Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey:

http://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1100013802408554496

Note how he implies that she is irrational.

reslfj

reslfj wrote: »

storker wrote: »

On a personal level I really hope not. Another two years of this pantomime will do my head in.

The Brexit discussions has not started for real yet. The TM deal is only the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) - the 'easy' part.

The trade and future relation negotiation hasn't started yet. Only some listing of general point to be negotiated has been put on paper in the no binding Political Declaration (PD).

You will hear about Brexit negotiation for the next 5-10 years to come.

Revoke A50 and Brexit will be over - not immediately but far sooner.

Lars

Sorry, had to repeat my earlier post.

Lars

ancapailldorcha

storker wrote: »

On a personal level I really hope not. Another two years of this pantomime will do my head in. There's a part of me thinking let them have their damned Brexit good and hard and let everyone else get on with adjusting to it. Such thoughts are of course tempered by the fact that Ireland, adjusting to it could be quite painful.

There seems to be no discussion in the mainstream media about what happens on the morning of the 30th March. None whatsoever.

How many statutory instruments, laws and regulations still need to be implemented by Parliament?

I just don't see how the UK can actually leave this time next month. There's just so much to do and so little has been done save for rehashing the referendum debates over and over and over again.

briany

I can't say for definite what would happen if the UK decided to cancel Brexit, but it seems like it would be great fodder for the ERG and Farage's new Brexit party. To the extent that I'd say it's exactly what Farage is hoping for, secretly.

So one scenario could be that Brexit is cancelled and then either UKIP or the Brexit party win a share of 20-30 seats in the next UK GE. And if you get a hung parliament on top of that, a coalition becomes a necessity and then Brexit is back on the agenda with a vengeance.

Few ifs in there, I know, but the political fallout of such decisions needs to be carefully examined. Something the UK has been frightfully bad at in recent years.

Cryptopagan

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Note how he implies that she is irrational.

No he doesn’t. He said it would be a rational choice, not the rational choice, so he’s allowing for other rational courses of action. For all we know, he might think she’s irrational, but he isn’t implying so here. The EU side can be blunt, but they’re not going to be insulting.

lawred2

farmchoice wrote: »

i think any extension is the beginning of the end for brexit. once the uk step away from the cliff edge and take time to think then the air will go out the whole thing.
the ERG know this and will do anything to avoid it, thats why they might go for the WA deal if thats the choice.

her previous ploy of WA or no deal hasn't worked so now it might be WA or extension( no brexit).

Yeah I think Brexit fatigue will move from 'just get on with it' to 'just forget about it'

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There seems to be no discussion in the mainstream media about what happens on the morning of the 30th March. None whatsoever.

A no deal Brexit's a bit like flying into a black hole. It's an unprecedented feat, but experts have an idea of what'd happen and the consensus is that it's not good.



As far as needing to pass various laws in the wake of Brexit, I wonder if this process would be impeded by the even more adversarial nature that politics in the HoC has taken on in recent times?

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There seems to be no discussion in the mainstream media about what happens on the morning of the 30th March. None whatsoever.

How many statutory instruments, laws and regulations still need to be implemented by Parliament?

I just don't see how the UK can actually leave this time next month. There's just so much to do and so little has been done save for rehashing the referendum debates over and over and over again.

Leaving on the 29th of March must be technically impossible at this stage as you say, simply not enough time to pass the required legislation. Even a majority government would struggle. Even for Ireland it'll be close run to get our omnibus bill passed into law and that's with opposition support!

An extension is impossible to avoid at this stage. The EU might be correct in "parking" it for 2 years. It's infuriating but perhaps they see the tide turning ever so slowly against Brexit and rather than forcing the UK to jump off the cliff or "surrender", the EU could just let it "fizzle out".

A 2 year extension would bring us to 2021, 5 years since the original referendum, as long as parliaments normally run and nobody would consider it invalid to have a general election at least every 5 years, so why not another referendum at that time?

In the meantime, the UK economy will bleed out due to massive uncertainty. Every week will see job losses reported.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There seems to be no discussion in the mainstream media about what happens on the morning of the 30th March. None whatsoever.

How many statutory instruments, laws and regulations still need to be implemented by Parliament?

I just don't see how the UK can actually leave this time next month. There's just so much to do and so little has been done save for rehashing the referendum debates over and over and over again.

Everyone actually knows that the 29th is no longer deliverable, just like they realise that No Deal isn't really an option, but they need to continue on with the charade as to do otherwise would expose the total lack of a plan that is in place for Brexit.

So far easier to simply keep insisting that nothing has changed, that everything is still up for grabs, that the promised 11th hour reprieve is just around the corner.

They paint it as a means to pressure the EU, but in reality it is a way to avoid having to answer questions themselves. Even if someone does ask how it will be done by 29th, they simply revert to 'working hard, planning for all eventualities, now is not the time to veer of course' etc etc.

But as has been apparent throughout the process, the EU seem to be far more up to speed on UK politics and UK reality than the UK do, and certainly far more than the UK understand of the EU.

LuckyLloyd

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There seems to be no discussion in the mainstream media about what happens on the morning of the 30th March. None whatsoever.

How many statutory instruments, laws and regulations still need to be implemented by Parliament?

I just don't see how the UK can actually leave this time next month. There's just so much to do and so little has been done save for rehashing the referendum debates over and over and over again.

While the EU have already published its temporary unilateral measures in the eventuality of a disorderly exit. The UK is patently unprepared, and given parliament is theoretically opposed to No Deal there is no guarantee they would facilitate rafts of last minute legislation hurriedly submitted to give the necessary extraordinary powers that might be required.

briany wrote: »

I can't say for definite what would happen if the UK decided to cancel Brexit, but it seems like it would be great fodder for the ERG and Farage's new Brexit party. To the extent that I'd say it's exactly what Farage is hoping for, secretly.

So one scenario could be that Brexit is cancelled and then either UKIP or the Brexit party win a share of 20-30 seats in the next UK GE. And if you get a hung parliament on top of that, a coalition becomes a necessity and then Brexit is back on the agenda with a vengeance.

Few ifs in there, I know, but the political fallout of such decisions needs to be carefully examined. Something the UK has been frightfully bad at in recent years.

That's okay though, because it gives the EU years more to prepare and the entire period involves a further weakening of the UK.

Professor Moriarty

Cryptopagan wrote: »

No he doesn’t. He said it would be a rational choice, not the rational choice, so he’s allowing for other rational courses of action. For all we know, he might think she’s irrational, but he isn’t implying so here. The EU side can be blunt, but they’re not going to be insulting.

Well, it's not important in the greater scheme of things. However, this is what he said:

"An extension would be a rational decision but Theresa May believes she can avoid this scenario."

The logical conclusion is that May's course of action is irrational because she is not making
what Tusk believes to be a rational decision. You could read it either way.

EKRIUQ

The EU giving a 2 year extension would bring us to 2021, isn't this exactly what the Brexiteers will take as the EU backing down at the last minute as they have always predicted. What makes the EU so certain that things are going to be different in 2 years when they look at what they accomplished in the last 2 years. From a Brexitors point of view it's a bit of a success as they get 2 more years to plot.

Professor Moriarty

EKRIUQ wrote: »

The EU giving a 2 year extension would bring us to 2021, isn't this exactly what the Brexiteers will take as the EU backing down at the last minute as they have always predicted. What makes the EU so certain that things are going to be different in 2 years when they look at what they accomplished in the last 2 years. From a Brexitors point of view it's a bit of a success as they get 2 more years to plot.

Except that polling shows a steady increase in the Remain vote.

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

While the EU have already published its temporary unilateral measures in the eventuality of a disorderly exit. The UK is patently unprepared, and given parliament is theoretically opposed to No Deal there is no guarantee they would facilitate rafts of last minute legislation hurriedly submitted to give the necessary extraordinary powers that might be required.

This is my point though. We never moved past the 23rd June 2016. What happens to EU migrants. If I book a holiday, will I be allowed back in? What happens to pensions?

I just don't think it's feasible and most MP's, even on the Tory side know this. Surely, someone will have the courage to realise that cancelling the whole mess is the only way to avert disaster.

Leroy42

EKRIUQ wrote: »

The EU giving a 2 year extension would bring us to 2021, isn't this exactly what the Brexiteers will take as the EU backing down at the last minute as they have always predicted. What makes the EU so certain that things are going to be different in 2 years when they look at what they accomplished in the last 2 years. From a Brexitors point of view it's a bit of a success as they get 2 more years to plot.

It would be a 2 year extension of UK membership of the EU, with all the rules, regulations, trade agreements and financial implications that that entails. FoM would also remain for that period ,as they all currently do at the present time.

From an EU POV, it keep the UK from actually leaving, gives the negotiations more time away from a time pressure and would, hopefully, give the UK time to sort itself out and revoke A50.

But if it didn't, all it would do is postpone B day by 2 years, which although not achieving much, means that the hit to the EU economy is postponed, which may give it time to sort out Italy and hopefully (there is that word again) have France and Germany back to growth.

Whilst I have no doubt it would be sold as a major concession by the EU in the UK, in effect it would be a massive climbdown by the UK. I doubt either side would be rushing to paint it as such though.

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There seems to be no discussion in the mainstream media about what happens on the morning of the 30th March. None whatsoever.

How many statutory instruments, laws and regulations still need to be implemented by Parliament?

I just don't see how the UK can actually leave this time next month. There's just so much to do and so little has been done save for rehashing the referendum debates over and over and over again.

I found this excellent tracker for seeing how far along they are, they need to pass between 800-1000 SI's. That site seems to only track how many have been laid before parliament which is about 450 so they are only halfway done in that regard.

The best count i could get of how many have been passed is this BBC article for Feb 12th saying at the end of January only about 100 had been passed by the HOC.

Including today the HOC only has 20 normal working days left so its not looking likely they will get this anywhere near completed.

Hurrache

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I caught the end of Sammy Wilson on Sean O Rourke and I don't think he was his usual wild combative insulting self.

Only half listening but I think he was also on News at 1 and I thought the bombast was gone and was more concillary.

VinLieger

Hurrache wrote: »

Only have listening but I think he was also on News at 1 and I thought the bombast was gone and was more concillary.

Interesting, I wonder if hes had his leash tightened by someone

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

It would be a 2 year extension of UK membership of the EU, with all the rules, regulations, trade agreements and financial implications that that entails. FoM would also remain for that period ,as they all currently do at the present time.

From an EU POV, it keep the UK from actually leaving, gives the negotiations more time away from a time pressure and would, hopefully, give the UK time to sort itself out and revoke A50.

But if it didn't, all it would do is postpone B day by 2 years, which although not achieving much, means that the hit to the EU economy is postponed, which may give it time to sort out Italy and hopefully (there is that word again) have France and Germany back to growth.

Whilst I have no doubt it would be sold as a major concession by the EU in the UK, in effect it would be a massive climbdown by the UK. I doubt either side would be rushing to paint it as such though.

The problem for Britain is that the damage is done. A two year extension doesn't mean that investment will flow back in. Nor does it mean that countries such as Ireland will stop looking for other countries to trade with thus minimising future exposure to Tory eurosceptism. They have already irrevocably shot their economy in both feet.

VinLieger

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The problem for Britain is that the damage is done. A two year extension doesn't mean that investment will flow back in. Nor does it mean that countries such as Ireland will stop looking for other countries to trade with thus minimising future exposure to Tory eurosceptism. They have already irrevocably shot their economy in both feet.

Exactly much like Trumps trade war Brexit is a push incentive, to get all they have lost already and will continue to lose back they need a pull incentive and they will be hard pressed to find one big enough to fix their problems once outside of the EU SM.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The problem for Britain is that the damage is done. A two year extension doesn't mean that investment will flow back in. Nor does it mean that countries such as Ireland will stop looking for other countries to trade with thus minimising future exposure to Tory eurosceptism. They have already irrevocably shot their economy in both feet.

True but irrelevant as to how to move forward. They cannot undue what has already happened. The only options are what to do next. The line seems to being pushed much harder the last 24 hours that an extension is in the offing.

May has been adamant that no delay will occur and suddenly the EU has come out with a weird 2 year delay. My thinking is that if a delay occurs it will be longer than the few weeks previously talked about in the UK, but shorter than the two years. Thus TM can claim she banged the table and wouldn't agree to 2 years and threatened to walk out before the EU agree to 18 months and everyone is a winner.

murphaph

EKRIUQ wrote: »

The EU giving a 2 year extension would bring us to 2021, isn't this exactly what the Brexiteers will take as the EU backing down at the last minute as they have always predicted. What makes the EU so certain that things are going to be different in 2 years when they look at what they accomplished in the last 2 years. From a Brexitors point of view it's a bit of a success as they get 2 more years to plot.

The UK economy will continue hemorrhaging jobs during this period. Companies have been hanging on, holding off investment. Many (like Honda, despite what they say in public) will have to make cyclical investment decisions during this time and the decisions will not be made in the favour of a UK that may or may not be an EU member state in a few months.

I am pretty Brexit weary myself though. 2 more years of this...urrrghh.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

murphaph wrote: »

The UK economy will continue hemorrhaging jobs during this period. Companies have been hanging on, holding off investment. Many (like Honda, despite what they say in public) will have to make cyclical investment decisions during this time and the decisions will not be made in the favour of a UK that may or may not be an EU member state in a few months.

I am pretty Brexit weary myself though. 2 more years of this...urrrghh.

Maybe 2 years is enough time for the people of the UK to see what is true?

road_high

The delay is inevitable as no one can bare a crash out least of all the uk itself. But the rabid masses that are brexiters will go bananas I reckon.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

True but irrelevant as to how to move forward. They cannot undue what has already happened. The only options are what to do next. The line seems to being pushed much harder the last 24 hours that an extension is in the offing.

May has been adamant that no delay will occur and suddenly the EU has come out with a weird 2 year delay. My thinking is that if a delay occurs it will be longer than the few weeks previously talked about in the UK, but shorter than the two years. Thus TM can claim she banged the table and wouldn't agree to 2 years and threatened to walk out before the EU agree to 18 months and everyone is a winner.

If they, miraculously, ditched the internal political manoeuvring and focused on what is best for Britain's economy, then they could decide that the referendum was only advisory and the Leave campaign was a tissue of lies. Having realised the truth they could very quickly decide to enthusiastically remain. That might reverse the outward flow of investment and trade - or stem it anyway. Unicorn stuff considering Britain's press, electoral system and jingoism, but it's an option nonetheless.

intellectual dosser

VinLieger wrote: »

Interesting, I wonder if hes had his leash tightened by someone

There's a tabloid article sourcing a former DUP MLA saying that Sammy came close to dividing the DUP in two at the time of the Irish Language Act in 2017. Foster was close to agreeing on a deal and he was having none of it, he got his way with AF having to back down.

If there's truth in it and its emerging now, maybe not the best time to be so bullish on the airwaves, would be unsettling for the DUP, who's really in charge etc.

Laois_Man

briany wrote: »

I can't say for definite what would happen if the UK decided to cancel Brexit, but it seems like it would be great fodder for the ERG and Farage's new Brexit party. To the extent that I'd say it's exactly what Farage is hoping for, secretly.

You can go back over my posts over several months - this is exactly what I have been saying. Regarding Farage, if Brexit comes to pass and in two years from now the trade deal is all done and dusted, where is his career from that point on?

EKRIUQ wrote: »

What makes the EU so certain that things are going to be different in 2 years

Things will be a darn sight easier, for the issue of the Backstop at least, after the DUP are removed from the equation. Hope for a British General Election within 2 years, the DUP are probably gone, May (if it is her in # 10) will have a hard border in the Irish sea quicker than you can say back stop - no doubt about it. Problem is, it still might not pass in HoC - they'll find something else to be enraged about!

Junkyard Tom

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They have already irrevocably shot their economy in both feet.

Great Britain is a damaged brand. A bit more Johnny English and a little less James Bond these days.

Strazdas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Great Britain is a damaged brand. A bit more Johnny English and a little less James Bond these days.

Damaged by their own population incredibly. Normally you'd expect a renegade government to be the culprits but you have half the population happy to send out the message that they are xenophobes, isolationists and the country is closed for business.

Inquitus

So May is buying off Cooper with a promise of a delay if her deal is not passed by 12th Mar, more can kicking and clinging to power and the Tory party not imploding.

This effectively amounts to Downing Street accepting the Simon Hart amendment. (See 9.12am.)

Why would Number 10 agree to this, when May clearly believes that extending article 50 on its own would not solve her Brexit dilemma? (See 1.57pm.) Well, because if she did not, there would be a very strong chance of MPs passing the Yvette Cooper amendment on Wednesday. And if government ministers voted for it, as many have suggested they would, May would either have to sack them en masse, or accept that she had lost control of her government.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/feb/25/brexit-latest-news-developments-theresa-may-increasingly-likely-to-accept-article-50-extension-minister-suggests-politics-live

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1100033756088487937