Brexit discussion thread III

ambro25

LeinsterDub wrote: »

My point wasn't to discuss the nitty gritty of our EU exclusions and red lines it was to point out that every nation in the EU has exclusions and red lines. The UK is a very reluctant member but often no more reluctant than others.

Returning to the point punishing the UK if they attempted to remain with their own particular exclusions and red lines would be massively foolish and would spectacularly back fire on the EU.

You may be missing the issue that the UK is already out by default come 30 March 2019, [whatever the Lords and Parliament may vote about that date, is ultra vires regardless - "it's jurisdiction, stupid!" to use that well-known turn of phrase] with all its opt-ins, opt-outs, rebate, special-this, special-that binned overnight, and back to square one for re-admission. On the basis of modern day-standards such as the €, Schengen, etc.

Given that context, nipping its exceptionalism in the bud may well be the EU's price for the Article 50-waving "fudge", with cherry [keep the £] on top.

I hear your point & logic. It still serves them f&£$€*ing right. And it's still cheap at twice the price, and far from foolish indeed.

History will show that Theresa May's triggering of Article 50 TEU was the single most damnably stupid act that the UK did. Not holding the referendum. Because until she did that, the UK could (legally) backtrack and damage-control at home, without surrendering an inch of sway in Brussels. After she did that, she'd dropped the UK kegs to the ankles and passed the solid platinum-grade lube to the EU27. The rest, since March 2017 to date and to come, is history.

For Forks Sake

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'd love to know the reasons and logic why the 8% don't favour membership.
.

Go to thejournal, or the comments on the Irish Times facebook page any day of the week and you'll not be long hearing them. Although both reason and logic are noticeably absent.

mickoneill31

LeinsterDub wrote: »

That would be incredibly foolish and rejected by the UK out of hand. Remember the best thing for everyone is for the UK to remain. Even if they remain as they were in the pass reluctant members.

While they may get to stay with their existing exceptions that they have, they'll never get new ones.
If they try to leave and fail they'll have lost a lot of power that they had in the EU. What'll they do if they don't get their way? Leave?

So much for taking back control. Leave and they have to cede control for access to EU deals. Withdraw article 50 and the EU doesn't have to worry about them so much anymore. I don't know how they could have engineered this any worse (except if they crash out).

An Ciarraioch

83 Labour peers defied the Corbyn whip - so not just Tories facing divisions!

Leroy42

If you are EU, and you look across the table and see the other side rife with disagreements, you would take the view that since time is on your side the only thing left to do is to sit and wait.

IMO, the EU has tried to work with the UK, with admittedly the overall aim to cancel Brexit, but it is clear that the UK have no idea what they want, and even if May could actually come to any idea of A) what she wants and how she is going to get it, they know, and the DUP showed this clearly in December, that the current UK government simply do not hold the ability to strike any deal.

An Claidheamh

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Go to thejournal, or the comments on the Irish Times facebook page any day of the week and you'll not be long hearing them. Although both reason and logic are noticeably absent.

Often trolls from fake/British accounts.

There used to he a huge number of British and or loyalist comments on the likes of independent.ie, journal.ie, etc on a year or so ago.

Most claiming to be Irish and concerned about our sovereignty, while quite clearly being sectarian or British nationalists.

Grammar was usually poor.

They seem to have given up.

LeinsterDub

ambro25 wrote: »

You may be missing the issue that the UK is already out by default come 30 March 2019.

Aren't we discussing the UK withdrawing A50 prior to the deadline?

Gerry T

LeinsterDub wrote: »

My point wasn't to discuss the nitty gritty of our EU exclusions and red lines it was to point out that every nation in the EU has exclusions and red lines. The UK is a very reluctant member but often no more reluctant than others.

Returning to the point punishing the UK if they attempted to remain with their own particular exclusions and red lines would be massively foolish and would spectacularly back fire on the EU.

From a more general perspective IMO the UK within the EU have far more concessions than any other member, if they try to reverse A50 then the EU should remove a number of these, bringing their membership inline with other countries.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Aren't we discussing the UK withdrawing A50 prior to the deadline?

As it stands the UK is out end March '19, no matter what, any transition will be after they exit and the UK will have to reapply for EU membership.
So even if the house of lords were to reverse the decision to exit, its not the UK's decision to stay in. That's totally a decision for the remaining 27 countries and that decision would have to be made prior to 29/3/19. I can't see that happening.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Aren't we discussing the UK withdrawing A50 prior to the deadline?

There's an academic debate over whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its A50 notification, or whether this would require the consent of the EU, or even of each of the EU-27.

The academic debate is interesting, but I think ultimately irrelevant. Politically, it is hard to see the UK doing this, and all but impossible to see them doing this against any degree of EU opposition.

The important question is, what would the attitude of the EU be? Would they be delighted to see Brexit collapse and vanish in a wisp of smoke, as though it had never been? Or would they be wary ("we're not going to risk putting ourselves through all this again in five years time!"") and look for concrete evidence of UK commitment to the European project, in the form of, e.g., signing up to the euro, joining Schengen, hanging Nigel Farage from a yard-arm and leaving his cadaver to the crows?

I confess I can see arguments both ways. I don't know how the EU would react, but I think we're probably never going to find out. From where we are now, the UK simply withdrawing A50 notification is at the extreme end of the range of possible outcomes.

Peregrinus

captainspeed wrote: »

Many people in favour of Brexit (especially the kind of people who would have voted for UKIP) will simply blame Ireland or the EU or whoever else they fancy when things start hitting the fan, it's as simple as that.

Yes. In the Brexity mindset Brexit cannot fail; it can just be wrongly implemented.

Since, by any objective measure, Brexit will fail, and Brexiters can see this, they put a lot of time and effort into positioning themselves to be able to blame others for wrongly implementing it. Thus Ireland in seeking to retain the open border is "weaponising" the border, and has a hidden agenda of forcing the UK to remain. The EU, in not splintering as predicted and in seeking a rational and coherent withdrawal agreement, is "bullying" the UK. People in Britain who won't drink the ultra-Brexity cool-aid are "traitors" and "enemies of the people". And of course Brexiters turn on one another, with the back end of a pantomime horse who currently serves as Foreign Secretary denouncing May's customs strategy as "crazy". Etc, etc.

Get used to this. There'll be a lot more of it. Brexitry requires it.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And a defeat on the leaving date . . . This of course is most symbolic as they can push thru what they want later.

It's not symbolic at all. All the amendments the Lords have approved - I think there are 14 of them now - have to go back to the Commons to be debated on and voted on again. The government is not at all confident that it can win all of those votes in the Commons. The only way to avoid the votes, however, is for the government to accept the Lords' amendments.

ambro25

LeinsterDub wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

You may be missing the issue that the UK is already out by default come 30 March 2019.

Aren't we discussing the UK withdrawing A50 prior to the deadline?

It’s not their decision to make, because the TEU (in which Article 50 is to be found) is a supranational agreement, not a British statute: Parliament has no authority over the remaining signatories (the EU27) that are parties to the agreement, nor any capacity or entitlement to unilaterally amend or repeal TEU provisions (that’s the job of the EU legislative apparatus, including the EU28-made Commission and EU28-elected EU Parliament). Which would be required here, since there are no express or implied provisions in the TEU or the TFEU about recalling or ‘withdrawing’ an Article 50 invocation: it’s a fire-and-forget legal mechanism that can’t be stopped, only briefly delayed if the EU27 unanimously consent an extension to the standard 2-year term of the provision.

The British Parliament is sovereign and so entitled to approve -or not- the invoking of specific TEU provisions (such as Article 50) as they apply to the UK whilst a Member State. But the limit of that sovereignty, in the wider EU context brought about by the TEU, is the U.K. jurisdiction and no further.

Hence why any notion of the U.K. unilaterally withdrawing its Article 50 instrument is fanciful (at best), and why the balance of power in negotiations shifted to the EU wholesale on 29 March 2017: as already explained by other posters, all the EU had to do (notionally) from them on, is wait out the clock, whence the UK would automatically crash out on 29 March 2019.

Peregrinus as usual raises excellent points about the political dimension of the issue, with all of which I agree. But I’ve been looking at it mostly as a legal practitioner myself, wholly unconvinced (then, and still) by the various legal arguments put forward by the proponents of the Article 50 withdrawal option: IMO, it is not do-able, bar an enormous politico-legal fudge (moreover heavily involving the ECJ: the irony!), that would make the Greece-Varoufakis shenanigans of yesteryear look like a summer lunchtime stroll in St Stephen’s Green.

Leroy42

There is simply no way that Art 50 will be revoked. The UK government are in convulsions over how hard a Brexit they want, the idea that May (or anyone else for that matter) could even raise the prospect of cancelling Brexit is a non starter.

Even the idea of a second vote, or seemingly that parliament should have a say, is seen by many as traitor behaviour.

flatty

ambro25 wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

You may be missing the issue that the UK is already out by default come 30 March 2019.

Aren't we discussing the UK withdrawing A50 prior to the deadline?

It’s not their decision to make, because the TEU (in which Article 50 is to be found) is a supranational agreement, not a British statute: Parliament has no authority over the remaining signatories (the EU27) that are parties to the agreement, nor any capacity or entitlement to unilaterally amend or repeal TEU provisions (that’s the job of the EU legislative apparatus, including the EU28-made Commission and EU28-elected EU Parliament). Which would be required here, since there are no express or implied provisions in the TEU or the TFEU about recalling or ‘withdrawing’ an Article 50 invocation: it’s a fire-and-forget legal mechanism that can’t be stopped, only briefly delayed if the EU27 unanimously consent an extension to the standard 2-year term of the provision.

The British Parliament is sovereign and so entitled to approve -or not- the invoking of specific TEU provisions (such as Article 50) as they apply to the UK whilst a Member State. But the limit of that sovereignty, in the wider EU context brought about by the TEU, is the U.K. jurisdiction and no further.

Hence why any notion of the U.K. unilaterally withdrawing its Article 50 instrument is fanciful (at best), and why the balance of power in negotiations shifted to the EU wholesale on 29 March 2017: as already explained by other posters, all the EU had to do (notionally) from them on, is wait out the clock, whence the UK would automatically crash out on 29 March 2019.

Peregrinus as usual raises excellent points about the political dimension of the issue, with all of which I agree. But I’ve been looking at it mostly as a legal practitioner myself, wholly unconvinced (then, and still) by the various legal arguments put forward by the proponents of the Article 50 withdrawal option: IMO, it is not do-able, bar an enormous politico-legal fudge (moreover heavily involving the ECJ: the irony!), that would make the Greece-Varoufakis shenanigans of yesteryear look like a summer lunchtime stroll in St Stephen’s Green.

That's your opinion. I think it's irrelevant as it won't happen, but senior legal advice elsewhere has suggested that the UK can withdraw article 50, and Barnier has said as much on more than one occasion.
May would rather have the country suffer the consequences than have her perception of her pride dented however, so it won't happen. Strange thing is that history would remember her as a great leader should she withdraw a50, for all the reasons stated at length above, and simply tell the electorate that there isn't time to formulate, debate and finalise an acceptable proposal to even put to the EU, and until one exists, she will not drive the country towards the edge. She should simultaneously be telling the EU that she will rerun a referendum once positions become clear, and buy the country some breathing space.

ambro25

flatty wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

You may be missing the issue that the UK is already out by default come 30 March 2019.

That's your opinion. I think it's irrelevant as it won't happen, but senior legal advice elsewhere has suggested that the UK can withdraw article 50, and Barnier has said as much on more than one occasion.

It is, and I’ve qualified my post as such.

I am one such ‘senior legal adviser’, qualified under and practicing both U.K. and EU law (albeit not constitutional law), and have read these ‘senior legal advice’ pieces, which opinions themselves. That’s being objective about these legal opinions (indeed), not partisan. Particularly since there is no (legal) precedent to draw any authority/bias one way or the other here.

What they all exhibit, is a quintessentially British approach to legal interpretation (typically Common Law-based) involving the supposed intentions of the Article 50 drafters, the supposed meaning of the text of the provisions, and the supposed meaning of the absence of certain text of the provisions.

In a nutshell, to a fair extent they’re reading and understanding what they want to read and understand, to fit their hypothesis.

So far so fair insofar as legal opinions go.

The issue I take with them, is that the TEU is an instrument of Civil Law, and that their argument (and it’s opposite) would have to be heard and vindicated or not before the ECJ, a Civil Law Court; wherein legal interpretation is substantially more literal (“the written word is what it is”, in a nutshell) and far less attention and credence is given to such supposed meanings of words.

They may be right in the end, if the issue came to be heard and decided at Court (like you, I doubt that it will however). But having crossed legal swords in Civil Law EU countries and in EU/EU-like international bodies, I’d still put money on mine, not theirs.

An Ciarraioch

A development with the DUP today, as they have removed the whip from veteran politician Jim Wells, leaving them level on 27 Stormont seats with SF, should it ever be restored.

Is this significant news, about the MPs voting on EEA membership? Or is a likely loss?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/08/labour-peers-force-may-to-give-mps-vote-over-single-market-plans

ancapailldorcha

According to that article, 83 Labour peers defied the whip. The current iteration of the Labour party seems to have no interest at all in actually holding the government to account, instead favouring a path towards Jeremy Corbyn's brand of Socialism.

farmchoice

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this significant news, about the MPs voting on EEA membership? Or is a likely loss?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/08/labour-peers-force-may-to-give-mps-vote-over-single-market-plans

well its a debate and a vote she would rather avoid, her position is so shaky that she cannot afford any likely banana skins and this in one, but just one of many, as of today i think the lords have sent back something like 12-13 amendments to be either accepted by the government or voted on again.

the fact is a whole wing of her party (if not two) is in open revolt, this cannot go on, she is only there because her rivals see her as a useful fool,for the moment. if she starts losing votes in the commons she is gone.

basically it adds to the pressure in a fairly big way.

her saving grace might be that labour are at sixes and sevens on brexit as seen by the fact it was a labour rebellion in the lords that pushed this vote through.

EdgeCase

It still has to have power sharing, unless the two sides agree they still can't form a NI government.

The process is a lot more complex than a normal parliament like the Dail.

All it would do is change the possibility of having an SF first minister if the numbers tilt the other way slightly. The DUP could still block everything though.

Leroy42

it could actually be Labour that bring her down. Corbyn has given her a pretty easy ride on Brexit to date as he has taken pretty much the same position (safe for an ill-thought out CU fudge). Any revolters on the Tory side were easily wiped out by leavers on the Labour side.

It appears now, that many in the Labour party are willing to go against Corbyn on this issue and as such May be almost certainly lose the votes if she wants to cancel the Lords amendments.

Would be even be willing to risk it given they have nothing to offer anyway?

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

They may be right in the end, if the issue came to be heard and decided at Court (like you, I doubt that it will however). But having crossed legal swords in Civil Law EU countries and in EU/EU-like international bodies, I’d still put money on mine, not theirs.

If the EU were inclined to let the UK withdraw Article 50, they would let them withdraw it. Someone somewhere would undoubtedly take a case, but by the time it came to court and was decided either way, it would be an asterisk in history.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the EU were inclined to let the UK withdraw Article 50, they would let them withdraw it. Someone somewhere would undoubtedly take a case, but by the time it came to court and was decided either way, it would be an asterisk in history.

Its the opposite I think, for A50 to be withdrawn it would take the signature of all 27 member states. It would only take one of these to delay this past 29/3/19 and we have Brexit.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the EU were inclined to let the UK withdraw Article 50, they would let them withdraw it. Someone somewhere would undoubtedly take a case, but by the time it came to court and was decided either way, it would be an asterisk in history.

But first the UK would want to withdraw A50, and if anything the UK is increasing it desire for a hard Brexit.

Based on the current situation, whereby clearly the hard brexiteers are in charge, it would need a swift and sizeale change to even broach the subject of withdraw A50. They are even arguing about the length of the transition period.

Whilst I would agree that the EU would like the Uk to withdraw A50, unless the UK can show that the feeling toward the EU has changed significantly that would is the advantage to the EU? It will delay the inevitable and likely increase the change of the exit being a success. There is simply no reason for the EU to help the UK unless the UK is willing to help the EU.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to that article, 83 Labour peers defied the whip. The current iteration of the Labour party seems to have no interest at all in actually holding the government to account, instead favouring a path towards Jeremy Corbyn's brand of Socialism.

There is no place to hide for Jeremy Corbyn as much as for Theresa May. May has to make a decision on what Brexit she wants and she can't keep playing the game of trying to appease every side and selling a vision they all want.

Corbyn will have to make clear where he wants the UK to go. If he wants them to shun the single market and the EU because they would make it harder to nationalize those institutions as he wouldn't be able to subsidize them. Within the single market this would not be allowed as they would compete EU wide for contracts and that would be unfair. So either he commits to the EU single market and if he still plans nationalization this would mean they would have to succeed without funding from the state.

Labour will be under the microscope as much as the Government the more critical timing becomes. The closer we get to the cliff the more attention will need to be paid to Labour to see if they offer more of the same or something different. I hope they will offer something different, but the indications at the moment is that for ideological reasons it would be more of the same. The same outcome but for different reasons.

Zubeneschamali

Gerry T wrote: »

Its the opposite I think, for A50 to be withdrawn it would take the signature of all 27 member states. It would only take one of these to delay this past 29/3/19 and we have Brexit.

Yes, I agree. My point is that if the UK and EU27 both agree to stop Brexit by withdrawing A50, a court case about it will be beside the point. They will just do it.

I agree that at the moment, neither May nor the EU27 has any notion of doing this.

An Ciarraioch

Meanwhile, Trimble and JRM continue to claim the Border is a fabulous chimaera - which seems an appropriate description of the max-fac option:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/994128547445952512

An Claidheamh

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Meanwhile, Trimble and JRM continue to claim the Border is a fabulous chimaera - which seems an appropriate description of the max-fac option:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/994128547445952512

Right clown that Trimble is.

Yet, only a while back we had Brexiteers attacking the GFA.

Trimble is about to realise for the #237 time, how irrelevant unionism and his views are in the big picture that is the EU and the UK.

Leroy42

I really don't understand the Brexiteer position on NI.

They continue to tell us that Brexit was about taking back control, their laws, their borders etc.

Yet them seem totally open to simply leaving the NI border up to the EU to control. It makes no sense. They continue to state what they want, and when the outcome of that is pointed out they cry that is only what the EU wants (apparently after 60+ years of breaking down borders the sole desire of the EU is now to put them up!)

An Ciarraioch

Airbus space contract to move to Continent due to Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/09/airbus-space-contract-will-move-from-uk-to-continent-because-of-brexit

Larbre34

Its called being deluded. The same way extreme brexiters have been ever since this movement kicked off.

The EU needs our market to sell German cars into!
The EU needs the City of London!
The EU needs access to our expertise on science, technology, aerospace, business, politics!
The EU needs our investors, our tourists, our ex-Pats and their powerful Pounds!
The EU needs our net budget contribution!

All those things may have been true to greater or lesser extent at different points in time since the Treaty of Rome, but the truth is, the EU can adjust to them being things of the past far quicker and far less painfully than the UK.

This will eventually dawn on the Brexit fundamentalists, maybe in October, maybe in March, maybe in the following 24 months as large employers pack up and head for Slovakia and opportunities for young Brits to broaden their study and work are gradually lessened, as all that lovely EU budget contribution money evaporates into a economy in decline as public services and regional development are set back a couple of generations.

But it will dawn on them as it will dawn on the shabby end of Fleet Street and children not yet born may never forgive them.

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

The level of delusion among the UK population is incredible to be honest. Advocates of Brexit such as Rees Mogg have a dangerously revisionist view of British history. They seem to still think its 1900 and their empire is at it's height. The audacity of him to suggest that Ireland has undermined UK governments for 100s of years is despicable. It's not like we were in the empire by choice. The man is a fool.

I honestly think that Britain needs to be kicked out and only when their chickens come home to roost will they find their true place in the world. I think at this point the only way to kill this nonsensical imperialist mentality is to let them have a few decades of cold hard reality. 
If I was the EU negotiation team I wouldn't just wait this out. The Brexit Bus will crash off a cliff for sure.

Infini

Noemi Gorgeous Sailing wrote: »

The level of delusion among the UK population is incredible to be honest. Advocates of Brexit such as Rees Mogg have a dangerously revisionist view of British history. They seem to still think its 1900 and their empire is at it's height. The audacity of him to suggest that Ireland has undermined UK governments for 100s of years is despicable. It's not like we were in the empire by choice. The man is a fool.

I honestly think that Britain needs to be kicked out and only when their chickens come home to roost will they find their true place in the world. I think at this point the only way to kill this nonsensical imperialist mentality is to let them have a few decades of cold hard reality. 
If I was the EU negotiation team I wouldn't just wait this out. The Brexit Bus will crash off a cliff for sure.

Mogg is an arseclown. Only had to look at him talking for all of 10 seconds to get the impression of a man clearly lacking any kind of critical intellectual thought and full of his own BS. As far as I'm concerned if the Brits dont close off his BS for good then they reap what they sow.

Guarantee ya that if Brexit happens by 2030 NI will be reunified with the republic and Scotland will be an Independent republic of its own and part of the EU. All that will be left is the rump of Little Britain as the damage they inflicted on themselves will be something they wont recover from.

Capt'n Midnight

The UK will have to make 20 deals with the EU after Brexit and they've been burning off goodwill. And doesn't any deal after the deadline have to be ratified by all of the EU ?

What Brussels wants to avoid is a repeat of its relationship with Switzerland, which is governed by more than 100 different deals that can be the source of multiple mini-disputes.

The EU also got burned recently when the European Court of Justice ruled that a trade pact with Singapore had to be split into two parts: a trade agreement at a European level and an agreement on investments which touched on the powers of national governments.

Capt'n Midnight

I've mentioned before about how the UK may have a problem keeping the lights on because of future dependence on as yet unbuilt nuclear power plants.

While the EU has delegated negotiations the UK is wasting a lot of time that could be better spent heading off problems before they become serious economic issues.

http://www.euronews.com/2018/05/09/cracks-in-british-nuclear-reactor-ring-power-alarm-bells

Britain’s electricity generation is under scrutiny due to a plan to close coal-fired power plants by 2025 and weak economic conditions for investment in new gas plants.

There are also doubts about the timetable for EDF’s Hinkley Point C nuclear plant which is not expected to come online until the end of 2025, and the proposed Sizewell C plant, which is not even being built yet.

French utility EDF said the Hunterston B shutdown was due to new cracks developing faster than expected in graphite bricks in one reactor’s core. These bricks are used in all 14 advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors (AGRs) in Britain which drive seven out of eight of the country’s plants.

“We believe that most of the AGRs will have their life limited by the progression of cracking,” Britain’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) says on its website, adding that this presents “unique challenges”.

The bricks cannot be repaired or replaced

murphaph

Interesting development if true:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-brexit-latest-jeremy-corbyn-eu-referendum-uk-mps-a8343746.html

According to the article a number of Northeast Labour MPs (remember the Northeast voted very strongly in favour of Brexit) have openly backed another referendum.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.screendaily.com/features/uk-film-execs-make-predictions-for-brexit-impact/5128929.article

UK film industry may have problems after Brexit , this won't affect the big boys but the smaller independents won't have it so easy.
Technicians and such may need visas and UK films won't be classified as European so harder to distribute on the continent and they won't count as European for distributors or broadcasters who have quotas.

Some employers said they are already seeing Brexit clauses in contracts which required them to guarantee non-UK employees legal and financial protection in the case of a so-called ‘hard Brexit’.

Larbre34

murphaph wrote: »

Interesting development if true:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-brexit-latest-jeremy-corbyn-eu-referendum-uk-mps-a8343746.html

According to the article a number of Northeast Labour MPs (remember the Northeast voted very strongly in favour of Brexit) have openly backed another referendum.

That is hugely controversial, but the reality is that the North of England was abandoned by Thatcher, not the EU. Those that voted for Brexit were sold a pup that employment would not be affected, but the reality is, it will.

This is not about fisheries, or racial ghettoes of former British colonies, its about Nissan and call centres and fintech and I really admire MPs who are putting their own seats on the line to try and protect the people from the reality that is emerging.

Lemming

Gerry T wrote: »

Its the opposite I think, for A50 to be withdrawn it would take the signature of all 27 member states. It would only take one of these to delay this past 29/3/19 and we have Brexit.

If that scenario were to play out I would imagine that in lieu of on-going proceedings the EU would postpone ejection of the UK on grounds of 'good faith'. Of course, I also suspect that any attempt at withdrawal of A50 would raise questions of 'good faith' towards the British government before any agreement were to be contemplated.

Lemming

murphaph wrote: »

Interesting development if true:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-brexit-latest-jeremy-corbyn-eu-referendum-uk-mps-a8343746.html

According to the article a number of Northeast Labour MPs (remember the Northeast voted very strongly in favour of Brexit) have openly backed another referendum.

Far too little. Far too late. Where were they during the campaign, where it was blatantly obvious even before polling day that the areas across the north of England like Sunderland would be brutally exposed to Brexit? Three of the five voted for the Brexit bill and are only doing this now because they're afraid of their own seats.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's an academic debate over whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its A50 notification, or whether this would require the consent of the EU, or even of each of the EU-27.

The academic debate is interesting, but I think ultimately irrelevant. Politically, it is hard to see the UK doing this, and all but impossible to see them doing this against any degree of EU opposition.

The important question is, what would the attitude of the EU be? Would they be delighted to see Brexit collapse and vanish in a wisp of smoke, as though it had never been? Or would they be wary ("we're not going to risk putting ourselves through all this again in five years time!"") and look for concrete evidence of UK commitment to the European project, in the form of, e.g., signing up to the euro, joining Schengen, hanging Nigel Farage from a yard-arm and leaving his cadaver to the crows?

I confess I can see arguments both ways. I don't know how the EU would react, but I think we're probably never going to find out. From where we are now, the UK simply withdrawing A50 notification is at the extreme end of the range of possible outcomes.

Personally I think they probably could legally withdraw article 50 and I have read a number of commentaries supporting this.

It was one of the questions in a court case taken in Ireland by a crowd funded group. Could the UK unilaterally withdraw article 50? It was abandoned when the Irish State announced it would be opposing. Therefore it did not go further.

My guess is that the reason the State opposed it was that the intention behind Article 50 is that once it is initiated it can't be stopped and that negotiations are therefore strictly time-limited.

Peregrinus

Lemming wrote: »

If that scenario were to play out I would imagine that in lieu of on-going proceedings the EU would postpone ejection of the UK on grounds of 'good faith'.

They can't. The Treaty is clear about this. You can't ignore treaty provisions by spouting magic phrases like "good faith".

In the (very improbable) scenario we are discussing, all that could be done would be to fast-track any court proceedings in which the ability of the UK to withdraw its A50 notice was considered.

murphaph

Lemming wrote: »

Far too little. Far too late. Where were they during the campaign, where it was blatantly obvious even before polling day that the areas across the north of England like Sunderland would be brutally exposed to Brexit? Three of the five voted for the Brexit bill and are only doing this now because they're afraid of their own seats.

Idk. Surely it's going to be seen as highly controversial by leavers in their constituencies? If I was a Labour MP in Sunderland and all I cared about was holding my seat, I would not openly call into question the "solemn decision" of the majority of my electors.

EdgeCase

Peregrinus wrote: »

They can't. The Treaty is clear about this. You can't ignore treaty provisions by spouting magic phrases like "good faith".

In the (very improbable) scenario we are discussing, all that could be done would be to fast-track any court proceedings in which the ability of the UK to withdraw its A50 notice was considered.

This is based on a common British political and media total misunderstanding of what EU law is. It's not based on fluffy concepts of English Common Law, nor is it a political negotiation between two parties.

The EU is based on a system of treaty law and has its legal foundations in civil code. Everything is highly codified and bound by technicalities of treaties.

You can't just change those treaties at a whim and the process involves complex internal processes involving all of the remaining 27 members, their parliamentary democracies and possibly even regional / state parliamentary systems at sub national level and even potentially triggeing referenda in countries like Ireland and Denmark - that's as well as all of the political systems in the European Parliament etc etc

The UK system on the other hand is very much driven by the whims of a cabinet and has a rather more nebulous idea of what constitutional law is.

The result is that the UK side is just a political / executive setup while the EU is working as a system within defined parameters and very structured legal frameworks.

Even in the negotiations, Barnier and his team can't actually go outside their terms of reference and the legal authority they have. He can't just change the Treaty of Lisbon as part of the negotiations, so Article 50 is not going to change or just be randomly set aside at a whim.

By its nature, and by necessity the EU is technocratic.
It's not able to just fly by the seat of is pants, making it up as it goes along. That's however what the UK side is doing. It's really not showing much concern for the rule of law or normal procedure. It's evident in the fact that there's no real policy and the UK's position seems to keep shifting without any logic depending on the whims of day to day politics.

Also if you look at the way Windrush is being handled, it's pretty obvious that the current UK administration has no particular care for things like rule of law or due process. Just whip up terms like "create a hostile environment for .." etc etc. That's neither transparent nor is there any clearly defined structure to it. It's all vague, make it up as you go along stuff. That approach won't and can't work with the EU.

This is why I think that the UK is going to just keep fighting with itself, failing to really engage with the EU and then just finding itself hitting the time limit rating and raving about inflexibility, not even comprehending that it's been given all of the tools and the opportunities to negotiate but instead chose to just rant, rave and grandstand.

It's a bit like turning up at an airport and demanding that you want to board the flight that is taxing to the runway because you don't agree with the concept of timetables.

Were I saw this going is a falling out of the EU due to the time limit, an economic crisis, then some kind of attempt to cobble together a new treaty in a crisis, which could be messy to put it mildly.

I don't see "business as usual" being restored for a long time. Maybe a decade or so before we've any kind of "new normal"

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

Idk. Surely it's going to be seen as highly controversial by leavers in their constituencies? If I was a Labour MP in Sunderland and all I cared about was holding my seat, I would not openly call into question the "solemn decision" of the majority of my electors.

And yet, apparently, these MPs are doing exactly that.

There's a couple of issues here:

First, the fact that a particular constituency with a Labour MP voted Leave does not mean that Labour voters/supporters in that constituency voted Leave. The "Leave" majority could be mad up of all/virtually all of the Tory/UKIP voters in that constituency, plus a minority of Labour voters. As the local MP, attending local functions, holding clinics, etc, you'd be well-positioned to make an assessment of whether this is the case or not. They may have concluded that, among the voters whose support they rely on to be re-elected, Remain has always been the more popular stance.

Secondly, they may be detecting a shift in opinion in the constituency, as some Leave voters realise they have been sold a pup. Or they may be anticipating such a shift, based on what they can see happening in the constituency, and they want to be on the crest of the wave.

Thirdly, the MPs concerned won't accept that they are "calling into question the solemn decision" of voters. If you read their article you'll see that they explicitly say they understand why the region voted as it did, and they see the value in such a vote. But they also see the value in having a vote on the actual terms of Brexit. The message behind the "People's Vote" campaign is that they are not calling for a second referendum on Brexit; they are calling for a first referendum on a Brexit deal. "This is what the government proposes to do; is this what you voted for two-and-a-half years ago?"

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The message behind the "People's Vote" campaign is that they are not calling for a second referendum on Brexit; they are calling for a first referendum on a Brexit deal.

Right, but...

In the context of the recent discussion in this thread, what's the point of a referendum on a Brexit deal? If the deal is rejected by the people, what happens then?

Particularly if the referendum is framed on the basis of "we're definitely leaving, but do you agree with the terms?" then it can't result in a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice, so the only outcome I can see from rejecting a negotiated withdrawal agreement is withdrawal without agreement, which is much worse.

So, what's the desired outcome of those campaigning for a referendum on the deal?

ArthurDayne

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, but...

In the context of the recent discussion in this thread, what's the point of a referendum on a Brexit deal? If the deal is rejected by the people, what happens then?

Particularly if the referendum is framed on the basis of "we're definitely leaving, but do you agree with the terms?" then it can't result in a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice, so the only outcome I can see from rejecting a negotiated withdrawal agreement is withdrawal without agreement, which is much worse.

So, what's the desired outcome of those campaigning for a referendum on the deal?

Exactly. It really makes my head spin at this point because I tend to prefer discussing solutions to problems rather than just the problems themselves, but I really think (at the electoral level anyway) the damage has been done. The Brexit referendum, in my humble opinion, was a poisonous event for political and social discourse in the UK -- putting this matter to the people again would potentially pump more toxin into the nation for little tangible gain. It will also wreak havoc with the currently very sensitive and volatile markets.

I think at this point, it is up to those MPs who either wish to see Brexit halted or progressed differently to push the fight in Parliament. The people's input into the question can be achieved through the election cycle. It's not ideal (particularly given the time sensitivities) -- but the bed was made when this referendum was carelessly called -- and now British democracy will have to lie in it.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the (very improbable) scenario we are discussing, all that could be done would be to fast-track any court proceedings in which the ability of the UK to withdraw its A50 notice was considered.

What? Who is a party to this court case?

If the UK and the EU27 both wanted A50 withdrawn, why would they need to go to court? Just do it. Done. It's like saying that two parties to a contract can't tear it up if they both agree to.

Some noisy objector would no doubt bring a case, and 8 years later we might learn that oops, they shouldn't have done that, but no-one will care by then.

Zubeneschamali

murphaph wrote: »

IIf I was a Labour MP in Sunderland and all I cared about was holding my seat, I would not openly call into question the "solemn decision" of the majority of my electors.

They are between a rock and a hard place.

Call for a new referendum and no Brexit: Brexit voters are mad at you.

Allow Brexit to go through on the nod: Nissan closes, phone centres close, your voters lose their jobs, people ask why you were silent on the most destructive decision for the NE since Thatcher.

Lose-lose, but which is the bigger risk?

An Ciarraioch

Newton Emerson delivers a scathing critique of the DUP, essentially saying they just decided to campaign for Leave off the hoof:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dup-faces-heavy-responsibility-for-brexit-position-taken-lightly-1.3489256?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true