Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

ancapailldorcha

I don't know if this has been posted but Laura Kuenssberg has tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1069868636368715776

I'd say that this is great news and it is but there's still the matter of a Conservative party which is still negotiating with itself.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know if this has been posted but Laura Kuenssberg has tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1069868636368715776

I'd say that this is great news and it is but there's still the matter of a Conservative party which is still negotiating with itself.

Speaking of vehicles, the car industry is talking about Brexit to the Business Committee. Basically, Toyota are implying that a hard Brexit will probably mean they will have to move production out of Britain. In other bad news, there will a drop in production of 115,000 cars, partly due to Brexit. Still, I have faith in Jacob that No Deal is best for Britain.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Speaking of vehicles, the car industry is talking about Brexit to the Business Committee. Basically, Toyota are implying that a hard Brexit will probably mean they will have to move production out of Britain. In other bad news, there will a drop in production of 115,000 cars, partly due to Brexit. Still, I have faith in Jacob that No Deal is best for Britain.

The Toyota guy is probably some third rate failed politician, closet Remainer and Toyota were never really invested in Britain anyways.

They will simply use the spare production capacity vacated by Toyota to build cars for the US market, when they get their FTA.

And as one Economists stated last week, if a delay of a few minutes on shipments causes the whole thing to stop then the whole thing was pointless anyway (can't remember which one but a Pro Brexit one obviously). She didn't deal with the increased costs, the additional admin, loss of competitiveness etc.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

Really?-I thought it was that the lease had expired-nothing as dramatic as your suggestion.

Stop derailing the thread please.

demfad

According to the UK Governments submission to the ECJ a revocation request can happen by the Parliament simply directing the UK Government to make it happen.
(As the Supreme Court cincluded for invoking A50).

If the ECJ rules with the AG:

Then revocation of A50 is a Sovereign decision of the UK.

This is potentially a major development:

1: There is an easily accessable escape route.
2: The escape route can be accessed right up until fulltime.

If the deal is rejected in parliament then revocation with or without a referendum is more likely than before.
Crashing out without a deal is less likely than it was before.

If the ECJ ruling happens before the UK vote it could present a dilemma for Brexiteers.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Toyota guy is probably some third rate failed politician, closet Remainer and Toyota were never really invested in Britain anyways.

They will simply use the spare production capacity vacated by Toyota to build cars for the US market, when they get their FTA.

And as one Economists stated last week, if a delay of a few minutes on shipments causes the whole thing to stop then the whole thing was pointless anyway (can't remember which one but a Pro Brexit one obviously). She didn't deal with the increased costs, the additional admin, loss of competitiveness etc.

He may well be a traitorous Johnny Foreigner failing Remainer (like the Governor of the Bank of England) but anyway here's what Toyota deputy MD Tony said in the context of No Deal:

"We would have stop-start production for weeks, possibly months. The value of production is £10m a day. If we lost that sort of value it is very, very challenging for us"

He's probably lying though.

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know if this has been posted but Laura Kuenssberg has tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1069868636368715776

I'd say that this is great news and it is but there's still the matter of a Conservative party which is still negotiating with itself.

Indeed but parliament can now call May's bluff about "this deal or no deal" when obviously there is indeed the no Brexit option.

This (if confirmed by the court) will change the game. MPs can (rightly) claim to have voted against the deal in the knowledge that the CJEU says Brexit can simply be cancelled.

I tend to agree that this may not actually be the best thing for our European Union long term. It'll be a Versailles Treaty moment in Brexiteer folklore-sold out by a remainer fifth column type thing. You can be guaranteed that blaming the EU on anything and everything will go into complete overdrive.

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

If the ECJ ruling happens before the UK vote it could present a dilemma for Brexiteers.

I don't see how. These people are committed to Brexit regardless of the havoc it wreaks on the country they purport to love.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how. These people are committed to Brexit regardless of the havoc it wreaks on the country they purport to love.

I have to agree - given that one of the points of the AG's opinion is quite obvious (i.e. Art 50 is the notification of the intention to withdraw, therefore of course it's unilaterally capable of being revoked - I, clearly, paraphrase) this is just another issue that will be distorted into a win by the staunch pro-Brexit pundits.

trellheim

"Delete all after this House and add Votes to Revoke the UK's Notice of Withdrawal under TFEU Article 50" I'd say someone will chance their arm and submit

LuckyLloyd

Certainly worth considering the strategic outlook for the European project. The EU has things to deal with in the Eurozone; Italy / Poland / Hungary need to be handled to various extents. The purpose of the WA is to give clarity to the British situation so they can move forward during trade negotiations on a solid footing. A half in / half out Britain still riven by political division might be a complication worse in the medium long term than the chaos of a disorderly No Deal exit on March 29th.

Then from the UK perspective, politicians with careers ahead of them might see the value in neutering the Brexit faction and cleaning the decks politically. I certainly believe Corbyn sees the value in that, for you can genuinely move the societal conversation forward with Brexit clarified one way or another - even if it's the economically negative way.

Ultimately, from the EU perspective I think the preferred option may be the WA rather than a last minute remain at this stage. So long as the UK cannot reach a competent and realistic consensus political position that is.

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how. These people are committed to Brexit regardless of the havoc it wreaks on the country they purport to love.

It won't change anything on the Brexiteer side, but all those Remainer MPs being faced with a choice of May's deal rock or a chaotic-Brexit hard place suddenly have a third way forward. With a unilateral revocation of A50 on the table, there's absolutely no reason for May's deal to be passed by either side, neither on a first vote nor a second.

Tell me how

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ultimately, from the EU perspective I think the preferred option may be the WA rather than a last minute remain at this stage. So long as the UK cannot reach a competent and realistic consensus political position that is.

I disagree with this point. I think a remain at this stage would really help the EU to be steadfast in the strength of the union as it looks to tackle other issues.

Yes, the UK would continue to bicker nationally and some of their EU ministers would continue to complain but at that point, the EU would simply ignore the UK for at least 12 months.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

I disagree with this point. I think a remain at this stage would really help the EU to be steadfast in the strength of the union as it looks to tackle other issues.

Yes, the UK would continue to bicker nationally and some of their EU ministers would continue to complain but at that point, the EU would simply ignore the UK for at least 12 months.

I dunno. A Remain by default or referendum win by a small margin will only kick the can down the road. The Eurosceptic genie is out of the lamp and he won't be going back in. When they were just a rump in the Tory party, a la Major's "bastards", they still caused a lot of trouble. Now that they have a mandate, built on lies but a mandate nonetheless, they will continue to paralyse Britain and by default hamper any progress in the EU. The whole farce is a boil that needs to be lanced but that won't be happening anytime soon.

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how. These people are committed to Brexit regardless of the havoc it wreaks on the country they purport to love.

Hardcore Brexiteers will have to think about their strategy a little more carefully if the ECJ decides in favour of unilateral revocation. If voting down May's deal leads to a No Deal / No Brexit referendum, where the latter choice now has a tangible mechanism in place, then Brexiteers have potentially shot themselves in the foot.

ancapailldorcha

briany wrote: »

Hardcore Brexiteers will have to think about their strategy a little more carefully if the ECJ decides in favour of unilateral revocation. If voting down May's deal leads to a No Deal / No Brexit referendum, where the latter choice now has a tangible mechanism in place, then Brexiteers have potentially shot themselves in the foot.

The EU has said multiple times that the UK is welcome to cancel Brexit. Granted, that's a much less tangible mechanism but it is a mechanism nonetheless.

For the Brexiteers, they got the thing through a plebiscite using nefarious tactics and they know it. The problem they have is trying to secure no deal given that the unicorns they promised will never exist.

VinLieger

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I dunno. A Remain by default or referendum win by a small margin will only kick the can down the road. The Eurosceptic genie is out of the lamp and he won't be going back in.

I dunno when you look at the breakdown of the voting age groups i think it just requires 10+ years and there will be no chance of such a vote passing again. Sure there's even some speculation that a 2nd referendum would pass now by a small margin simply due to the number of pensioners that have already died off since the first vote and the amount of people who have similarly turned 18.

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

I dunno when you look at the breakdown of the voting age groups i think it just requires 10+ years and there will be no chance of such a vote passing again. Sure there's even some speculation that a 2nd referendum would pass now by a small margin simply due to the number of pensioners that have already died off since the first vote and the amount of people who have similarly turned 18.

10 years is an awful long time in the context of Brexit. For instance, a problem for Britain, and the EU by extension, is that there are EU elections coming up next May. This Brexit farce must be sorted to a large extent before then. Certainty is needed. The EU won't want Brexiteers/Britain/Tory dividions muddying the waters during the elections.

EdgeCase

The amazing bit is the considerable lengths the UK government went to to argue that revoking the article 50 letter is impossible and even spending substantial resources on legal representation to try and stop the case from ever being heard.

That’s not something you do if you know you’ve a strong argument and a sturdy mandate.

They’re obviously trying to make this irrevocable.

MrMusician18

Is the legal discussion not largely academic anyway? The EU have always stated that they would facilitate the UK should they change their mind so withdrawal of Art. 50 was always a technical option open to the UK Government.

However, politically it isn't possible. Reversing the referendum result in parliament only would not go down well at all so the result has to be acted on. The only way Brexit could be stopped at this stage is a second referendum.

MrMusician18

EdgeCase wrote: »

The amazing bit is the considerable lengths the UK government went to to argue that revoking the article 50 letter is impossible and even spending substantial resources on legal representation to try and stop the case from ever being heard.

That’s not something you do if you know you’ve a strong argument and a sturdy mandate.

They’re obviously trying to make this irrevocable.

It was in the UKs interest to not have this question answered as it would then have left all options available to them.

It is best to challenge a law in the context of a real decision rather than a hypothetical

josip

I think this increases the likelihood of a hard Brexit.
Remainers will vote down the deal in the hope of getting a revocation before March 29th.
Brexiteers will vote down the deal in the hope of getting a hard Brexit.
Neither the Tories, not Corbyn want to cancel Brexit.

ambro25

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is the legal discussion not largely academic anyway? The EU have always stated that they would facilitate the UK should they change their mind so withdrawal of Art. 50 was always a technical option open to the UK Government.

No, absolutely not.

It’s one thing for EU heads to proclaim that the U.K. is welcome to stay, for political play/pressure.

But it’s quite another, to validate and legitimise that assertion under the rule of EU and international law, so that the U.K. staying in the EU notwithstanding its Art.50 notice, is demonstrably not the very sort of autocratic fudge, that anti-EU parties accuse the EU of.

The EU is a rules-based entity, always has been. It cannot afford to start looking like it runs a “one law for some” shop. Especially in these populist times.

I have been surprised by the AG’s opinion. There’s some holes in it IMHO, particularly towards end (paragraphs 151-160 and end section about ‘agreed revocation’). I could see the CJEU following it partially (notice is revocable OK, but stronger strings attached than as suggested by AG; I accept the morality of the AG’s take on EUCO unanimity requirement, but I don’t buy his legal reasoning).

There is a rising number of opinions that the AG let the political dimension cloud his reasoning, if not judgement. There’s some truth to that IMHO, explains the ‘reaching’ used for some of his points.

Can’t wait to see what the CJEU makes of it in due course. Imagine if MPs vote down the withdrawal agreement on the 11th, in (full or partial) reliance on the AG’s opinion and expecting to push towards an Art.50 notice revocation, only for the CJEU judgement to u-turn the AG after the Meaningful Vote, just about guaranteeing a no deal Brexit: you’d be able to see the fireworks from the Moon!

An Ciarraioch

New ComRes polls have voters rejecting both May's deal and no deal, neither wanting to stay in the EU or a second referendum, wanting the EU to renegotiate, but not an extension to Article 50:

http://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1069720867180027909

http://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1069721050198499329

http://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1069721145128161282

Leroy42

^^ so basically nobody has the slightest Scooby Do about what to actually do!

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

It won't change anything on the Brexiteer side, but all those Remainer MPs being faced with a choice of May's deal rock or a chaotic-Brexit hard place suddenly have a third way forward. With a unilateral revocation of A50 on the table, there's absolutely no reason for May's deal to be passed by either side, neither on a first vote nor a second.

You are 100%correct.And if the UK consigns the TM deal to the bin where it belongs and there is eventually a people's vote there is a real possibility of the UK remaining-only thing, i get the distinct impression this decision by the EU isn't very popular on this forum which contradicts what most seem to say that they would prefer the UK to remain?

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

New ComRes polls have voters rejecting both May's deal and no deal, neither wanting to stay in the EU or a second referendum, wanting the EU to renegotiate, but not an extension to Article 50:

http://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1069720867180027909

http://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1069721050198499329

http://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1069721145128161282

Very disappointing. With all that's gone on, people in Britain still expect the EU to cave in and renegotiate. A majority - 45% - think this is what should happen. Sad, really. People in Britain aren't genetically stupid so it must be that they are woefully misinformed.

Nate--IRL--

RobMc59 wrote: »

You are 100%correct.And if the UK consigns the TM deal to the bin where it belongs and there is eventually a people's vote there is a real possibility of the UK remaining-only thing, i get the distinct impression this decision by the EU isn't very popular on this forum which contradicts what most seem to say that they would prefer the UK to remain?

I think it's more the unilateral nature of it, which opens itself to shenanigans by the UK side.


Nate

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how. These people are committed to Brexit regardless of the havoc it wreaks on the country they purport to love.

If A50 can be revoked unilaterally no-deal is now easier to avoid: revoking is simpler, and there is more time to do it. This makes no-deal less likely.

If the Deal is voted down, then remain becomes more likely (no-deal is less likely). Ergo by voting the deal down Brexiteers are risking having no Brexit at all.

THis is especially the case as the Labour leadership seem to be coming around to the idea of a Referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/01/labour-figures-urge-party-prepare-new-brexit-vote?CMP=share_btn_tw

The calculations for Brexiteers may have changed.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

You are 100%correct.And if the UK consigns the TM deal to the bin where it belongs and there is eventually a people's vote there is a real possibility of the UK remaining-only thing, i get the distinct impression this decision by the EU isn't very popular on this forum which contradicts what most seem to say that they would prefer the UK to remain?

Isn't very popular? What a strange thing to say. Where have people argued against it?

This isn't about whether the UK will stay or not, the UK have always had that power. In their hands. Under their control. These opinion, and even if the courts agrees, doesn't change that fact.

People want the UK to stay, it is in everybody's interest, theirs included, for them to remain. However, just like in any relationship, just because you want to to stay and you might even talk them into staying, it isn't always the right choice unless that other party has dealt with the fundamental reasons behind why they wanted to leave in the first place.