why are people saying trade deal will be part of article 50?

[Cailleach1]

On Andrew Neil yesterday, the talking head in the studio said that that the UK's financial obligations on foot of the article 50 will be going to the member states to be passed by them. But it won't, will it?

The Council will be giving it to the Commission to deal with and with some oversight by the European Parliament. The Commission will be the main people though and they will be guided by the treaties and agreements. The money owed by the UK will be based on obligations entered into and signed by the UK. If the UK default on it's obligations to the EU, how will that affect how it is view in trade deals it wants to make with other countries when out of the EU? Will the IMF become involved and will other countries make things more costly if the UK are defaulters. Will rating agencies make borrowings more expensive for UK on foot of a default?

Any subsequent treaty or agreement will be going to the member states and parliaments (even little Wallonia).

Last point, why does the main political analysis programme of the day continually have people talking about EU who haven't got a frigging clue what they are talking about in relation to the EU and how it operates but insist on winging it anyway. That included the male host. Can't believe after all this time Nick Clegg had to pull Neil up on what the single market was.

Oh and Dan Hannon was spinning how it was all negotiation and may just be making an example of the UK. But the obligations entered into under the treaties etc. and signed by the UK will be upheld by the Commission. Obviously some will be more an estimate, but not all of it. It is not the spin he is putting on it.

openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/

Pretty good simplified explanation of the interaction between the Council / Commission / Parliament and National Parliaments. The Commission is very much subsidiary to the Council and in turn the Council representatives interact primarily with National Parliaments before bringing their view to the EU rather than the other way around. DC's renegotiation was a good example of the process in practice - very little input from the Commission or Parliament during those negotiations.

People are still talking about it like that because they don't actually understand the process. Its the same as all the leave voters saying we will "revert" to WTO rules, well the WTO has to approve the deal first!

Just looked at that org. Open Europe is a private company. "The think-tank was set up in 2005 prior to the Lisbon Treaty by a group of British business to oppose further centralisation of power in the EU." Their funding sources are not publicised either.

I would prefer to refer to a more objective source who weren't set up with an axe to grind.

It probably is simplified but maybe not so objective.

You are quite right that Article 50 is not about getting any sort of trade deal and is rather about negotiating exit terms from Europe, splitting of future liabilities etc.

However, it would be pretty disastrous finacially for the UK to exit the EU and not to have any trade deal in place. (It would not be great for other European countries either but would have less impact on them than on us, as obviously they could still trade tariff-free with each other). I am guessing that this is why we need an urgent plan for a trade deal that we can agree with the EU before the two year grace period expires.