Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

ambro25

seamus wrote: »

Ah, I disagree. Long-term it's probably a good result, even if short-term it's going to be pretty rocky. We're now closer than we've been in the last two years to a full cancellation of Brexit, and I expect the EU-27 will be so eager to never see a sh1tshow like this again that they'll move to amend A50 as soon as they can.

So long-term the UK may stay on board and the stability of the EU will be better guaranteed.

Fair comment Seamus.

I’m just very mindful of the seemingly-inexorable rise of nationalist politics across ever more of the EU27, lastly in Catalonia.

This is just about a carte blanche for Hungary, Poland, etc to play silly political buggers and sap communal strength from the EU project through still more distraction, with Putin, Bannon et al still pushing hard at the a55.

ambro25

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well there are. Firstly (as I pointed out after the AG's opinion was published) the WA must not be concluded or the two year time limit expired. And secondly, the revocation must be based on a democratic decision. So either a plebiscite or a majority vote in parliament. The latter should be sufficient given that plebiscites in the UK always require parliamentary approval.

Quid of a Parliament dominated by nationalists?

Whence my reference to a ‘democratic deficit’ (in an ideological sense rather than a literal/procedural sense)

You have to remember that this test is uniformly applicable to all EU28 MS, not just the U.K., and that constitutional requirements vary across MSes.

I’m hoping to be proven wrong about all this in due course. I was certainly proven wrong by the AG and the CJEU. But don’t kid yourself, that realpolitik wheels are not spinning into overdrive both east and west of Western Europe, on the back of this judgement.

SimonTemplar

Now with this A50 ruling, in the event of a general election, Labour could potentially make this their core election pledge - "vote us in power and we'll cancel brexit". Basically turn a GE into a 2nd ref. Corbyn may not like that but at least it gives him the best chance of being in power.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Ah, I disagree. Long-term it's probably a good result, even if short-term it's going to be pretty rocky. We're now closer than we've been in the last two years to a full cancellation of Brexit, and I expect the EU-27 will be so eager to never see a sh1tshow like this again that they'll move to amend A50 as soon as they can.

So long-term the UK may stay on board and the stability of the EU will be better guaranteed.

Can the Lisbon Treaty be updated that easily?

Water John

Lisbon can be updated by Parliaments in most countries, Ref here.

prawnsambo

ambro25 wrote: »

Quid of a Parliament dominated by nationalists?

Whence my reference to a ‘democratic deficit’ (in an ideological sense rather than a literal/procedural sense)

You have to remember that this test is uniformly applicable to all EU28 MS, not just the U.K., and that constitutional requirements vary across MSes.

I’m hoping to be proven wrong about all this in due course. I was certainly proven wrong by the AG and the CJEU. But don’t kid yourself, that realpolitik wheels are not spinning into overdrive both east and west of Western Europe, on the back of this judgement.

Well I'm just looking at this in terms of the sh1tshow going on across the water. I don't actually believe that Westminster is dominated by 'nationalists' (inverted commas, because nationalism and brexit aren't necessarily the same thing). In fact I'd be fairly confident that there is a majority in the HoC who would be in favour of remaining. JRM's failure to deliver 48 letters shows how small a rump his group are and outside the Corbynistas, a lot of Labour MPs would be of a similar outlook.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well I'm just looking at this in terms of the sh1tshow going on across the water. I don't actually believe that Westminster is dominated by 'nationalists' (inverted commas, because nationalism and brexit aren't necessarily the same thing). In fact I'd be fairly confident that there is a majority in the HoC who would be in favour of remaining. JRM's failure to deliver 48 letters shows how small a rump his group are and outside the Corbynistas, a lot of Labour MPs would be of a similar outlook.

I don't think the 48 letters is a great indicator of levels of support for various things. There are a multitude of reasons to not submit one.

Hurrache

ambro25 wrote: »

I’m just very mindful of the seemingly-inexorable rise of nationalist politics across ever more of the EU27, lastly in Catalonia.

Not sure if it's the wording, but politics in Catalonia has always been nationalistic.

robinph

ambro25 wrote: »

Fair comment Seamus.

I’m just very mindful of the seemingly-inexorable rise of nationalist politics across ever more of the EU27, lastly in Catalonia.

This is just about a carte blanche for Hungary, Poland, etc to play silly political buggers and sap communal strength from the EU project through still more distraction, with Putin, Bannon et al still pushing hard at the a55.

First order of business for the EU in April whichever way things go for the UK, assuming that A50 isn't extended, should be to add a whole lot more clarity to how the process of withdrawing from the EU should be handled so that nobody gets any ideas of screwing about for a laugh. The rulings that have been made on how article 50 is handled now will be irrelevant for the future as I'd expect that to all get ripped up and they write something new very quickly with far less room for arguing over.

ambro25

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well I'm just looking at this in terms of the sh1tshow going on across the water. I don't actually believe that Westminster is dominated by 'nationalists' (inverted commas, because nationalism and brexit aren't necessarily the same thing). In fact I'd be fairly confident that there is a majority in the HoC who would be in favour of remaining. JRM's failure to deliver 48 letters shows how small a rump his group are and outside the Corbynistas, a lot of Labour MPs would be of a similar outlook.

I agree with you insofar as the U.K. is concerned. Less so insofar as Hungary, Poland and Italy are concerned.

Don’t get me wrong: as I said, this is AGood Thing (TM) for Remain in the U.K.

I’m just not so sure, longer term and on a broader scope, that it’s such a good thing for the EU: for the notionally-withdrawing MS, that judgement takes much of the risk out of triggering Article 50, by providing a “get out of jail free” card.

A government with the relatively secure backing of a hard right and/or left majority over a given, sufficiently-long legislature (>2 years from triggering the provision) could use that.

Time will tell, as always.

ambro25

Hurrache wrote: »

Not sure if it's the wording, but politics in Catalonia has always been nationalistic.

Wording: I was on about Vox.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Can the Lisbon Treaty be updated that easily?

Water John wrote: »

Lisbon can be updated by Parliaments in most countries, Ref here.

There was a lot of misinformation at the time of the referendum that Lisbon was "self-amending" and that we were handing over the power to the EU and would never get it back again.

In some respects, the EU can make changes without requiring a referendum, mainly because it allows for amendments to be made in different ways.

In the broadest sense, amendments which increase EU competencies are basically the same as a new treaty. Amendments which don't increase EU competencies (which an A50 amendment would be), have a fast-track process.

Whether such an amendment would require a referendum would be a matter for our SC. Since it's not handing over any power to the EU, it may not.

First Up

seamus wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Can the Lisbon Treaty be updated that easily?

Water John wrote: »

Lisbon can be updated by Parliaments in most countries, Ref here.

There was a lot of misinformation at the time of the referendum that Lisbon was "self-amending" and that we were handing over the power to the EU and would never get it back again.

In some respects, the EU can make changes without requiring a referendum, mainly because it allows for amendments to be made in different ways.

In the broadest sense, amendments which increase EU competencies are basically the same as a new treaty. Amendments which don't increase EU competencies (which an A50 amendment would be), have a fast-track process.

Whether such an amendment would require a referendum would be a matter for our SC. Since it's not handing over any power to the EU, it may not.

Lisbon only needed a referendum here because it affected our consititution. Same would apply to any other EU treaty matters. The Dail can pass any legistlation that doesn't impact on the constitution.

prawnsambo

seamus wrote: »

Whether such an amendment would require a referendum would be a matter for our SC. Since it's not handing over any power to the EU, it may not.

If the amendment were to (say) require ratification of an A50 revocation, that could be interpreted as giving the EU more power. Especially since there's a court judgment that's just said that revocation is entirely in the power of the government concerned.

seamus

First Up wrote: »

Lisbon only needed a referendum here because it affected our consititution. Same would apply to any other EU treaty matters.

Sure, that's really the question though. Crotty established that any treaty which involved handing over sovereign power to another body would require a constitutional declaration, and therefore a referendum.
This meant in turn, that effectively any EU treaty to which Ireland was a signatory, would always require a referendum. Even if it was just an extension of a previous treaty, when taken as a whole it was a transfer of powers, and therefore subject to referendum.

Lisbon was really the first treaty where a mechanism was introduced where an amendment wasn't necessarily a whole brand new international treaty, requiring referendum. And thus in the case of Ireland it's up to the SC (or Council of State, I guess) to decide if the amendment is of a nature that it requires a referendum.

You might recall a small bit of kerfuffle in 2012 about the ESM - European Stability Mechanism - which the anti-austerity crowd claimed was going to plunge everyone into poverty. This was a Lisbon amendment that was approved without referendum.

10000maniacs

Sam Russell wrote: »

The future for Guinness looks black I'm afraid.

All Guinness is now brewed in Dublin (except for Nigerian Guinness, and possibly other small breweries), so there will be no shortage in the foreseeable future.

The nitrogen used for draught Guinness might be a problem, but no doubt there will be a solution.

They have their own Adsorption nitrogen generator.

Shelga

Rather than put other counties off leaving, couldn’t right-wing media in those countries spin this as the UK not being “allowed” to leave, and use it to stir up further resentment of the EU?

First Up

seamus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Lisbon only needed a referendum here because it affected our consititution. Same would apply to any other EU treaty matters.

Sure, that's really the question though. Crotty established that any treaty which involved handing over sovereign power to another body would require a constitutional declaration, and therefore a referendum.
This meant in turn, that effectively any EU treaty to which Ireland was a signatory, would always require a referendum. Even if it was just an extension of a previous treaty, when taken as a whole it was a transfer of powers, and therefore subject to referendum.

Lisbon was really the first treaty where a mechanism was introduced where an amendment wasn't necessarily a whole brand new international treaty, requiring referendum. And thus in the case of Ireland it's up to the SC (or Council of State, I guess) to decide if the amendment is of a nature that it requires a referendum.

You might recall a small bit of kerfuffle in 2012 about the ESM - European Stability Mechanism - which the anti-austerity crowd claimed was going to plunge everyone into poverty. This was a Lisbon amendment that was approved without referendum.

Its a case by case issue. The AG advises the government on the constitutional implications of any proposed legislation, not just EU related.

the SC would only get involved if that decision was challenged.

robinph

Shelga wrote: »

Rather than put other counties off leaving, couldn’t right-wing media in those countries spin this as the UK not being “allowed” to leave, and use it to stir up further resentment of the EU?

It would take some serious spinning to make a ruling that you can say you are going to leave, or not, entirely up to you at any point over 2 years be translated into not being allowed to leave.

VinLieger

robinph wrote: »

It would take some serious spinning to make a ruling that you can say you are going to leave, or not, entirely up to you at any point over 2 years be translated into not being allowed to leave.

Haven't they done this already countless times by claiming they are being punished for leaving as they won't keep all the benefits of membership? Enough idiots swallow that illogical garbage to keep the express and mail in business.

LeinsterDub

May has called an emergency conference call with the cabinet. Unknown why just yet.

McGiver

LeinsterDub wrote: »

May has called an emergency conference call with the cabinet. Unknown why just yet.

Brexit is cancelled! :cool:
EDIT: Or they are going to declare war.

Hurrache

VinLieger wrote: »

Haven't they done this already countless times by claiming they are being punished for leaving as they won't keep all the benefits of membership? Enough idiots swallow that illogical garbage to keep the express and mail in business.

The knowledge level around the whole EU/Brexit is still absurdly low. Sky News have a regular panel type thing at various locations around the UK and a guy this morning, local business owner, when asked what he think should happen if May's deal is voted down said that the only option is to go back to the EU and get a better deal.

The emergency cabinet conference call is suspected to be due to a move to delay the vote.

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

May has called an emergency conference call with the cabinet. Unknown why just yet.

Could be endgame time: Her deal or No Brexit. The Brits officially have an out to this fiasco they know for all the bluster No Deal is a suicide option and not workable in any sense. They have no hope of the WA passing the HoC right now. The WA gets then out but theres strings attached as they cannot evade their obligations. It also makes them give up control.

The only option they have if they cannot accept the WA is to abandon Brexit and/or have another referendum. Its quite honestly the only way out of this mess.

VinLieger

Hurrache wrote: »

The knowledge level around the whole EU/Brexit is still absurdly low. Sky News have a regular panel type thing at various locations around the UK and a guy this morning, local business owner, when asked what he think should happen if May's deal is voted down said that the only option is to go back to the EU and get a better deal.

The emergency cabinet conference call is suspected to be due to a move to delay the vote.

Unsurprising really considering in the poll last week on Mays deal that was the most popular response and the only one to achieve above 50%

McGiver

Hurrache wrote: »

The knowledge level around the whole EU/Brexit is still absurdly low. Sky News have a regular panel type thing at various locations around the UK and a guy this morning, local business owner, when asked what he think should happen if May's deal is voted down said that the only option is to go back to the EU and get a better deal.

The emergency cabinet conference call is suspected to be due to a move to delay the vote.

Speaking of which - the latest YouGov poll - 43% people think that No Deal disruption is a "Project Fear" and exaggerated.

„They that will not be counseled, cannot be helped.“ - Benjamin Franklin

robinph

If the options for tomorrow become the deal or no brexit, does that give the deal more chance of getting through now though?

When it was the deal or "something else we've not yet figured out" then people from both sides could vote for the ??? option and claim that was the one that best fitted their aims. Are the Brexiteers really going to vote for the no brexit option just because they don't like May's deal?

The EU could have just handed May the way of getting the deal agreed upon as the brexiteers hate the deal, but they hate no brexit more.

Professor Moriarty

It's quite possible that Ireland will come under severe pressure to change the backstop. Apart from the implicit and explicit nasty threats to our economy emanating from Tory politicians as they try to ditch the backstop, it also is in the EU's economic interest to ensure that there isn't a hard Brexit. If the only impediment to the deal going through is the backstop, then I expect much communication between Dublin, London and Brussels as to how this might be fudged.

Hurrache

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's quite possible that Ireland will come under severe pressure to change the backstop.

It's the EU's backstop, not Ireland's. And pressure from who?

Mc Love

Vote is going ahead as planned tomorrow. No idea what the conference call was for.