Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

LeinsterDub

ambro25 wrote: »

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 notice, based on the EU's political appraisal of the component of good faith, cannot be recalled. So yes, you're back to square one, with a new 24 months period.

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

I'll hold the AG's considered opinion above yours if you don't mind

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

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 notice, based on the EU's political appraisal of the component of good faith, cannot be recalled. So yes, you're back to square one, with a new 24 months period.

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

That's hardly a great starting point from which to improve a deal that you already agreed.

bilston

Fann Linn wrote: »

And to think they did this themselves. Marvellous just watching them tear each other apart.

Yeah...wonderful

ambro25

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'll hold the AG's considered advice above yours if you don't mind

I don't mind...but have you read his opinion?

I have, but I must have missed the bit about how he proposes to handle just such an abuse of power after-the-fact: he's only opined on potential procedure before-the-fact.

Article 50 only relates to 'a' notice, doesn't matter if it's the 1st, or a 2nd after the 1st was revoked through promising the EU the moon on a stick.

So, er...you can take the non-existent word of the AG about this if you wish

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's hardly a great starting point from which to improve a deal that you already agreed.

It sure isn't. But then, we live in Brexity times, and there's certainly already been stranger yet.

bilston

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?

Allegedly for negotiating purposes...it may also set a precedent for the future. But I suppose we won't really know until we see the content tomorrow.

briany

ambro25 wrote: »

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.

It sounds like the political equivalent of tying a string to a 50p coin so as to have as many games of Street Fighter as you like (or at least a second go).

Maybe the British could do it, but it'd be a cynical move and an opening gambit guaranteed to taint the atmosphere of future negotiations. Besides that, would the UK be any further toward internal agreement after another 2 years? Would they be another further along in trying to extract compromises from the EU? Neither would I have too much confidence in.

Nate--IRL--

Nigel Dodds up now.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/835418bd-4e17-4878-8144-50e89a9b3f50

Nate

Professor Moriarty

ambro25 wrote: »

It sure isn't. But then, we live in Brexity times, and there's certainly already been stranger yet.

It's like the worst soap opera ever. I think if Britain were to withdraw Article 50 and then behave in bad faith, the EU may well decide to wash their hands of Britain on the basis that they will never be able to trust them. It would then be an enforced hard deal sooner or later.

Capt'n Midnight

The EU could simply say New Article 50 = new deal and restart the haggling from scratch taking into account that they reneged on the previous deal.

Remember the EU delegated negotiations, while May is doing them by proxy on the UK side.

ambro25

briany wrote: »

It sounds like the political equivalent of tying a string to a 50p coin so as to have as many games of Street Fighter as you like (or at least a second go).

Maybe the British could do it, but it'd be a cynical move and an opening gambit guaranteed to taint the atmosphere of future negotiations. Besides that, would the UK be any further toward internal agreement after another 2 years? Would they be another further along in trying to extract compromises from the EU? Neither would I have too much confidence in.

The likelihood of the UK doing that is admittedly very remote. 'Within a week' is not the least believable, either. But quid of fast-changing HoC arithmetic?

That likelihood is most strongly influenced by domestic politics in the UK and, on that particular front, they are still as collectively snookered about Brexit today, as over the past 2 years.

As we've all observed, just about anything is possible over there these days: even for the British government to be held in contempt of Parliament for the very first time in history, I am led to believe.

LeinsterDub

ambro25 wrote: »

I don't mind...but have you read his opinion?

I have, but I must have missed the bit about how he proposes to handle just such an abuse of power after-the-fact: he's only opined on potential procedure before-the-fact.

Article 50 only relates to 'a' notice, doesn't matter if it's the 1st, or a 2nd after the 1st was revoked through promising the EU the moon on a stick.

So, er...you can take the non-existent word of the AG about this if you wish
It sure isn't. But then, we live in Brexity times, and there's certainly already been stranger yet.

And what make you more qualified than the AG?

A Dub in Glasgo

Left here for posterity (nearly 2 and a half years ago now!)

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100184439&postcount=2988

Water John

The issue is now gathering pace, even more than I predicted, at the time of the HoC vote. So much will happen before Christmas, even hard to predict all options that arise, Whoever heard of 'humble address' a few weeks ago.

ambro25

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And what make you more qualified than the AG?

I don't claim to be. Moreover, his is an opinion, not a judgement.

What I related in my earlier posts are easily-verifiable legal facts. The AG opinion and Article 50 TEU are both a 10 seconds-Google away, feel free to read them. For the opinion, see paragraph 155 in particular.

briany

ambro25 wrote: »

The likelihood of the UK doing that is admittedly very remote. 'Within a week' is not the least believable, either. But quid of fast-changing HoC arithmetic?

That likelihood is most strongly influenced by domestic politics in the UK and, on that particular front, they are still as collectively snookered about Brexit today, as over the past 2 years.

As we've all observed, just about anything is possible over there these days: even for the British government to be held in contempt of Parliament for the very first time in history, I am led to believe.

If the British were to be so crazy as to pull that move, Michel Barnier should just play "I got you Babe" by Sonny & Cher at the negotiation table on day 1. See if they get the reference.

igCorcaigh

So, today is good, isn't it?

Brexit can now be cancelled, or at least there is a path to it. The ECJ and Grieve may just have saved the UK...

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Left here for posterity (nearly 2 and a half years ago now!)

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100184439&postcount=2988

Take a gold star out of the can.

LeinsterDub

ambro25 wrote: »

I don't claim to be. Moreover, his is an opinion, not a judgement.

What I related in my earlier posts are easily-verifiable legal facts. The AG opinion and Article 50 TEU are both a 10 seconds-Google away, feel free to read them. For the opinion, see paragraph 155 in particular.

I may as well as well be reading a paper on string theory. I've no legal background. Nor does it seem do you.

A Dub in Glasgo

igCorcaigh wrote: »

So, today is good, isn't it?

Brexit can now be cancelled, or at least there is a path to it. The ECJ [ ] may just have saved the UK...

These folk deserve all the credit

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1069870883362222080

MrMusician18

ambro25 wrote: »

The likelihood of the UK doing that is admittedly very remote. 'Within a week' is not the least believable, either. But quid of fast-changing HoC arithmetic?

That likelihood is most strongly influenced by domestic politics in the UK and, on that particular front, they are still as collectively snookered about Brexit today, as over the past 2 years.

As we've all observed, just about anything is possible over there these days: even for the British government to be held in contempt of Parliament for the very first time in history, I am led to believe.

If the UK did that as a negotiation tactic then it would be clear the letter that revoked the original art. 50 process wasn't valid. This could then be challenged in the ECJ.

Would you not get a situation then where you would find that the UK would find itself outside the Union instantly after the European Court made it's ruling.

Water John

Tom Newton Dunn is right. This was TM's harder Brexit coming up against Parliament that wants a softer Brexit and this day, a long time coming, when they clashed.

Spanish Eyes

It is all so tedious.

When most people know now.

briany

Water John wrote: »

Tom Newton Dunn is right. This was TM's harder Brexit coming up against Parliament that wants a softer Brexit and this day, a long time coming, when they clashed.

Didn't Theresa May campaign for Remain, and hasn't she been accused at various points of trying to thwart Brexit by stealth? Wouldn't she be happier with a soft Brexit or, indeed, no Brexit at all?

igCorcaigh

briany wrote: »

Didn't Theresa May campaign for Remain, and hasn't she been accused at various points of trying to thwart Brexit by stealth? Wouldn't she be happier with a soft Brexit or, indeed, no Brexit at all?

She's either stupid, or very very clever.

Water John

She bet on going with a Hard Brexit to reign in the Brexiteers who she saw as her biggest threat to her Prime Ministership. It was a good bet from a Tory POV but the wrong option if one was looking at Parliament and Parliament is primary.

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1070012341335572481

10000maniacs

briany wrote: »

Didn't Theresa May campaign for Remain, and hasn't she been accused at various points of trying to thwart Brexit by stealth? Wouldn't she be happier with a soft Brexit or, indeed, no Brexit at all?

Thwart Brexit by stealth? She would need to be a lot smarter to engineer something like that. I mean she would have had to machinate those three votes in Parliament today for starters. No, it was nothing but a bad day for the government, and when the Brexit vote is defeated on Tuesday, what will Corbyn put on the table knowing a general election is not an option because the DUP will save May in a no confidence vote? A permanent customs union? Not a chance. The EU won't go for that.
The only real options left are a reversal of Article 50 or a peoples vote.

Hermy

igCorcaigh wrote: »

So, today is good, isn't it?

Brexit can now be cancelled, or at least there is a path to it. The ECJ and Grieve may just have saved the UK...

I saw this mentioned in the news earlier and I don't get it.

Why would Brexit be cancelled all of a sudden?
Where's the mandate for that?

tuxy

Hermy wrote: »

I saw this mentioned in the news earlier and I don't get it.

Why would Brexit be cancelled all of a sudden?
Where's the mandate for that?

It was not known if article 50 could be revoked. We now know that it can.
It would take another referendum for it to happen though.

Econ__

briany wrote: »

Didn't Theresa May campaign for Remain, and hasn't she been accused at various points of trying to thwart Brexit by stealth? Wouldn't she be happier with a soft Brexit or, indeed, no Brexit at all?

Although she voted remain, I believe she's a bit of a Little Englander and wants to end free movement. She has no issues with the UK joining a Customs Union as you can still end free movement. She wasn't able to make this official policy though because the hardline Brexiteers would have paralysed her government. Instead she used the backstop late on to introduce a CU for the whole UK through the backdoor.

Welcome to the Conservative party over the last 30 years. Their leaders have been regularly forced to perform intellectual gymnastics in order to appease the hardline eurosceptics. Those 'bastards' (as John Major referred to them) have caused untold amounts of damage. A referendum (which there was no real longing for in the country) was called to satisfy them - and then you had the knock on effect of heavyweight MPs like Gove and Johnson backing the Leave campaign for the sole reason that they thought they could be 'noble losers', win the backing of the eurosceptics and be in a nice position to become future leader of the party.