 hour ago
1
@Ben future relationship includes things like the border(s) and citizens' rights. Clearly, these are part of the negotiation now and it would be irresponsible to wait until the country has left to start negotiating about those issues.
– JJJ
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
No, "take account" only refers to the negotiations. The agreement would be done at EU level and only take effect after the department member state leaves. It is allowed to make such negotiations, just not to enact the trade deal until the departing member has departed.
answered 4 hours ago
user
5,19321126
No, "take account" only refers to the negotiations. The agreement would be done at EU level and only take effect after the department member state leaves. It is allowed to make such negotiations, just not to enact the trade deal until the departing member has departed.
answered 4 hours ago
user
5,19321126
answered 4 hours ago
user
5,19321126
answered 4 hours ago
user
5,19321126
answered 4 hours ago
user
5,19321126
5,19321126
The Maastricht Treaty states: “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement (my emphasis) with the State... taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Unionâ€Â.
– Ben
2 hours ago
1
' conclude ' here just means that the negotiations are compete, and their the provisions of the treaty are defined. The negotiated treaty can't come in to effect until the leaving nation had exited. There is no paradox here
– PhillS
2 hours ago
Thank you. But the future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet 50(2) needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
– Ben
1 hour ago
6
Why can't it be defined before leaving the EU? The whole point of Article 50 is to give a two year period before leaving to define the future relationship.
– user
1 hour ago
1
@Ben future relationship includes things like the border(s) and citizens' rights. Clearly, these are part of the negotiation now and it would be irresponsible to wait until the country has left to start negotiating about those issues.
– JJJ
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
The Maastricht Treaty states: “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement (my emphasis) with the State... taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Unionâ€Â.
– Ben
2 hours ago
1
' conclude ' here just means that the negotiations are compete, and their the provisions of the treaty are defined. The negotiated treaty can't come in to effect until the leaving nation had exited. There is no paradox here
– PhillS
2 hours ago
Thank you. But the future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet 50(2) needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
– Ben
1 hour ago
6
Why can't it be defined before leaving the EU? The whole point of Article 50 is to give a two year period before leaving to define the future relationship.
– user
1 hour ago
1
@Ben future relationship includes things like the border(s) and citizens' rights. Clearly, these are part of the negotiation now and it would be irresponsible to wait until the country has left to start negotiating about those issues.
– JJJ
1 hour ago
The Maastricht Treaty states: “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement (my emphasis) with the State... taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Unionâ€Â.
– Ben
2 hours ago
The Maastricht Treaty states: “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement (my emphasis) with the State... taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Unionâ€Â.
– Ben
2 hours ago
1
1
' conclude ' here just means that the negotiations are compete, and their the provisions of the treaty are defined. The negotiated treaty can't come in to effect until the leaving nation had exited. There is no paradox here
– PhillS
2 hours ago
' conclude ' here just means that the negotiations are compete, and their the provisions of the treaty are defined. The negotiated treaty can't come in to effect until the leaving nation had exited. There is no paradox here
– PhillS
2 hours ago
Thank you. But the future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet 50(2) needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
– Ben
1 hour ago
Thank you. But the future relationship - by definition - cannot be defined prior to leaving the EU. And yet 50(2) needs to take the future relationship into account. Why am I wrong and what am I missing?
– Ben
1 hour ago
6
6
Why can't it be defined before leaving the EU? The whole point of Article 50 is to give a two year period before leaving to define the future relationship.
– user
1 hour ago
Why can't it be defined before leaving the EU? The whole point of Article 50 is to give a two year period before leaving to define the future relationship.
– user
1 hour ago
1
1
@Ben future relationship includes things like the border(s) and citizens' rights. Clearly, these are part of the negotiation now and it would be irresponsible to wait until the country has left to start negotiating about those issues.
– JJJ
1 hour ago
@Ben future relationship includes things like the border(s) and citizens' rights. Clearly, these are part of the negotiation now and it would be irresponsible to wait until the country has left to start negotiating about those issues.
– JJJ
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
"user"'s answer is almost certainly right, but some challenge it on a technical reading of the words.
If they prevail, there is still no paradox. The articles themselves, as a general principal of law, are stronger than the individual laws, so the laws step aside.
Or alternatively, one could hold that article 50 is most specific and so has the governing law in question and permits the agreements to be made even though they would not otherwise be allowed.
answered 26 mins ago
Joshua
35118
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
"user"'s answer is almost certainly right, but some challenge it on a technical reading of the words.
If they prevail, there is still no paradox. The articles themselves, as a general principal of law, are stronger than the individual laws, so the laws step aside.
Or alternatively, one could hold that article 50 is most specific and so has the governing law in question and permits the agreements to be made even though they would not otherwise be allowed.
answered 26 mins ago
Joshua
35118
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
"user"'s answer is almost certainly right, but some challenge it on a technical reading of the words.
If they prevail, there is still no paradox. The articles themselves, as a general principal of law, are stronger than the individual laws, so the laws step aside.
Or alternatively, one could hold that article 50 is most specific and so has the governing law in question and permits the agreements to be made even though they would not otherwise be allowed.
answered 26 mins ago
Joshua
35118
"user"'s answer is almost certainly right, but some challenge it on a technical reading of the words.
If they prevail, there is still no paradox. The articles themselves, as a general principal of law, are stronger than the individual laws, so the laws step aside.
Or alternatively, one could hold that article 50 is most specific and so has the governing law in question and permits the agreements to be made even though they would not otherwise be allowed.
answered 26 mins ago
Joshua
35118
answered 26 mins ago
Joshua
35118
answered 26 mins ago
Joshua
35118
answered 26 mins ago
Joshua
35118
35118
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35131%2fis-eu-treaty-article-50-2-paradoxical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
How does the paragraph underneath that, containing the phrase "So the Withdrawal Agreement will be followed shortly after we have left by one or more agreements covering different aspects of the future relationship." not answer your question?
– DonFusili
4 hours ago
Can you cite the specific provisions of EU law that supposedly "prohibit trade agreements between the EU and member states"? It seems to me that such a trade agreement can't so much be prohibited as logically impossible. It would be like prohibiting the Labour party from entering into a coalition with Jeremy Corbyn.
– phoog
4 mins ago