Brexit Discussion Thread VI

CelticRambler

Tell me how wrote: »

should Corbyn get in, revoke it, implement it a day later, is the clock set on 2 more years?

Who knows? :rolleyes:

But it would be a foolish move on the part of any newly-elected leader/prime minister when they didn't have to start the clock. There's no point in pissing off the EU at the very start of your tenure when everyone can see all the cards on the table and no-one (on the UK side) has a winning hand. A clever leader would do what TM should have done - set up a cross party commission to come up with a realistic plan, and not even think about triggering Art.50 again until such a plan had been signed off by a majority of MPs.

Then again, clever leadership has not been much in evidence in the HoC in recent years.

Akrasia

Tell me how wrote: »

If they have a GE, they will effectively look to restart the process by blaming May for everything that has happened up to now.

They will revoke Article 50 and implement it once again which is something I don't think the EU can prevent (am I incorrect here??) even though it will pi** them off to the nth degree.

Can the EU can refuse to accept the revocation of A50 and tell them ye are going on the 29th of March with no deal?

The EU can't prevent them from withdrawing A50, but if the UK try to re-submit it again within the medium term, they'll have to justify it to the ECJ that the withdrawal of A50 was done in good faith and not just a delaying tactic.

The 24 month negotiation period does not have to begin again from day 1. The EU could offer a much reduced negotiation period given that a withdrawal agreement has already been agreed and no progress can be made on that unless the UK significantly shift on their 'red lines'

Akrasia

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Up until today, I was definitely of the opinion that we should only extend for a referendum. Problem is that such a hard line will almost certainly result in no-deal Brexit at this stage.

I don't see the UK has much choice other than GE if they won't hold a second referendum; however, I certainly wouldn't agree to further extension... a new government would need to be told that this is the deal.


Technically they can, but I think this would seriously backfire on the UK.

They can revoke A50 and then commit to holding another referendum within x period of time. This would be the most politically pragmatic solution imo. They're not turning their back on the leave voters, just acknowledging that they've run out of time to achieve a workable brexit and need to pull back and reconsider their options.

It would allow them some breathing space to cool down and decide what the wording of a referendum should be, maybe have some citizens assembly style consultation process, agree what the best kind of brexit should be, and then bring that to the people in the form of a referendum.

FreudianSlippers

Tell me how wrote: »

That's true. Forgot their ruling from December.

So, should Corbyn get in, revoke it, implement it a day later, is the clock set on 2 more years?

There's nothing in Article 218(3) TFEU that says, necessarily, that the Commission has to re-negotiate, they could simply say "this is the deal" and then sit there for expiry of 2 years pursuant to Articlve 50(3) TEU.

Remember the 2-year period is the crash-out regardless of a deal, nothing in Art 50(2) says anyone has to negotiate for 2 years,

FreudianSlippers

Akrasia wrote: »

The only way to avoid this is not to 'agree a deal' if the reason they haven't agreed a deal yet is that the only deal that is on offer is not supported by anyone
The best way to avoid a crash out scenario, is to turn the default from crashing out of the EU, to remaining in the EU.

This can be done by a Private members bill that says 'If there is no withdrawal agreement passed by 28th of March 2019, A50 will be automatically withdrawn on 29th of March"

And in order to be acceptable to the EU, this would need to be withdrawn in good faith, so it can't be simply re-submitted on a whim a few weeks later, A50 and can only be re-submitted following another vote by parliament, or preferably, via another referendum.

The brexiteers can whinge all they like, but they've had 3 years to figure out how to leave the EU without destroying the economy and they haven't got within an asses roar of negotiating a satisfactory deal with the EU, so they should 'walk away' from the negotiations by cancelling brexit.

As much is obvious, but there has been zero indication to date that any MPs are willing to make moves against the results of the referendum, so I don't see how such a bill would be possible to pass without (i) GE or (ii) referendum.

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

It's not that far fetched as the Polish statement came out just shortly after a Tory MP tweeted that they had called upon their Polish friends in support for movement on the backstop.

Somewhat hilarious that he's asking for the Poles to help (despite his ancestory), a nation of people they have issue with when it comes to immigration.

More on this today.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1087697415396823040

He's the same eejit who made an absolute show of himself when he tried to make a point of EU tariffs increasing prices of fruit and veg which will no longer be a problem come March.
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2018/09/25/tory-mp-owned-almost-worth-price-brexit/

kowtow

Akrasia wrote: »

They can revoke A50 and then commit to holding another referendum within x period of time. This would be the most politically pragmatic solution imo. They're not turning their back on the leave voters, just acknowledging that they've run out of time to achieve a workable brexit and need to pull back and reconsider their options.

It would allow them some breathing space to cool down and decide what the wording of a referendum should be, maybe have some citizens assembly style consultation process, agree what the best kind of brexit should be, and then bring that to the people in the form of a referendum.

Given the words of the judges surrounding the revocation judgement, I'm not sure that such a revocation would amount to an act in good faith? It might well have the effect of halting Brexit temporarily but a suspension pending a referendum is, I think, a question of agreement with the EU 27 under Article 50.

I could well be wrong.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

And therein is the problem. No one knows what deal will evolve between the UK and EU. You state it like you know what the outcome of the next two years negotiations will be. Will we vote again then if you are wrong

What??? If there's no deal on a WA before March 29th there are then no 2 years of negotiations on a FTA you will be out of the EU wholely and completely...... please tell me you understand this.

Also a FTA will not take 2 years it will be a lot longer

J Mysterio

Hurrache wrote: »

According to the Indo government sources believe the Polish foreign minister coming out with his statement was a set up between themselves and the UK. It's not that far fetched as the Polish statement came out just shortly after a Tory MP tweeted that they had called upon their Polish friends in support for movement on the backstop.

This is quite obvious I would have thought.

LuckyLloyd

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Commission has finally come out and started the obvious openly, no deal means a hard border.

Although I understand the Irish government strategy on this aided and abetted by the media not pushing this question - some clarity on no deal might sharpen some DUP focus on the real issues.

Once again, as a reminder:

there is a clear distinction between:

- a Hard Border that occurs by default as a result of the UK crashing out with No deal (or ripping up some deal they did agree to)
- a Hard Border that occurs with our (Ireland / the EU) assent throughout the negotiating process

There has been some noise in this thread (Bit Cynical would be a chief proponent of this thinking for some time) that Ireland should remove its demands for a Backstop if the outcome of No Deal is a hard border anyway, and I fully expect such calls to become louder over the coming months.

This may be nuanced and somewhat counter - intuitive, but Ireland's objective is not simply to avoid a Hard Border. It's to avoid agreeing to or facilitating a hardening of the current border arrangements.

The long game in a crash out scenario is the UK returning to the negotiating table with the EU substantially weakened in short order. So we shouldn't baulk under the coming pressure on the topic. It sounds so perniciously logical: why hold firm to a deal breaking back stop when No Deal creates the very situation you wish to insure against?

Thankfully the EU will realise that limiting or removing the backstop is unlikely to get the deal through anyway. The likes of Davis or JRM would take it as proof they were right all along on the EU being ready to buckle and press for more. In this way the margin of defeat helped the Irish position as it was so large as to remove a softening of position on any one thing as a clear path to resolution. But despite that there will still be cries that the Irish position needs to moderate anyway, and Varadkar and Coveney will be tested on the topic.

Akrasia

kowtow wrote: »

Given the words of the judges surrounding the revocation judgement, I'm not sure that such a revocation would amount to an act in good faith? It might well have the effect of halting Brexit temporarily but a suspension pending a referendum is, I think, a question of agreement with the EU 27 under Article 50.

I could well be wrong.

Such a revocation would be ok i think given that the EU have already said theyd be happy to allow an A50 extension for the purpose of holding a GE or referendum.

Strazdas

Hurrache wrote: »

According to the Indo government sources believe the Polish foreign minister coming out with his statement was a set up between themselves and the UK. It's not that far fetched as the Polish statement came out just shortly after a Tory MP tweeted that they had called upon their Polish friends in support for movement on the backstop.

I was reading a tweet from a European politics professor yesterday (German I think) and he said he smelt a rat the moment he heard the Polish FM's comments.....he suspected he was up to mischief and trying to help out the hard Brexiteers.

Hurrache

On top of the news today that Sony is moving business out of the UK and into Holland, P&O have announced they're reflagging all their UK fleet to Cyprus ahead of Brexit.

And Daniel Kawczynski keeps digging his hole deeper.
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456?s=19

Akrasia

Hurrache wrote: »

On top of the news today that Sony is moving business out of the UK and into Holland, P&O have announced they're reflagging all their UK fleet to Cyprus ahead of Brexit.

And Daniel Kawczynski keeps digging his hole deeper.
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456?s=19

Great job there Daniel. Taking back control by asking a foreign government to veto a possible request by the UK government.

Genius move there

Dyr

Hurrache wrote: »

On top of the news today that Sony is moving business out of the UK and into Holland, P&O have announced they're reflagging all their UK fleet to Cyprus ahead of Brexit.

And Daniel Kawczynski keeps digging his hole deeper.
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456?s=19

You'd wonder how much longer a Polish govt. is going to allow an English MP to dictate foreign policy to them :pac:

Leroy42

Akrasia wrote: »

Great job there Daniel. Taking back control by asking a foreign government to veto a possible request by the UK government.

Genius move there

Exactly, returned sovereignty to the HoC, so that they can ignore the HoC and get the Polish to make the law instead.

Does an extension to A50 require unanimity?

lawred2

Akrasia wrote: »

Great job there Daniel. Taking back control by asking a foreign government to veto a possible request by the UK government.

Genius move there

You'd have to wonder about this lad's intelligence levels... So he publicly announces that he wants a foreign government to veto a democratic determination of the Parliament of which he's a member..

I don't think he's quite the full schilling

Hurrache

Bambi wrote: »

You'd wonder how much longer a Polish govt. is going to allow an English MP to dictate foreign policy to them :pac:

As right wing as they are, it may backfire as Poland will not want to be seen as a country that takes instructions from the UK.

Apparently he stands to make a lot of money out of Brexit, pretty dodgy character according to the Private Eye.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly, returned sovereignty to the HoC, so that they can ignore the HoC and get the Polish to make the law instead.

Does an extension to A50 require unanimity?

No, it's by qualified majority.

Edit: No, I'm wrong on that. Has to be unainmous.

Leroy42

prawnsambo wrote: »

No, it's by qualified majority.

So then, regardless of the whole 'taking back control' by putting Poland in charge, Poland haven't even got the power to stop it anyway as there is no veto?

Is that right?

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

No, it's by qualified majority.

Edit: No, I'm wrong on that. Has to be unainmous.

I can't see Poland vetoing a request from Britain to extend Article 50. Germany and France, among others, would go ballistic as it would threaten EU cohesion and, by extension, the very existence of the EU. An uninformed brainfart by a foreign minister and a tweet from a Brexiteer backbencher don't constitute a realistic threat.

CrabRevolution

Brexit just seems to keep unveiling levels of bizarredom that I never knew existed. The idea of British people who value "taking back control" over all also celebrating that a foreign government can overrule a request the British House of Commons makes is just absurd, but nothing in Brexit seems absurd anymore.

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

No, it's by qualified majority.

Edit: No, I'm wrong on that. Has to be unainmous.

I can't see Poland vetoing a request from Britain to extend Article 50. Germany and France, among others, would go ballistic as it would threaten EU cohesion and, by extension, the very existence of the EU. An uninformed brainfart by a foreign minister and a tweet from a Brexiteer backbencher don't constitute a realistic threat.

Why would it threaten anything? As is the French seem set to veto it as well.
I guess Macron is open to a good plan but if Article 50 is not extended then it is no deal. Annoying but not lethal to the EU and destructive to the UK. Plus the good plan seems unlikely.

I could see the Eastern European countries just wanting this settled one way or another and a few going for the veto. It is their right as EU members even if the UK would suffer greatly from it.

Hurrache

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would it threaten anything? As is the French seem set to veto it as well.
I guess Macron is open to a good plan but if Article 50 is not extended then it is no deal. Annoying but not lethal to the EU and destructive to the UK. Plus the good plan seems unlikely.

I could see the Eastern European countries just wanting this settled one way or another and a few going for the veto. It is their right as EU members even if the UK would suffer greatly from it.

There's a difference in vetoing out of self interest or the EUs interest, it's altogether a different prospect doing it at the request of someone in the UK.

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would it threaten anything? As is the French seem set to veto it as well.
I guess Macron is open to a good plan but if Article 50 is not extended then it is no deal. Annoying but not lethal to the EU and destructive to the UK. Plus the good plan seems unlikely.

I could see the Eastern European countries just wanting this settled one way or another and a few going for the veto. It is their right as EU members even if the UK would suffer greatly from it.

The only way that the EU will agree to an extension is if the UK come up with a credible plan where there is a likelihood of a soft Brexit or possibly a second referendum. Macron won't veto under those circumstances and I can't see any Eastern European countries vetoing it either. It simply wouldn't be in their interest. As I said, the blowback if, say, Poland vetoed an extension request would be very severe.

Borderhopper

VAT and tax investigator staff in Derry have been pulled from regular duties for 10 weeks compulsory customs "training".

Borderhopper

Northern Ireland Civil Service staff have been asked to "volunteer" to man fuel depots in the event of fuel shortages

Russman

I think it might have been mentioned earlier (waaay earlier !!) in this thread by someone, but if its a no-deal crash out and we need to put up a border, would it be feasible for our planning process, tender & design processes and overall bureaucracy to be slow enough that by the time we got to actually build and open border posts, the UK would be on its knees and looking for a deal ? First item on the agenda obviously would be the border issue.

Quin_Dub

Borderhopper wrote: »

VAT and tax investigator staff in Derry have been pulled from regular duties for 10 weeks compulsory customs "training".

Borderhopper wrote: »

Northern Ireland Civil Service staff have been asked to "volunteer" to man fuel depots in the event of fuel shortages

##Mod Note##

Borderhopper - You're going to have to make some reference to a news report or something around these updates..

(potentially) Random hearsay is not really up to standard for this forum..

Thanks

Borderhopper

Apologies mod.

Not something available on news for obvious reasons. But I've both spoken to staff concerned and seen the emails regarding both issues.

It's not hearsay, but people value their jobs whilst being concerned at the pressure put on them to enforce a hard border.

Another thing to note. Do not underestimate the potential for violence. Nationalists were told a united ireland wasn't a necessity because of FOM. The potential loss of this has angered and scared people, especially with the quite frankly unseemly crowing from the DUP about a lost vote. 1968/9 may be acknowledged as the start of the troubles, but pressure built up over years. There are a lot of young people (adults who weren't even. One in 1998!) who have a romantic notion of the troubles. As history shows, it doesn't take everyone to tip things into violence. Just enough will do it.