Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Sky News saying BJ's contribution to the debate didn't go down well in the HoC's.
Basically, BJ was saying we go back to the EU, basically with threats, and be ready to Crash out.

Bojo has modelled himself on Churchill so this was an attempt to sound Churchillian. Unfortunately, he has neither Churchill's wit nor his wisdom and so Bojo comes across as a petulant rich kid wannabe. Which is exactly what he is.

Thargor

Boris got savaged there.

Econ__

Nody wrote: »

There's no difference between today or 15th March and chances of that deal getting voted through then is about as similar as now. You only need to see how every single person basically bends under the party whip no matter how strong their objections are esp. if they can use it to blame the other side (i.e. Corbyn wanting to use the Brexit crash out to get into government and get a new deal that's everything they dream off). Secondly and this is the part you (along with the UK parliament appear to miss) voting through the deal on the 15th is still leading to a crash out because there's simply not enough time to run it through all relevant parliaments etc. in EU and May asking for more time is about as likely as her resigning or withdrawing A50. The deal needs to pass now or there is simply not enough time to get it approved; and if it's not approved you can take a wild guess on what's the alternative is.

This is profoundly wrong.

If MPs reject the deal now, there is significant hope for them than alternative avenues can be successfully pursued - there is time available.

This is not the case if they were to vote down the same deal on March 15th, and many would adjust their vote accordingly.


Your assumption only works if you pretend that time doesn't exist as a significant & material variable.

SimonTemplar

Sorry, things move so fast I've been kept out of the loop on this. Why did the government attempt to keep the legal advise secret. It is supposed to contain some damning criticism of Brexit or TM's deal?

prawnsambo

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Sorry, things move so fast I've been kept out of the loop on this. Why did the government attempt to keep the legal advise secret. It is supposed to contain some damning criticism of Brexit or TM's deal?

We don't know... yet.

Nody

Econ__ wrote: »

This is profoundly wrong.

If MPs reject the deal now, there is significant hope for them than alternative avenues can be successfully pursued - there is time available.

This is not the case if they were to vote down the same deal on March 15th, and many would adjust their vote accordingly.


Your assumption only works if you pretend that time doesn't exist as a significant & material variable.

No, your assumption only works if you assume EU AND May will agree to an extension on the 15th of March out of the blue. No extension = Crash out no matter what the parliament votes for and that extension can ONLY be requested by May and only if EU approves it because the deal needs at least 3 months to go through all 30ish parliaments in EU for approval (and that's assuming they approve it). EU has not been talking about the deal require signature in November/December for the fun of it; no signature by UK = full swing on hard crash set up inc. all plans swinging into motion accordingly in EU with all the implications this will have in the countries voting for an extension because UK can't organize a basic vote in parliament. That's from a basis of basically zero good will as it stands today and after significant expenses have been taken by said countries come March 15th; I'd not be surprised if it would get voted down simply out of frustration...

SimonTemplar

prawnsambo wrote: »

We don't know... yet.

Ah, I see. So there could be a smoking gun in it, and given the government's efforts to prevent its publication, I'd wager that seems likely.

amacca

What a complete and utter shambles and mess of a ****show.

Rhineshark

prawnsambo wrote: »

We don't know... yet.

Some of it appears to be (?) that the UK can unilaterally withdraw A50, which the gov preferred not to be known as it removes most of the invented difficulties with an option to vote Remain in another referendum.

Or, as an assistant politics editor for the BBC interpreted it, that they can unilaterally extend A50 and the ECJ said so (which is wrong on all counts).

SimonTemplar

Brexit was always going to be messy but I doubt anyone could have predicted this mess. I saw this comment on BBC and thought it summed up things nicely

This whole thing is the stupidest, saddest, most infuriating, pointless omnishambles I've *ever* experienced.

Those of you who seem to feel the EU is the source of all your problems in life, I've got news for you: it really isn't. You've been brainwashed by years of tabloid propaganda.

Sure, the EU isn't perfect (what political entity is??), but the overall benefits outweigh the negatives.

Folkstonian

Rhineshark wrote: »

Some of it appears to be (?) that the UK can unilaterally withdraw A50, which the gov preferred not to be known as it removes most of the invented difficulties with an option to vote Remain in another referendum.

Or, as an assistant politics editor for the BBC interpreted it, that they can unilaterally extend A50 and the ECJ said so (which is wrong on all counts).

Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time

It’s a bizarre notion that it may be as easy as saying ‘no thanks, we’ve changed our minds’ in Parliament.

Water John

Parliament will be giving orders to the Govn't on, extending Art 50, not TM's decision anymore. After today's votes the possibility of a 2nd Ref has increased and it's more likely to be between TM's Deal and Remain. I am presuming JC doesn't get the opportunity of dealing with the EU where he offers a permanent CU.

SimonTemplar

TM barely has any authority anymore.

Water John

Govn't lost 3 key votes today. Parliament rules even if it's messy.

SimonTemplar

Water John wrote: »

Parliament will be giving orders to the Govn't on, extending Art 50, not TM's decision anymore. After today's votes the possibility of a 2nd Ref has increased and it's more likely to be between TM's Deal and Remain. I am presuming JC doesn't get the opportunity of dealing with the EU where he offers a permanent CU.

What do you see as the path to a 2nd ref. Is it:
- TM's deal not passing HoC vote, then
- MPs voting to hold second ref as the next step forward

Hurrache

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time

It’s a bizarre notion that it may be as easy as saying ‘no thanks, we’ve changed our minds’ in Parliament.

It's explicitly worded so something like that can't be done.

DOCARCH

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time.

EU could possibly refuse to allow A50 be revoked if it appeared that was the strategy/approach.

There is something in 'there' (Advocate General recommendation to the Court of Justice) saying yes, A50 can be revoked, as long as it does not involve an abusive practice.

LeinsterDub

How does the Gove bill stack up against brexit being enshrined in law?

Professor Moriarty

DOCARCH wrote: »

EU could possibly refuse to allow A50 be revoked if it appeared that was the strategy/approach.

There is something in 'there' (Advocate General recommendation to the Court of Justice) saying yes, A50 can be revoked, as long as it does not involve an abusive practice.

From the Advocate General:

“good faith and sincere cooperation must also be observed” in any withdrawal of the exit notice.

briany

SimonTemplar wrote: »

What do you see as the path to a 2nd ref. Is it:
- TM's deal not passing HoC vote, then
- MPs voting to hold second ref as the next step forward

I certainly wouldn't claim to know what'll happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if enough Brexiteer MPs made a subtle pivot on the issue of a 2nd referendum, now that parliamentary sovereignty is looking less and less likely to get get them over the line. Remain MPs would be happy enough with that, too as they think there's a good chance of winning such a vote.

mickmac76

Given the news today that the British government can withdraw the article 50 notice could the following situation happen. The UK government is unhappy with the negotiated deal so with only a few days to a no deal brexit the government revokes article 50 and publicly states that this is a negotiations tactic. A few days after the expiry of the original drop out date they once again serve notice to the European Parliament that they are withdrawing from the EU and reinstate article 50. The negotiations begin again and even if the EU refuse to engage in any more pointless negotiations the clock starts ticking for another two years of count down. That would give the UK two years to actually plan some sort of brexit. If necessary the process could be repeated as many times as needed until the UK feel they are ready for a no deal brexit.

The above would seem legal even if disastrous from a political viewpoint. The EU would be paralyzed until something is sorted out. In the meantime you will have people like BoJo grandstanding in Parliament going on about the UK should stand up to the bullies in the EU and leave without a deal but they wouldn't actually do anything. I feel that this would be worse for the EU than anything else. At the moment they can wait for the UK to crash and burn in a no deal brexit. This would be difficult for other countries that occasionally threaten to withdraw from the EU as Brussels could point to the UK as an example of the faith of blundering out of the EU. But if the above happened the EU could end up looking helpless and weak to people with a limited understanding of politics and they could cooperate less with the EU and over time that would leave the EU unable to lead or agree on lots of issues.

Econ__

Nody wrote: »

No, your assumption only works if you assume EU AND May will agree to an extension on the 15th of March out of the blue. No extension = Crash out no matter what the parliament votes for and that extension can ONLY be requested by May and only if EU approves it because the deal needs at least 3 months to go through all 30ish parliaments in EU for approval (and that's assuming they approve it). EU has not been talking about the deal require signature in November/December for the fun of it; no signature by UK = full swing on hard crash set up inc. all plans swinging into motion accordingly in EU with all the implications this will have in the countries voting for an extension because UK can't organize a basic vote in parliament. That's from a basis of basically zero good will as it stands today and after significant expenses have been taken by said countries come March 15th; I'd not be surprised if it would get voted down simply out of frustration...

The EU might not grant an extension in the event that the UK passes a deal that the EU negotiated, in order to allow the UK time to go through the required legislative processes?

That suggestion is for the birds. Again, a theoretical footnote.

Professor Moriarty

mickmac76 wrote: »

Given the news today that the British government can withdraw the article 50 notice could the following situation happen. The UK government is unhappy with the negotiated deal so with only a few days to a no deal brexit the government revokes article 50 and publicly states that this is a negotiations tactic. A few days after the expiry of the original drop out date they once again serve notice to the European Parliament that they are withdrawing from the EU and reinstate article 50. The negotiations begin again and even if the EU refuse to engage in any more pointless negotiations the clock starts ticking for another two years of count down. That would give the UK two years to actually plan some sort of brexit. If necessary the process could be repeated as many times as needed until the UK feel they are ready for a no deal brexit.

The above would seem legal even if disastrous from a political viewpoint. The EU would be paralyzed until something is sorted out. In the meantime you will have people like BoJo grandstanding in Parliament going on about the UK should stand up to the bullies in the EU and leave without a deal but they wouldn't actually do anything. I feel that this would be worse for the EU than anything else. At the moment they can wait for the UK to crash and burn in a no deal brexit. This would be difficult for other countries that occasionally threaten to withdraw from the EU as Brussels could point to the UK as an example of the faith of blundering out of the EU. But if the above happened the EU could end up looking helpless and weak to people with a limited understanding of politics and they could cooperate less with the EU and over time that would leave the EU unable to lead or agree on lots of issues.

So the UK lies to the EU and behaves in a craven manner on the basis that they will get a better deal as a result?

Calina

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time

It’s a bizarre notion that it may be as easy as saying ‘no thanks, we’ve changed our minds’ in Parliament.

Obviously we have to wait for the judgement but today's opinion says you would be wrong to presume it.

It would be the behaviour of a deeply untrustworthy country. Would you truly be proud of a country like that?

prawnsambo

Calina wrote: »

Obviously we have to wait for the judgement but today's opinion says you would be wrong to presume it.

It would be the behaviour of a deeply untrustworthy country. Would you truly be proud of a country like that?

And the EU could just say that they got their agreement and refuse to negotiate any further. It's not like there's somewhere else to go.

Enzokk

I don't see how withdrawing article 50 and then triggering it again will somehow lead to a different deal they have right now. Will anything change in the circumstances that will mean they will have a better hand during the negotiations? Seems more likely that you will harden the resolve of the EU to prepare for a hard Brexit to happen as the UK cannot be a reliable negotiating partner in that case.

There has been some good speeches just recently on the deal, especially from Anna Soubry. There are fewer members in the chamber right now so the madhouse atmosphere has passed at least.

LeinsterDub

Econ__ wrote: »

The EU might not grant an extension in the event that the UK passes a deal that the EU negotiated, in order to allow the UK time to go through the required legislative processes?

That suggestion is for the birds. Again, a theoretical footnote.

The EU will only offer an extension if it look like meaningful progress is being made. They'll not grant an extension for the UK to continue their circle jerk

Akrasia

Folkstonian wrote: »

Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time

It’s a bizarre notion that it may be as easy as saying ‘no thanks, we’ve changed our minds’ in Parliament.

The legal opinion said that it cannot be withdrawn in bad faith. If it is withdrawn and they activate it a week later there's no way the EU will be restarting the 24 month deadline

Professor Moriarty

I like The Guardian's line: "May staggers on after three defeats in a single day."

Sums her premiership up beautifully.

ambro25

Akrasia wrote: »

The legal opinion said that it cannot be withdrawn in bad faith. If it is withdrawn and they activate it a week later there's no way the EU will be restarting the 24 month deadline

Why?

There's nothing in Art.50 or anywhere else that says the EU can 'reject' a 2nd notice. And the prior revocation of the 1st notice, based on the EU's political appraisal of the component of good faith preceding that revocation, cannot be recalled after-the-fact.

So yes, you'd be back to square one, with a new 24 months period.

Hereinabove, one of my several beefs with today's opinion from the AG.