Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Hurrache

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks like this is all going to end up in Remain. Grieve's move will likely mean the deal gets voted down, and when faced with Remain or No Deal, the House will go with Remain.

No Deal isn't a possibility anymore. They can't just mistakenly end up there.

Throughout yesterday there was a definitive air of optimism from remainers, with some even commenting that Brexit is now dead. I don't see it being that easy though, nothing ever is with this.

I don't know how the Grieve amendment will be executed, but if it's a straightforward parliamentary vote all that I can see happening at the moment is the vote will be split between the government and the different opposition parties.

They were united yesterday on the amendment to defeat the government, but I can't see them being united, with enough votes to defeat the government, as to what the alternative will be.

edit: The early bird catches the worm, Peregrinus was up and posting a similar response while I was still dreaming.

ambro25

LeinsterDub wrote: »

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

Wrong.

But that’s neither here, nor there, and a sterile path of debate (d1ck-waving about legal qualifications and experience, in the context at hand, can only end up with ‘but you’re not a CJEU judge like the AG’).

MrMusician18 wrote: »

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.

No because

(i) there is no legal mechanism to ‘eject’ a Member State from the EU (the CJEU could only ever rule that the revocation application was made in bad faith, but cannot order that the MS be outed in consequence - the 2 year period re-triggered would still run) ; and

(ii) on the basis of the AG opinion, there is a strong argument against the EU bodies and Members ever pushing for such a mechanism/outcome (‘forcing a MS out’).

It is in good part because of (ii) above, that I highly doubt that the EU would ever ‘enforce’ the good/bad faith test (refusing an Art.50 revocation on the basis of a belief -and it would have to be a belief informed by factual past behaviour- would effectively force the withdrawing MS out at the end of the running 2-year period: which EUCO participants, or EU heads, or <relevant assessors-deciders> would be ready and willing to wear that responsibility, really?)

LuckyLloyd

I'm consuming vast amounts of popcorn at the demise of British politics, while crossing my fingers that the demise of British society can somehow be averted. This is a time to drink in quite extraordinary events. The time for analysis and firm predictions will come next week.

Inquitus

Hurrache wrote: »

Throughout yesterday there was a definitive air of optimism from remainers, with some even commenting that Brexit is now dead. I don't see it being that easy though, nothing ever is with this.

I don't know how the Grieve amendment will be executed, but if it's a straightforward parliamentary vote all that I can see happening at the moment is the vote will be split between the government and the different opposition parties.

They were united yesterday on the amendment to defeat the government, but I can't see them being united, with enough votes to defeat the government, as to what the alternative will be.

edit: The early bird catches the worm, Peregrinus was up and posting a similar response while I was still dreaming.

I am not so sure, the DUP were united against the Gov yesterday, they will not vote, however, for remain. There are less Tory Remainer Rebels than their are Labour leavers. I don't see how the math can be tilted to remain, and most certainly not without a 2nd Referendum that gives a Remain result.

LuckyLloyd

In all of this, the true believers have not lost sight of the prize:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/01/no-deal-now-option-left-must-respond-liberalising-economy/

Will EU leaders frustrate a managed withdrawal for the sake of a backstop that London, Dublin and Brussels all say they never want to see activated anyway? It’s hard to say. Many of the 27 governments, mindful of their own prosperity, would want to respond to an impasse by extending the current technical arrangements pending further talks. But some Eurocrats would rather see everyone suffer than watch a post-EU Britain succeed.

So we need to prepare for the prospect of a disorderly Brexit. There would be costs for both sides. The euro crisis might flare up again, and the states nearest to Britain would take a hit. But there would be also be a heavy blow to the UK, which conducts a higher proportion of its trade across the Channel than anyone else.

How might we soften that blow? Our preparations are in a better place than they were before the summer. The lights won’t fail in Northern Ireland. Planes won’t be denied landing slots. It’s true that, to the frustration of some ministers, the Treasury has refused to invest in new customs infrastructure. Then again, why should Britain want additional customs checks? The obvious response to a no-deal Brexit is to remove all our trade barriers.

That was what turned Singapore from a poor, equatorial island into a gleaming metropolis. Singaporeans went from having half our income per head in the 1950s to nearly twice today. Why? Because in 1965, they responded to an acrimonious split with a larger neighbour (Malaysia) by slashing taxes, creating enterprise zones and opening their economy to the world.

Such things are not easily done in a democracy. But attitudes change when people feel they are being bullied. And, make no mistake, if the EU refused to agree with Britain even the minimal courtesies that democracies take for granted with their neighbours, people would conclude that Britain was, in effect, being blockaded. In such a climate, voters would accept reforms that, in more tranquil times, they might see as too much bother.What reforms? After unilateral free trade, the most important would be tax cuts to stimulate growth and attract investment. Corporation tax should be reduced to the OECD minimum of ten per cent, and other taxes that impair economic activity, such as fuel duty, scrapped.

Where would the money come from? Apart from the extra £39 billion that would be immediately freed up, we could drop HS2 and privatise more government assets, including land owned by the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

We should repeal anti-competitive EU regulations: the Temporary Workers Directive, the rules on art sales, the GM ban, the internet restrictions – including GDPR. We should ease planning restrictions. We should also (and this won’t be popular) ensure that the City retains its global re-eminence, abolishing the EU’s MiFID rules on transparency across financial markets, removing bonus caps, giving the FCA the explicit remit of increasing competitiveness. The Bank of England, similarly, should replace its inflation target with a growth target – an apparently minor reform that is critical if we need an emergency boost.

But here’s the thing. We should have already embarked on these changes in anticipation of a possible breakdown. Instead, we are spending more and regulating more. EU negotiators have concluded that Theresa May has no interest in economic liberalisation. That has been the problem from the start.

I find it amusing how the mask has started to slip with some of them as the process has ground on. What sounded like conspiracy theory two and half years ago has become THE essential argument from the hardcore Brexiteer faction. The above is so unashamedly toxic it's actually quite stunning.

Leroy42

Inquitus wrote: »

I am not so sure, the DUP were united against the Gov yesterday, they will not vote, however, for remain. There are less Tory Remainer Rebels than their are Labour leavers. I don't see how the math can be tilted to remain, and most certainly not without a 2nd Referendum that gives a Remain result.

Yes, and this is exactly what TM is counting on.

Sure this deal is not what the UK thought it was going to get with it set on on this journey, but it is either this or No deal, and there is very few that want that.

Remain is of course on option, but time is very much against the UK at this point. They can, it would seem, cancel A50 right up until the deadline, but the problem with that is what if the ref or vote returns leave again? They would have no time to prepare, the EU wouldn't extend A50 as there would be no point.

It really is an awful mess

LeinsterDub

ambro25 wrote: »

Wrong.

But that’s neither here, nor there, and a sterile path of debate (d1ck-waving about legal qualifications and experience, in the context at hand, can only end up with ‘but you’re not a CJEU judge like the AG’).

Let me put it a different way . Can you link to an article or opinion piece of anyone else who shares your view?

Econ__

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In all of this, the true believers have not lost sight of the prize:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/01/no-deal-now-option-left-must-respond-liberalising-economy/



I find it amusing how the mask has started to slip with some of them as the process has ground on. What sounded like conspiracy theory two and half years ago has become THE essential argument from the hardcore Brexiteer faction. The above is so unashamedly toxic it's actually quite stunning.

The EU always saw though it...Denmark's former Permanent Representative (Claus Grube) summed it up nicely.

If Brexit is to make sense somewhere, it only does so if you can improve your competitiveness by deregulating and distorting competition for goods, services, capital and qualified labour with deviating (sic) rules, state aid, lower labour costs and /or reduced regulatory costs. Otherwise, why leave the EU/EEA?

And that is what the EU fears will happen over time and why there will be strict
limits to the “creativity and flexibility” when it comes to securing a “level playing field” as this will only amount to a transfer of resources from the EU to the UK to cover as much of the cost of Brexit as the UK can get away with”.

ambro25

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Let me put it a different way . Can you link to an article or opinion piece of anyone else who shares your view?

Sure thing: here you go, read the whole thread.

That professor of EU law, I and others are all part of, and contributing to, that ‘informed speculation’ which he mentions (and which is precisely what my earlier posts in here, were): the opinion is barely a day old, and yet to be followed-in whole or part- or dissented from by the CJEU.

Econ__

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I like to think so, yes. But it certainly hasn't happened yet. And, in the whole course of this sorry episode, what common sense suggested ought to happen has, mostly, not happened. You'd like to think that, as the stakes become higher, it will happen. But the whole point of brinksmanship is that there is, in fact, a brink. And a parliament so woefully lacking in leadership (on both sides) and so filled with idiots could conceivably fail to pull up in time before going over the brink. It has already done considerable damage to the UK's interests and reputation which could easily have been avoided; I don't think we can take it for granted that it will stop between now and next March.

Yes, but I still think the chances of no deal are overplayed. I never had it had more than 5%.

Professor Moriarty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In all of this, the true believers have not lost sight of the prize:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/01/no-deal-now-option-left-must-respond-liberalising-economy/



I find it amusing how the mask has started to slip with some of them as the process has ground on. What sounded like conspiracy theory two and half years ago has become THE essential argument from the hardcore Brexiteer faction. The above is so unashamedly toxic it's actually quite stunning.

"Such things are not easily done in a democracy. But attitudes change when people feel they are being bullied. And, make no mistake, if the EU refused to agree with Britain even the minimal courtesies that democracies take for granted with their neighbours, people would conclude that Britain was, in effect, being blockaded. In such a climate, voters would accept reforms that, in more tranquil times, they might see as too much bother.What reforms? After unilateral free trade, the most important would be tax cuts to stimulate growth and attract investment. Corporation tax should be reduced to the OECD minimum of ten per cent, and other taxes that impair economic activity, such as fuel duty, scrapped.

Where would the money come from? Apart from the extra £39 billion that would be immediately freed up, we could drop HS2 and privatise more government assets, including land owned by the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

We should repeal anti-competitive EU regulations: the Temporary Workers Directive, the rules on art sales, the GM ban, the internet restrictions – including GDPR. We should ease planning restrictions. We should also (and this won’t be popular) ensure that the City retains its global re-eminence, abolishing the EU’s MiFID rules on transparency across financial markets, removing bonus caps, giving the FCA the explicit remit of increasing competitiveness. The Bank of England, similarly, should replace its inflation target with a growth target – an apparently minor reform that is critical if we need an emergency boost."


It reads like a Tory wet dream. It's as if it was written by Fox - which is quite possible. You know, the ordinary Joe Bloggs who votes for the likes of Mogg and Johnson deserves what he gets.

bob mcbob

Brilliant

Liam Fox says MPs are trying to steal Brexit

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46450227

But I thought the whole point of Brexit was for Parliament to "take back control"

10000maniacs

Looks like there is momentum behind No-Brexit
This is from The Guardian blog this morning:

Fewer than four in 10 Britons (38%) now think the UK was right to vote for Brexit, while almost half (49%) believe it was the wrong decision, the Press Association reports. The 11% gap is the widest recorded by pollsters YouGov in a regular series of monthly surveys for the Times, while the number believing Brexit was right is at its lowest and those seeing it as wrong at its highest. Virtually every poll in the sequence since the summer of 2017 has found a majority believing that the wrong decision was made in the EU referendum of 2016.

DOCARCH

10000maniacs wrote: »

Looks like there is momentum behind No-Brexit.

That's one possible (outside) reason why TM may just get the WA past the post!

Brexiteers may soon realise that any from of Brexit (i.e the one on offer/on the table) is better than the looming/increasing risk of no Brexit at all!

demfad

Econ__ wrote: »

Yes, but I still think the chances of no deal are overplayed. I never had it had more than 5%.

There are too many unknowns. For example if we knew that both Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May would do everything in their power to deliver any Brexit including no deal what would the calculation be?
I would wager they were more likely to succeed than fail.

briany

I've seen a few Conservative politician state that there will be a last minute fudge. David Davies said that these things always go to the eleventh hour. So maybe on the 28th of March, EU & UK officials will get together and sort out the actual deal, and what we're in now is just an extended period of playacting.

....or maybe not....

Hurrache

According to the legal doc 2 different customs unions, 1 for the north, the other for the rest of the UK, with NI treating the rest of the UK as a 3rd country. So the DUP will be raging about that, not that it should be a surprise anyway.

briany

Hurrache wrote: »

So the DUP will be raging about that, not that it should be a surprise anyway.

That scene in Scanners comes to mind.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1070288151208443904

That alone would be enough to kill the WA.

VinLieger

briany wrote: »

I've seen a few Conservative politician state that there will be a last minute fudge. David Davies said that these things always go to the eleventh hour. So maybe on the 28th of March, EU & UK officials will get together and sort out the actual deal, and what we're in now is just an extended period of playacting.

....or maybe not....

Does anyone bar the hardcore brexiteer's seriously still believes DD's fantasist claims after he's been proven to be wrong or lied about literally everything since this farce began?

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1070288151208443904

That alone would be enough to kill the WA.

The DUP will go ballistic.

Hurrache

LeinsterDub wrote: »

That alone would be enough to kill the WA.

Absolutely.

seamus

DOCARCH wrote: »

That's one possible (outside) reason why TM may just get the WA past the post!

Brexiteers may soon realise that any from of Brexit (i.e the one on offer/on the table) is better than the looming/increasing risk of no Brexit at all!

If the ECJ does go with the extraordinary declaration that A50 notification can be withdrawn unilaterally, then I can definitely see Brexiteers panicking and taking a deal at almost any cost.

Because without a deal, the UK would have no good reason not to cancel Brexit beyond, "we said we wouldn't".

josip

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The DUP will go ballistic.

They'd probably already been leaked a copy which is why they voted against TM yesterday claiming she broke their agreement first.

Panrich

Para 21 puts an interesting spin on how we may pressure the EU to end the temporary backstop. How we would go about that is not clear.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/761852/05_December-_EU_Exit_Attorney_General_s_legal_advice_to_Cabinet_on_the_Withdrawal_Agreement_and_the_Protocol_on_Ireland-Northern_Ireland.pdf

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1070291061988302853

So unlike the EU which they can leave tomorrow if they wished . There is no legal way to leave the backstop which is the point. They will be in the backstop forever basically. This is a terrible deal for the UK but sure we all knew this

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1070288254430253056


And now the moronic ideas are floating again. How about a backstop that isn't a backstop!

robinph

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1070288254430253056


And now the moronic ideas are floating again. How about a backstop that isn't a backstop!

But what status are they then locked into if they don't agree on the backstop? In the event of that vote happening it would be a choice of option A being the backstop or option B the backstop.

Hermy

tuxy wrote: »

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.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

May has been driving the Brexit bus towards the cliff, preferring to stay in the drivers seat than admit it's madness and let someone else drive. But now the cliff is getting very close.
MPs have spent the last 2 years cheering and singing and fighting at the back of the bus, but now that they see the drop, they don't like the look of it.
So now some are looking for the Brexit Emergency Exit.

listermint wrote: »

The mandate is simple the brexit that was on the table is not deliverable .
What is deliverable has no mandate.
Can't make it any simpler.
There is no mandate for brexit at all costs. None. Never was

Thanks for the replies.

So they can't have the Brexit they want and they don't want the Brexit they've been offered.
What happens next?
No Brexit?

A la Monty Python I'm waiting for someone to stand up and say "Stop that. It's silly!" but I just don't think it's going to happen.

Enzokk

briany wrote: »

I've seen a few Conservative politician state that there will be a last minute fudge. David Davies said that these things always go to the eleventh hour. So maybe on the 28th of March, EU & UK officials will get together and sort out the actual deal, and what we're in now is just an extended period of playacting.

....or maybe not....

That is most definitely a thread of thought from the UK, that the EU will always get a deal at the last minute. The only problem with this is that it needs to go through the various votes and confirmations in the EU as well so they could agree a deal on the 28th March but there is no way to get it through all the EU processes that it needs to pass. The deadline is not in March but sometime soon so the time for a new deal is now.

Panrich wrote: »

Para 21 puts an interesting spin on how we may pressure the EU to end the temporary backstop. How we would go about that is not clear.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/761852/05_December-_EU_Exit_Attorney_General_s_legal_advice_to_Cabinet_on_the_Withdrawal_Agreement_and_the_Protocol_on_Ireland-Northern_Ireland.pdf

But NI will have different customs and regulations rules than the UK so I don't see how it is an advantage over us, who will be in the same customs union and single market (effectively) as us. So what benefit will they have over us?