Brexit discussion thread III

An Ciarraioch

Expect to see this front page doing the rounds on social media:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ScotNational/status/941053328586395648

ArmaniJeanss

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If say 77% of her voters wanted to stay in the EU, LD leaflets coming through the door, at election time, reminding them that Hoey sided with Tory Brexit-extremists, will see her vote take a major hit. Labour should remove her if they want to ensure the seat stays with them.

Far easier seats for the LD to throw their limited resources at, very little chance of them having Vauxhall as a target.

Water John

Will see all the front pages at 10.30 Sky. Really stupid self inflicted damage, and why? Now the doors of rebellion are open.

Vauxhall should not dealt with by throwing money at it. Remarkable volte face can be achieved by exposing her. The people then will look and gel around the most likely alternative.

LeinsterDub

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

When the The Express starts telling the truth you know the game is up. Hopefully.

I hear the Express are also going to report that the sky is blue, water in wet shocker and 2 plus 2 equals 4.

This is 1984 newspeak at it's finest.

devnull

In all due respect though, the Express is aimed at the older generation. When I'm in the UK I've noticed that your typical Express buyer is older than that of the Mail.

That's why it focuses on stuff like Dementia and illnesses that effect older people a lot, plays on to their fears and stereotypes about a lot of topics, the weather and all that kind of stuff.

The Mail tends to do better among middle aged people, and is aimed at a slightly younger audience than the Express, both love capital letters for emphasis in their headlines though.

I wouldn't get too occupied by thinking the Express will see the wood from the trees though, I just looked at their site and there doesn't seem much different from their usual output and are talking about remainer plots.

joeysoap

Disappointing that the Scottish Torys put party above country, but probably not surprising. Scotland needs a bad or no deal like a hole in the head.

12 brave mp’s, Grieve is particularly impressive.

Davis lies, twists and turns but is as safe as a house, Hammond (the other one) gets fired for his principles.

One seriously Fcuked up country, and it’s not going to get any better.

joeysoap

joeysoap wrote: »

Disappointing that the Scottish Torys put party above country, but probably not surprising. Scotland needs a bad or no deal like a hole in the head.

12 brave mp’s, Grieve is particularly impressive.

Davis lies, twists and turns but is as safe as a house, Hammond (the other one) gets fired for his principles.

One seriously Fcuked up country, and it’s not going to get any better.

12 brave MPs alright. Another scandalous front page from the Daily Mail tomorrow. Scapegoating and encouraging bitterness and division similar to its antics during the Gina Miller court case. The standards of the British press continue to plumb the depths.

devnull

Here's a copy of it - I actually think it's one of their worst front pages ever, right up there and maybe even worse than the enemies of the people one.



Really you have to say that they don't appear to like democracies.

Water John

The Daily Mail type scapegoating parade, is now losing its shock value.

Infini

Water John wrote: »

The Daily Mail type scapegoating parade, is now losing its shock value.

I smell fear from the Daily Fail, Torygraph and the Shítpost Express. Their lies and bile are being shredded by hard facts, reality and people with common sense and a spine to stand up and make them come up with REAL facts and truths which they do not have as they spout crap from the start. This I feel will ultimately undermine and end Brexit as the more the hard questions are asked the more the point gets made that they're weaker and have no voice if they leave.

Peregrinus

demfad wrote: »

It's up to the UK parliament what amendment it wants to make. It could simply be to revoke A50 if they are out of time.
The legal position will be clearer then: If the reason for revocation is renegotiation it might not be acceptable to ECJ.
If the vote is to be meaningful the legal reality of being dumped out of the EU after 2 years must be averted if the vote is defeated. That means A50 would have to be revoked and presumably they would know exactly how to do thsi legally come the time . . .

OK, let’s think this through:

David Davis and his merry men hammer out a withdrawal agreement with Michel Barnier and his merry men. On the EU side, Barnier goes back to his principals – the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament – and they all give it the nod. Meanwhile in London HMG approves the draft deal and puts it to Parliament for a “meaningful vote”; Parliament votes it down. What happens next?

1. The default position, if nothing more is done, is that the UK crashes out of the EU on 23 March 2019 without a deal, or with a couple of minimal, hastily-cobbled-together barebones technical agreements to, e.g., keep planes flying, but not much else.

2. For reasons already discussed, this is a bad outcome for the EU and an appalling outcome for the UK, so probably there will be some efforts on both sides to ensure that this default does not prevail. But what efforts, and how will they play out?

3. At this point we should note that, from the EU point of view, what has happened is this; UK representatives negotiated and settled a deal, which their principals back home then repudiated. This isn’t a hostile act by the UK; it’s accepted that in international negotiations circumstances or views can change, and when a delegation which followed its instructions returns home it may be found that what they have done, following their instructions, is no longer acceptable. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not hostile. On the other hand, the UK rejection of the deal doesn’t acquire additional legal, moral, political weight or garner additional respect because it’s a vote in Parliament. It makes no difference to the EU whether the repudiation was by the UK cabinet, or by Parliament, or by a referendum, or by the Queen having a hissy fit. How this is done is an internal, domestic matter for the UK; from the EU’s perspective, it’s just a decision by the UK, end of.

4. Right. The first thing we have to ask ourselves is, what does the rejection mean? Why did the UK reject the deal?

5. If they rejected it because the consensus in the UK has changed, there’s now a healthy majority in the country of the in favour of remaining, and Parliament is recognising and reflecting this, then UK would probably seek to withdraw Art 50 notice outright, or to negotiate a deferral of departure for the purpose of holding a second Remain/Leave referendum, which is expected to be followed by a withdrawal of Art 50 notice. The EU would probably be receptive, since this would be a good outcome from their point of view, but there’d be a degree of anger at all the grief they’d have been put through over the past few years, and they would find some way of expressing that in a concrete fashion. Still, in this scenario odds are that the UK would end up remaining.

6. This is not a very plausible scenario, though. If the UK climate of opinion really had changed to that extent, it might be more likely that the government wouldn’t conclude negotiations on a withdrawal agreement and put it to Parliament to be rejected. They’d go straight to the “defer departure pending second referendum” stage of the process, wouldn't they?

7. So a more likely rejection scenario might be this; Parliament doesn’t like the terms of the deal. They still want to leave, but on different terms.

8. In this scenario, the UK would very much be in the position of a supplicant to the EU. Would the EU be willing to renegotiate? The EU has already negotiated; they’ve made a deal that they’re happy with and that the UK representatives indicated that the UK was happy with; why should the EU move away from that position? I think any EU willingness to renegotiate would be circumscribed in a couple of ways:

- The EU will not accept any change in the agreed terms which is disadvantageous to the EU. You want to renegotiate for a lower exit payment? You can sod off. Any change must be beneficial from the EU’s point of view; that means it has to be a move in the direction of a softer Brexit.

- The EU will not agree to a long or wide-ranging renegotiation. Renegotiation will have to be focussed on very, very specific points of concern to the UK which can be adjusted without pulling the entire deal apart.

- The EU will not agree to any renegotiation unless there is a high degree of confidence on both sides that the renegotiated deal is very likely to be approved by Parliament. That means there must be an evident consensus within the UK political establishment as to the reason for rejecting version 1 of the deal. If version 1 of the deal was voted down by a number of different groups who appear to have had different and possibly divergent concerns about it, that’s a big problem.

9. Within those constraints, I suggest, limited renegotiation might be possible. If version 2 of the deal still didn’t meet with the approval of Parliament, well, sayonara, guys. See you at the WTO!

ancapailldorcha

Infini wrote: »

I smell fear from the Daily Fail, Torygraph and the Shítpost Express. Their lies and bile are being shredded by hard facts, reality and people with common sense and a spine to stand up and make them come up with REAL facts and truths which they do not have as they spout crap from the start. This I feel will ultimately undermine and end Brexit as the more the hard questions are asked the more the point gets made that they're weaker and have no voice if they leave.

Use the proper names of people and organisations please. Infantile name calling is not serious discussion.

kowtow

Peregrinus wrote:

OK, let’s think this through:

Excellent post. None of the potential outcomes strengthen Britain's hand in negotiations.

Which is why parliament doesn't generally vote on international treaty negotiations particularly where there is a time limit.

My instinct is that, particularly if verhofstadt and co keep overplaying their hand, the government will be inclined to harden their position and will end up playing into the hands of the hard Brexit brigade.

Leonard Hofstadter

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Far easier seats for the LD to throw their limited resources at, very little chance of them having Vauxhall as a target.

Her extreme views on Brexit were very well known at the last election and yet she still increased her share of FPVs in Vauxhall, so yeah, if she couldn't lose then despite the LD's targetting of her (and highlighting their own candidate's remain views in what is one of the most pro-EU constituencies in the UK) then she never will.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

Excellent post. None of the potential outcomes strengthen Britain's hand in negotiations.

But they don’t weaken the UK’s hand in negotiations either.

The main effect, vis-a-vis the EU, is to give the UK a slightly wider range of tactical options than they would otherwise have. Because of this vote, when the UK concludes a deal there is some scope for subsequent adjustment of the deal, should it be judged at the UK end to be suboptimal. It’s a pretty slender scope, but it’s a scope that wouldn’t otherwise exist at all.

But that’s pretty marginal. The main impact of this vote is not that it shifts the balance of advantage/power externally as between the UK and the EU; it doesn’t. It’s main significance is internal; it shifts the balance as between Parliament and HMG.

If, as I suspect, the middle ground in Parliament favours a Brexit rather softer than the one HMG seems to be targeting, then the impact of this vote is that it should tend to soften the Brexit that HMG negotiates. I myself think that actually strengthens the UK’s position, since a softer Brexit is better for the UK; your mileage may vary. But if we ignore our own preferences and define a strong position is one which maximises the chances of the UK getting the Brexit it wants, then this strengthens the UK’s position if you think the Parliament more accurately reflects the sentiment of the nation than HMG does, but it weakens the UK’s position if you think the opposite.

You could argue that it increases domestic instability in the UK, at least in the current circumstance. A question I didn’t canvas in my earlier post is this: if HMG recommends a deal to Parliament and Parliament votes it down, is that an issue of confidence? Can an election, or at the very least a falling on the Prime Ministerial sword, be avoided at this point? Without having thought too deeply about it, my feeling is that if Parliament votes down the deal because it wants a softer Brexit, May has to go to be replaced by a Prime Minister who either (a) wants a softer Brexit and will seek to get one, or (b) will immediately go to the country to seek a mandate for some other course.

kowtow wrote: »

Which is why parliament doesn't generally vote on international treaty negotiations particularly where there is a time limit.

That has much to do with the executive guarding its power as against the legislature, and little to do with the UK guarding its position as against other countries.

kowtow wrote: »

My instinct is that, particularly if verhofstadt and co keep overplaying their hand, the government will be inclined to harden their position and will end up playing into the hands of the hard Brexit brigade.

Mmm. When you have a hand as strong as the EU’s, it’s kind of hard to overplay it.

If anyone has been overplaying their hand recently, it’s the UK, taking a deal to Brussels when it turned out not to have the required political support at home. And then again, concluding a deal with Brussels and then immediately talking down its significance/impact, when the utility of the deal to the UK crucially depends on the EU believing that the UK takes it seriously.

But then, when you have the hand the UK has, it’s very easy to overplay it.

Peregrinus

captainspeed wrote: »

Her extreme views on Brexit were very well known at the last election and yet she still increased her share of FPVs in Vauxhall, so yeah, if she couldn't lose then despite the LD's targetting of her (and highlighting their own candidate's remain views in what is one of the most pro-EU constituencies in the UK) then she never will.

Vauxhall is a rotten borough. Labour could nominate a squashed apricot there, and still hold the seat comfortably.

Hoey is safe unless she pisses off her party in some major way, to the point where they dump her in favour of a different squashed apricot candidate.

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

The best politically, Corbyn can do ATM is stay relatively quiet and let the Tories tear into each other.

This.

There is absolutely no reason why right now would be a good time for Labour to get off the fence regarding the kind of Brexit they would deliver. The Tories are in government, and so have to deal with an EU which is insisting that they engage with reality, and this is forcing them to make choices between inconsistent objectives, and to abandon unkeepable promises. And the stresses that induces are practically tearing them apart. Which suggests at least four reasons why, right now, Corbyn should do nothing:

1. Why would he wish to subject the Labour party to the kind of grief and pain that the Tory party is experiencing?

2. Why would he wish to do anything to distract the public from the edifying spectacle of the Tory party encountering reality and having the screaming habdabs as a result?

3. The longer he waits, the more he learns (by watching the Tories, and how they get on with the EU) about what is or is not feasible, what is or is not practical, what will fly and what won't. Thus when the Labour party does have to make choices, they will have better information and understanding than the Tories did when they started down this road. Corbyn can learn from the Tories' mistakes, so the Labour can make choices that look more rational and that stand up better in practice.

4. Media coverage of the travails of the Tory government will help to soften up the public for the realisation that, no, you can't have your cake and eat it and, furthermore, you never could, and that tough choices do have to be made. The longer this process continues, the lower the political price the Labour party will pay when they eventually have to start disappointing some people's hopes.

Akrasia

Plus, if the Labour party try to get involved, the conservative press and the Tory party will unify in opposition to Corbyn, and turn him into a scapegoat rather than tear each other apart which is what they're currently doing.

flatty

The stand by the "rebel" tories was, irrespective of the topic, courageous, principled and absolutely correct. May and her cronies had completely hijacked the advisory referendum and superimposed the view of a few oddballs upon the entire nation. How could it possibly be right in a functioning democracy that a handful of rich, old, career politicians could decide entirely off their own bat to take the entire country out of the customs Union and single market. Correct or incorrect, it was an appalling abuse of power, the likes of which one might expect in a tinpot dictatorship.
It is absolutely right that Parliament should have a say in the defining decision of the generation, with far reaching implications for future generations.
In truth, a functioning democratic government would move to spelling out the options and the pros and cons objectively of hard exit, whatever deal they can get exit, remain in cu and cm exit, and withdrawal of article 50, and have a proper referendum, with the population encouraged to ignore the mainstream media, and look at the facts.
Not likely. May and Co have been bad, really really bad "leaders".
The express is the worst of the rags in my opinion, but their change in tone is in fact a remarkable thing.
Time is sooo short.

Gerry T

Aim I missing something, with the loss last night does that not signal to the EU that this agreed deal isn't agreed and phase 2 won't start. I would think the EU will say the first item in ph2 will be the contractual agreement as outlined in ph 1 to be signed by x date.
Secondly if parliament does decide it's a poison chalice. Because by not signing the UK will crash out with no deal which will be far worse than a bad deal ( in their eyes)

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

Excellent post. None of the potential outcomes strengthen Britain's hand in negotiations.

Which is why parliament doesn't generally vote on international treaty negotiations particularly where there is a time limit.

My instinct is that, particularly if verhofstadt and co keep overplaying their hand, the government will be inclined to harden their position and will end up playing into the hands of the hard Brexit brigade.

The EU is overplaying it's hand? Seriously? They've behaved like a soothing parent trying to calm a toddler throwing a tantrum. The EU has shown remarkable restraint in the face of arrogant xenophobia and gross incompetence.

Water John

Equally as important as last night's vote is, the rebels can now insist that the specific date of leaving is not enshrined in law.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/14/tory-rebels-theresa-may-brexit-date-in-law-eu-withdrawal-bill

First Up

Water John wrote: »

Equally as important as last night's vote is, the rebels can now insist that the specific date of leaving is not enshrined in law.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/14/tory-rebels-theresa-may-brexit-date-in-law-eu-withdrawal-bill

The UK will be out of the EU on that date whether the UK parliament agrees or not. This is being conducted under EU treaties, not at the whim of the UK.

Likewise by all means the UK parliament can vote how it likes on the final "deal". It will matter not a jot to the EU.

There seems to be a lot of delusion going on about this.

solodeogloria

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

She's a Unionist from the north with liberal views on social issues, but her staunch Unionism/British Nationalism is her guiding force. She should be thrown out of Labour or deselected (can they do that?) at the next election.

Her constituency, Vauxhall in London, is one of the most ethnically diverse in Britain with 77% of thse who voted in the Brexit referendum choosing to stay in the EU, I hope they punish her.

If Labour don't disown her at the next elections the Lib-Dems should go after her seat with vigour.

Good morning!

Does this logic apply to all remain MPs sitting in seats where the majority voted to leave?

We need to be consistent.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

Enshrining any Stop Date in law would actually limit the end time of negotiations. So even UK is tying its own hand where an EU extension would be readily available.

I think its more about Hoey being, a bit of a nutcase rather than Brexiteer.

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Does this logic apply to all remain MPs sitting in seats where the majority voted to leave?

We need to be consistent.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Quite, if their people reckon they are not adequetely representing them, they will get to vote for someone else.

Samaris

By the way, it is interesting to note that both Trump and the Brexit movement have had comments that they would not concede/unfinished business if they lost. And then when they won and a large sector disagrees with them, it's all will of the people/traitors/hypocrites.

Remarkable.

recedite

Talk of the UK parliament "taking back control" is exaggerated IMO.
They already had the power to prevent Brexit and they voted for it.
They already have the general power to block (most) treaties negotiated by govt.

the Government must lay most treaties before Parliament for 21 sitting days before it can ratify them, and the Commons can block ratification indefinitely

But if this bill had been passed without the Grieve Amendment then any future Withdrawal Agreement would have been essentially "pre-ratified".

It would have been akin to writing a blank cheque and handing it to somebody you trust. Sometimes useful if you want to speed things up, but obviously it can be a risky short cut.
Good article here..

Mr Grieve’s amendment was designed to change clause nine of the Brexit legislation, which gave the Government power to use its newly granted sweeping powers to implement a deal.
Its original ninth clause read: “A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provision should be in force on or before exit day.”
But Mr Grieve's amendment added the clause that it should be "subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”

So, yes this is very significant. On the other hand there is nothing new really, it just preserves the status quo. Its just parliament reserving its power to veto the Withdrawal Bill, a power which it should normally have anyway.
I don't see any new role for parliament here either, as in the ability to insert amendments or changes into the withdrawal Agreement. Its still a take it or leave it scenario. Grieve's amendment just requires the "enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal".

flatty

It is perhaps, a tiptoe in the right direction. That is all. In and of itself,it is relatively meaningless for as long as it is allowed to vote only on take the deal, or leave with no deal.
What it may do at least, is push the "govt" towards having to request an extension to A50.
This may or may not be granted, even if asked for.
The EU have shown throughout the negotiations that they are relatively pragmatic and decent. I would hope they would allow it, as the further this is pushed out, the more likely it is to be reversed as the tide changes.
Probably wishful thinking tbh.

flaneur

I don't see how parliament wouldn't have a role. In a parliamentary democracy that's how it should work.

All this ranting and raving about traitors stinks to high heaven of fascism and anti democratic nonsense.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

OK, let’s think this through:

David Davis and his merry men hammer out a withdrawal agreement with Michel Barnier and his merry men. On the EU side, Barnier goes back to his principals – the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament – and they all give it the nod. Meanwhile in London HMG approves the draft deal and puts it to Parliament for a “meaningful vote”; Parliament votes it down. What happens next?

1. The default position, if nothing more is done, is that the UK crashes out of the EU on 23 March 2019 without a deal, or with a couple of minimal, hastily-cobbled-together barebones technical agreements to, e.g., keep planes flying, but not much else.

2. For reasons already discussed, this is a bad outcome for the EU and an appalling outcome for the UK, so probably there will be some efforts on both sides to ensure that this default does not prevail. But what efforts, and how will they play out?

3. At this point we should note that, from the EU point of view, what has happened is this; UK representatives negotiated and settled a deal, which their principals back home then repudiated. This isn’t a hostile act by the UK; it’s accepted that in international negotiations circumstances or views can change, and when a delegation which followed its instructions returns home it may be found that what they have done, following their instructions, is no longer acceptable. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not hostile. On the other hand, the UK rejection of the deal doesn’t acquire additional legal, moral, political weight or garner additional respect because it’s a vote in Parliament. It makes no difference to the EU whether the repudiation was by the UK cabinet, or by Parliament, or by a referendum, or by the Queen having a hissy fit. How this is done is an internal, domestic matter for the UK; from the EU’s perspective, it’s just a decision by the UK, end of.

4. Right. The first thing we have to ask ourselves is, what does the rejection mean? Why did the UK reject the deal?

5. If they rejected it because the consensus in the UK has changed, there’s now a healthy majority in the country of the in favour of remaining, and Parliament is recognising and reflecting this, then UK would probably seek to withdraw Art 50 notice outright, or to negotiate a deferral of departure for the purpose of holding a second Remain/Leave referendum, which is expected to be followed by a withdrawal of Art 50 notice. The EU would probably be receptive, since this would be a good outcome from their point of view, but there’d be a degree of anger at all the grief they’d have been put through over the past few years, and they would find some way of expressing that in a concrete fashion. Still, in this scenario odds are that the UK would end up remaining.

6. This is not a very plausible scenario, though. If the UK climate of opinion really had changed to that extent, it might be more likely that the government wouldn’t conclude negotiations on a withdrawal agreement and put it to Parliament to be rejected. They’d go straight to the “defer departure pending second referendum” stage of the process, wouldn't they?

7. So a more likely rejection scenario might be this; Parliament doesn’t like the terms of the deal. They still want to leave, but on different terms.

8. In this scenario, the UK would very much be in the position of a supplicant to the EU. Would the EU be willing to renegotiate? The EU has already negotiated; they’ve made a deal that they’re happy with and that the UK representatives indicated that the UK was happy with; why should the EU move away from that position? I think any EU willingness to renegotiate would be circumscribed in a couple of ways:

- The EU will not accept any change in the agreed terms which is disadvantageous to the EU. You want to renegotiate for a lower exit payment? You can sod off. Any change must be beneficial from the EU’s point of view; that means it has to be a move in the direction of a softer Brexit.

- The EU will not agree to a long or wide-ranging renegotiation. Renegotiation will have to be focussed on very, very specific points of concern to the UK which can be adjusted without pulling the entire deal apart.

- The EU will not agree to any renegotiation unless there is a high degree of confidence on both sides that the renegotiated deal is very likely to be approved by Parliament. That means there must be an evident consensus within the UK political establishment as to the reason for rejecting version 1 of the deal. If version 1 of the deal was voted down by a number of different groups who appear to have had different and possibly divergent concerns about it, that’s a big problem.

9. Within those constraints, I suggest, limited renegotiation might be possible. If version 2 of the deal still didn’t meet with the approval of Parliament, well, sayonara, guys. See you at the WTO!

This is the prevailing thinking on it's revocability.

In our view, the distinction between the decision to withdraw and its notification is again critical. A Member State is entitled to decide, in accordance with its constitutional requirements, to withdraw from the EU. If that Member State re-considered that decision, within the two-year timeframe, it would not only be absurd but also unconstitutional for the Union not to accept a bona fide revocation of the notification. The reference to constitutional requirements in Art 50(1) suggests that, in order to revoke the notification, the withdrawing state would simply need to show that the decision to withdraw is no longer compatible with its constitutional requirements, in that a new decision has been taken. Depending on what the constitutional requirements are, that could mean the rejection of the decision to withdraw by Parliament only, by Parliament and referendum, or by the Government following a referendum, as the case may be.A vote in the Commons or a second referendum may therefore be required. It must be emphasised, though, that in order for a new decision not to withdraw to reverse the withdrawal process, that decision would need to be about withdrawal altogether and not about the rejection of a specific agreement.

The bold segments indicate that if the decision to revoke A50 is made the EU would definatly accept it. Recently, when fear of no-deal was high before the phase 1 agreement there was reports that EU diplomats suggested an extension would also be accceptable. This is important.

The revocation would be in good faith i.e. not a negotiating tactic to strenghen their position by removing time pressure.

The option for agreeing on a deal wont be there. No time. There is only time to negotiate a transition and barely time at that. In fact there is some legal opinion that a transition could only be possible under an A50 extension.

The vote will be about the proposed transition + outcome. At the moment it's transition + Canada.
The Commons may reject this reject this and instruct the Gov to extent A50 to negotiate Norway + or just to remain if renegotiation was not an option.
If the vote was for Norway+ it would pass easily.
They now must find a deal that will pass the Commons. Before yesterday any deal would pass as a no-deal cliff is unthinkable.
Given the parameters in phase 1 and this new reality it seems even more likely that the logical route now is to pursue is a Norway+ deal. Anything else makes a remain likely.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

Talk of the UK parliament "taking back control" is exaggerated IMO.
They already had the power to prevent Brexit and they voted for it.
They already have the general power to block (most) treaties negotiated by govt.
But if this bill had been passed without the Grieve Amendment then any future Withdrawal Agreement would have been essentially "pre-ratified".

It would have been akin to writing a blank cheque and handing it to somebody you trust. Sometimes useful if you want to speed things up, but obviously it can be a risky short cut.
Good article here..So, yes this is very significant. On the other hand there is nothing new really, it just preserves the status quo. Its just parliament reserving its power to veto the Withdrawal Bill, a power which it should normally have anyway.
I don't see any new role for parliament here either, as in the ability to insert amendments or changes into the withdrawal Agreement. Its still a take it or leave it scenario. Grieve's amendment just requires the "enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal".

The importance of this defeat is that it illustrates how hamstrung May's cabinet actually is. Apart from being in thrall to the DUP, she is now beholden to Remain Tories who have flexed their muscles and who will now be emboldened to do so again. They are already threatening another revolt if she attempts to put the exit date into law.

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

I don't see how parliament wouldn't have a role. In a parliamentary democracy that's how it should work.

All this ranting and raving about traitors stinks to high heaven of fascism and anti democratic nonsense.

It's just the usual hyperbole.

As things stand the government is always free not to use clause 9 at all, without which there is no parliamentary vote.

whatstherush

kowtow wrote: »

It's just the usual hyperbole.

As things stand the government is always free not to use clause 9 at all, without which there is no parliamentary vote.

Another thing we can move into the "fight it like tooth and nail but when it comes to pass it doesn't really matter" column.

Anthracite

kowtow wrote: »

It's just the usual hyperbole.

The usual hyperbole is a) exactly how the UK got itself into this mess by demonising the EU at every turn and b) most likely a factor how a young mother and Labour MP was murdered last year by a far-right terrorist.

I suppose the closest equivalent in Ireland would be if mainstream papers like the Indo had political content that duplicated that of An Phoblacht.

solodeogloria

kowtow wrote: »

It's just the usual hyperbole.

As things stand the government is always free not to use clause 9 at all, without which there is no parliamentary vote.

Good afternoon!

Yes, this is exactly right. There's hyperbole on both sides. It's good to recap what happened.

A piece of process legislation was amended to improve it to allow for better scrutiny of the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The vast majority of MPs voted for the bill in its second reading. The bill is in committee stage. That's why amendments are being discussed and voted on.

This isn't the Brexit fightback some remainers think it is. Even Rees Mogg has been critical of the bill in places. Nor is it treachery to want to make sure Brexit is carried out in a clear and transparent way.

It's interesting to hear some voices in the EU saying they will not renegotiate the bill in the event of a no vote. Luxembourg's PM has already said this in the last few hours.

Brexit is still happening. I agree that the Government need to give the Commons a better hearing on the points of process.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's interesting to hear some voices in the EU saying they will not renegotiate the bill in the event of a no vote. Luxembourg's PM has already said this in the last few hours.

I would take those as independent validation(s) of Peregrinus' analysis in post #1612 at 23:48.

Vronsky

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Yes, this is exactly right. There's hyperbole on both sides. It's good to recap what happened.

A piece of process legislation was amended to improve it to allow for better scrutiny of the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The vast majority of MPs voted for the bill in its second reading. The bill is in committee stage. That's why amendments are being discussed and voted on.

This isn't the Brexit fightback some remainers think it is. Even Rees Mogg has been critical of the bill in places. Nor is it treachery to want to make sure Brexit is carried out in a clear and transparent way.

It's interesting to hear some voices in the EU saying they will not renegotiate the bill in the event of a no vote. Luxembourg's PM has already said this in the last few hours.

Brexit is still happening. I agree that the Government need to give the Commons a better hearing on the points of process.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You are missing the point again.

Yes the amendment isn't going to stop the process, but the reason why remainers are happy is because the Government has been defeated on Brexit legislation - and it was an amendment that the government fought extremely hard against. Essentially, now the Rubicon has been crossed and the whips have nothing over the rebels any more. That is why it is significant.

It is perfectly possible to see that further more meaningful amendments will be passed and the government defeated.

This may truly be the start of the end.

kowtow

ambro25 wrote: »

I would take those as independent validation(s) of Peregrinus' analysis in post #1612 at 23:48.

I wonder whether they will move to provide further clarification on the ability to revoke Article 50 in the course of the next few weeks.

Like you I'm not persuaded that Article 50 could or would be revoked unilaterally by the UK, but - speaking politically - the strongest way to play the UK parliament between now and the end of the process from the EU perspective might be to (1) generously open the door to cancellation or indefinite suspension of article 50, effectively resetting the political process in the UK and simultaneously (2) ensure that any deal on offer would be unpalatable to parliament in the hope the option of a complete reset was taken up.

Assuming that the legal position under the treaties could be squared, presenting the UK parliament with the obligation to vote on maintaining the status quo vs. two totally unpalatable options (bad deal and very hard brexit) is the obvious way to play from the EU point of view.

The obvious risk is that following this course would harden anti-EU opinion in the UK even further. The cross-cutting nature of the Leave vote means that anything which amounted to voting down Brexit would be a massive step for MP's on all sides of the House even in the face of a painful exit... I suppose if the political will to do so existed it is possible that the EU could sweeten the 'stay in / on hold' option by handing out the deal Cameron never got - something Henkel (I think) has been pushing for a while now although apart from pure political strategy I don't see why they should or would.

In one sense the choice now facing both sides is whether to brush off last night's vote and push on - I'm pretty sure that's what May will do, but whether the EU side do the same will provide some interesting clues as to direction.

Zubeneschamali

kowtow wrote: »

The obvious risk is that following this course would harden anti-EU opinion in the UK even further.

No, I think the obvious risk from the EU point of view is dragging the uncertainty out for another decade.

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The importance of this defeat is that it illustrates how hamstrung May's cabinet actually is. Apart from being in thrall to the DUP, she is now beholden to Remain Tories who have flexed their muscles and who will now be emboldened to do so again. They are already threatening another revolt if she attempts to put the exit date into law.

She is not just beholden to the DUP and the Remain Tories but to the hard Brexit Tories as well. That is the situation of her HOC majority. Either one of those factions can derail her plans and swing the vote against the government.

kowtow

Faisal Islam has an interview with Leo this morning and is reporting that the "next step is to turn last Friday's agreement into a legally binding international treaty before we can move on to talks about the transition phase"

In the near term that may prove a bigger obstacle to the negotiation than last night's vote - given that the agreement as it stands relies on ambiguity to work at all ("a form of words") then I can see the whole negotation over the border taking place again as we go into the New Year.

If Leo's position emerges as the concrete agreement at the end of this summit then I think the stakes are raised once more.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

Faisal Islam has an interview with Leo this morning and is reporting that the "next step is to turn last Friday's agreement into a legally binding international treaty before we can move on to talks about the transition phase"

In the near term that may prove a bigger obstacle to the negotiation than last night's vote - given that the agreement as it stands relies on ambiguity to work at all ("a form of words") then I can see the whole negotation over the border taking place again as we go into the New Year.

If Leo's position emerges as the concrete agreement at the end of this summit then I think the stakes are raised once more.

According to a leaked document (lots of those flying around), the EP is expected to insist that:

“Negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible.”

kowtow

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

According to a leaked document (lots of those flying around), the EP is expected to insist that:

“Negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible.”

To my mind that leaves a lot more room for maneouver than Varadkar's reported position...

The way Faisal is reporting it a legally binding agreement is an (Irish) pre-requisite for talks to move on, whereas your quote above suggests a parallel process could take place. Is Leo suggesting that there should be an interim treaty prior to the withdrawal agreement taking place?

Do you think a legally binding guarantee is actually an Irish red line prior to the next phase?

demfad

Good Analysis from David Allan Greene at FT here:

https://www.ft.com/content/8f26b013-7b10-311e-ad5a-b9e02b75b183

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

To my mind that leaves a lot more room for maneouver than Varadkar's reported position...

The way Faisal is reporting it a legally binding agreement is an (Irish) pre-requisite for talks to move on, whereas your quote above suggests a parallel process could take place. Is Leo suggesting that there should be an interim treaty prior to the withdrawal agreement taking place?

Do you think a legally binding guarantee is actually an Irish red line prior to the next phase?

It's the usual ambiguity from the EU but I think it would be an Irish red line. Davis's "statement of intent" comment shows why Ireland should be so definitive. However, the EU will ultimately dictate what the red lines are.

demfad

Enzokk wrote: »

She is not just beholden to the DUP and the Remain Tories but to the hard Brexit Tories as well. That is the situation of her HOC majority. Either one of those factions can derail her plans and swing the vote against the government.

There is safety in the middle ground and cross party support for a soft Brexit that easily amounts to a comfortable majority.
The hard right threatening to derail the Government now would push it into the middle ground and force a soft Brexit.
To achieve the hardest Brexit it the right must support this Government. Pushing it to the centre means a guaranteed soft Brexit with the analysis changing to: soft Brexit vs 'why bother with Brexit at all?'

kowtow

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's the usual ambiguity from the EU but I think it would be an Irish red line. Davis's "statement of intent" comment shows why Ireland should be so definitive. However, the EU will ultimately dictate what the red lines are.

Agreed.

There are also dangers from this side in moving prematurely to a binding legal agreement ... i.e. the UK cannot guarantee no hard border unless it is a joint guarantee with Ireland (/EU) - because whether or not Ireland put a border there is beyond the control of the UK.

Last week's agreement doesn't really have the makings of stand-alone treaty, and for good reason - the UK isn't getting anything (yet) in return save for the promise of talks down the line....

No point in an Act of Parliament in the UK, at least without a valuable external treaty to go with it, apart from anything else it wouldn't bind a future parliament.

Is there mileage in trying to get binding commitments on the payments and the Irish border in return for the transitional membership period? There might be but I can't see Parliament approving it.

Ireland don't have any ability to gift the UK 'no border'. Ireland don't actually have a say in the border discussion. Unless you want to make the case for Ireland to leave the EU and EEA and join a UK customs union?

As repeated. Many times.

The only example of the border that the UK say they want to have, is the border that they are moving away from.

The UK can leave the customs Union, but stay in EEA and have a Norway/Sweden style border, but the only way to have a border that is comparable to today is remaining within both the Single Market and the Customs Union.

None of these are decisions that Ireland can make. That being said, I don't think for a second that the UK should or would sign any binding laws which state anything along the lines of what Leo is supposed to have asked for above either. That would be madness.

kowtow

Deleted User wrote: »

Ireland don't have any ability to gift the UK 'no border'.

As repeated. Many times.

The same goes for the UK gifting no border to Ireland.

It can't flat out guarantee no border, because Ireland could put one there.

And it can't - certainly shouldn't - promise not to enforce a border there unless Ireland makes a reciprocal promise at the same time.

Equally the preferred UK backstop of "agreed solutions" is fine for a statement of intent, but I can't imagine them signing up to a binding agreement unless Ireland is under some obligation to try to agree these solutions first in good faith, otherwise Ireland might as well have a veto. That's the bit where the existing document works as a statement of intent but isn't really complete enough to make a binding agreement.

Perhaps the real intricate detail of the border could be thrashed out prior to a trade agreement, but it does seem a bit of an upside down way of going about things.

If you read Tony Connolly's tweets of what Varadkar is saying today there is no question that Leo is quoting selectively from the agreement, which in a sense is what it was designed for.