Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

farmchoice

jaykay74 wrote: »

If she pulled the vote then surely there would be a few Cons that would support a Lab motion of no confidence ?

it would be an outrageous thing to do but these are strange times.
parliament are about to reject the PM overwhelmingly, again, then they are going to have a vote on rejecting ''no deal'' which will pass except this is not really possible as they cant stop it, then they will vote for an extension that is not in their remit to give.

GM228

Cox's legal opinion in full.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/785188/190312_-_Legal_Opinion_on_Joint_Instrument_and_Unilateral_Declaration_co..___2_.pdf

Single most important paragraph:

However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.

Hurrache

Enzokk wrote: »

The new question now is will May survive the week? She has astounded me in being able to come back from the brink many times before but surely now this has to be it for her if she loses the vote tonight. She has said she will go and get changes and herself voted for it, then comes back with the same deal and tries to sell it as new and expects it to pass and keep her job if it doesn't?

Can't see her staying given cabinet members over the weekend murmured she may have to go soon.

woejus

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

He’s eyeing Number 10 I suspect

"He who wields the knife can never be king"

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Where does Cox fall on the Leave/Remain/Hard/Soft spectrum?

Hurrache

Nalani Crashing Scabies wrote: »

Where does Cox fall on the Leave/Remain/Hard/Soft spectrum?

I saw it mentioned he's a leaver but not sure how hard or soft.

Cryptopagan

Hurrache wrote: »

Can't see her staying given cabinet members over the weekend murmured she may have to go soon.

Ousting her won't get them anywhere though. Parliament is against May's deal; it's against Labour's idea for a softer Brexit. It's against remain. It's against no deal. But it's in favour of nothing.

Beechwoodspark

woejus wrote: »

"He who wields the knife can never be king"

True. Of course Boris is loitering with intent as always

Adamcp898

Enzokk wrote: »

The new question now is will May survive the week? She has astounded me in being able to come back from the brink many times before but surely now this has to be it for her if she loses the vote tonight. She has said she will go and get changes and herself voted for it, then comes back with the same deal and tries to sell it as new and expects it to pass and keep her job if it doesn't?

The pound has been reacting to this news.

https://twitter.com/RJPartington/status/1105425643175579649

Simply erasing yesterday's gains, no?

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

He’s eyeing Number 10 I suspect

Would be rounded on if he attempted that, quite rightly too.

coolshannagh28

Nalani Crashing Scabies wrote: »

You have to say fair play to Cox for not capitulating on this.

Bollocks !, he has a big pair on him .

ToBeFrank123

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Perhaps, but that was the case anyway, nothing changed last night.

There won't be a perfect Brexit because its arguing the toss of the meaning of words at this stage.

If the EU said in a legal document you can break the backstop anytime you want - brexiteers would still argue over what that exactly means.

It seems like there will never be a meeting of minds no matter what words are used.

This could be the last chance to prevent a hard Brexit especially if May is replaced by a hard line brexiteer which is very possible.

Enzokk

Laois_Man wrote: »

I didn't know that bit - that's interesting!

The entire charade is even more ridiculous then!

That was my understanding from Newstalk this morning, so take it with a huge pinch of salt. But it does stand to reason if the UK feels the EU is not engaging in good faith as they have stopped talks and they activate the arbitration, as soon as talks start up again good faith will be restored as they would be working towards a deal.

In any case, even if they are able to get themselves out of the backstop they are still bound by their obligations under the GFA which means Irish Sea border. This is mental, we are exactly where we were before they triggered article 50.

Enzokk

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Simply erasing yesterday's gains, no?

Does seem like it, especially if you look at this tweet.

https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1105427618810220544

PropJoe10

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

So as suspected the vote will be lost

The big choice now is how long they would like the extension to be

Of course the EU can largely dictate that to them

Humiliation on top of humiliation for the Brits

Wouldn't be surprised if the EU refused an extension on the basis of there not being any point in one. Which could then lead to Article 50 being revoked entirely.

54and56

Cox's legal advice basically says the new legally binding documents reinforce the arbitration clause already in the WA if the UK think the EU are acting in bad faith but that's it. The risk that the backstop could remain indefinitely hasn't changed one bit and the UK haven't secured either a unilateral exit mechanism (only the independent arbitration panel could free them from the backstop if bad faith on the part of the EU is proven) nor have they secured a time limit to the backstop.

In fairness to Cox (and to the UK political system) he has laid it out in crystal clear language without bias despite what must have been serious pressure from TM!!

There are a few crumbs the DUP and ERG can cling onto if they are looking for a reason to climb down from their positions. The big question is do they want to climb down?

I doubt it. They are classic hurlers on the ditch and are most comfortable shouting the odds from the sidelines rather than doing anything constructive about it.

Can't wait to see the numerous and repetitive interviews Francois Mayeux will undoubtedly be giving all day where he will trot out his standard line that the EU has ignored the instructions the HoC gave via the Brady vote and "if nothing has changed you can't expect the outcome of a 2nd vote to change".

Laois_Man

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There won't be a perfect Brexit because its arguing the toss of the meaning of words at this stage.

Cox's final conclusion in his document is pretty unambiguous

In my letter of 13 November 2018, I advised that the Protocol would endure indefinitely in international law and could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent agreement. This would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties
believed that talks have clearly broken down and there was no prospect of a future relationship agreement".

FrancieBrady

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised if the EU refused an extension on the basis of there not being any point in one. Which could then lead to Article 50 being revoked entirely.

I think Juncker more or less said there has to be signs of something substantive if there is to be an extension.

Hurrache

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised if the EU refused an extension on the basis of there not being any point in one. Which could then lead to Article 50 being revoked entirely.

There was a veiled suggestion in Junker's speech last night saying if they're not gone by the time of the EU elections they'll have to elect MEPs, so you could extract that he may be suggesting that any extension will only be up until that point, if there even was to be an extension.

robinph

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised if the EU refused an extension on the basis of there not being any point in one. Which could then lead to Article 50 being revoked entirely.

If the deal is rejected, no deal is rejected, extension asked for (for purposes of getting legally binding assurances or some such) then the extension is rejected by the EU what happens then? I don't think May will budge on the cancelling A50 unless parliament votes for it to be cancelled, and nobody is going to put forward that vote.


The asking for the extension vote that will happen tomorrow is just a yes/no on the extension, not extension v cancel A50, so is mostly meaningless whichever way it goes.

josip

robinph wrote: »

If the deal is rejected, no deal is rejected, extension asked for (for purposes of getting legally binding assurances or some such) then the extension is rejected by the EU what happens then? I don't think May will budge on the cancelling A50 unless parliament votes for it to be cancelled, and nobody is going to put forward that vote.


The asking for the extension vote that will happen tomorrow is just a yes/no on the extension, not extension v cancel A50, so is mostly meaningless whichever way it goes.

I think someone posted yesterday that if the UK asks for an extension, the EU will ask "What for?"
It's so ridiculous at this stage that I don't think the UK actually know the answer to that.

bobmalooka

CelticRambler wrote: »

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There is. 3 new documents. Written down. Legally challengeable. Progress.

They're not part of the Withdrawal Agreement, and the WA is all that's being voted on.

But does the layman know this?

54and56

JRM is crucifying the current Brexit Minister (Barclay?) in the HoC committee.

He's basically saying to Barclay that all the new documents clarify is that the UK can unilaterally ask the EU to leave the backstop but it cannot unilaterally leave and the UK has always had the ability to ask the EU to leave so what's new???

Dytalus

robinph wrote: »

If the deal is rejected, no deal is rejected, extension asked for (for purposes of getting legally binding assurances or some such) then the extension is rejected by the EU what happens then? I don't think May will budge on the cancelling A50 unless parliament votes for it to be cancelled, and nobody is going to put forward that vote.

Then it's a No Deal Brexit. This is why I hate the whole "vote on No Deal" they're doing. It's a waste of time, No Deal is the default of their current situation.

Say No to the WA -> Vote on extension -> Either a No vote or the EU27 refuse -> No Deal.

The only way to avoid No Deal either now or after an extension is to either cancel Brexit, or accept the WA. There's no point voting on whether No Deal is acceptable or not, it's an extraneous vote.

Imreoir2

josip wrote: »

I think someone posted yesterday that if the UK asks for an extension, the EU will ask "What for?"

Junker clearly stated last night that there will be no third chance, no further clarifications or assurences if the deal is rejected today. Clearly ruling out an extension for the purpose of getting further concessions/assurnaces from the EU, no?

PropJoe10

robinph wrote: »

If the deal is rejected, no deal is rejected, extension asked for (for purposes of getting legally binding assurances or some such) then the extension is rejected by the EU what happens then? I don't think May will budge on the cancelling A50 unless parliament votes for it to be cancelled, and nobody is going to put forward that vote.


The asking for the extension vote that will happen tomorrow is just a yes/no on the extension, not extension v cancel A50, so is mostly meaningless whichever way it goes.

Well in that case, I'd say it's either a No Deal or a revoking of Article 50. It seems that this is where we're at now. There are no more "legally binding" assurances to be given on the backstop, according to what Juncker said yesterday.



I don't think we'll be that far from a revocation of Article 50 motion in the Commons if the deal is defeated today. There would be uproar, but they're fast running out of options over there.

ToBeFrank123

Dytalus wrote: »

Then it's a No Deal Brexit. This is why I hate the whole "vote on No Deal" they're doing. It's a waste of time, No Deal is the default of their current situation.

Say No to the WA -> Vote on extension -> Either a No vote or the EU27 refuse -> No Deal.

The only way to avoid No Deal either now or after an extension is to either cancel Brexit, or accept the WA. There's no point voting on whether No Deal is acceptable or not, it's an extraneous vote.

That's the risk alright if the EU rejects an extension. And given their mood they might well do that.

robinph

Dytalus wrote: »

Then it's a No Deal Brexit. This is why I hate the whole "vote on No Deal" they're doing. It's a waste of time, No Deal is the default of their current situation.

Say No to the WA -> Vote on extension -> Either a No vote or the EU27 refuse -> No Deal.

The only way to avoid No Deal either now or after an extension is to either cancel Brexit, or accept the WA. There's no point voting on whether No Deal is acceptable or not, it's an extraneous vote.

There is a multitude of different votes they could have to provide a conclusive answer, if they wanted to. They are all just being deliberately thick though and not realising the pointlessness of voting for three different things individually in yes/no votes of which none are acceptable to a majority, therefore none will pass.

All they need to do is have a vote between two options so that one of them must pass. I can't understand how they are all getting away with being so idiotic after all this time and no MP prepared to point out the obvious flaws in the process.

briany

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Well in that case, I'd say it's either a No Deal or a revoking of Article 50. It seems that this is where we're at now. There are no more "legally binding" assurances to be given on the backstop, according to what Juncker said yesterday.



I don't think we'll be that far from a revocation of Article 50 motion in the Commons if the deal is defeated today. There would be uproar, but they're fast running out of options over there.

Doesn't there need to be a parliamentary majority to revoke A50?

Professor Moriarty

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's the risk alright if the EU rejects an extension. And given their mood they might well do that.

That's unlikely though. Juncker tweeted yesterday that they would agree to an extension. That, and Cox's negative opinion, should set alarm bells ringing for the Brexiteers.

farmchoice

Doesn't there need to be a parliamentary majority to revoke A50
no it can be done without a vote, i'm not sure why this is but it has been explained here before.