Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

ToBeFrank123

lawred2 wrote: »

right

and SF sticking by their constituents and their mandate is in your eyes 'immature'?

Hmm let me see.

Political Principles

or

Hard Border

Which would you choose? Clearly Political Principles.

SimonTemplar

What are the chances of MV3 passing with an amendment subjecting it to a confirmation people's vote with remain as the other option?

Professor Moriarty

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Hmm let me see.

Political Principles

or

Hard Border

Which would you choose? Clearly Political Principles.

Sounds like a very accurate description of the DUP or the bulk of the Tory party.

ToBeFrank123

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sounds like a very accurate description of the DUP or the bulk of the Tory party.

I agree.

And now SF according to some on here.

Laois_Man

DUP pushing the case of a long extension to allow a new PM to find a more palatable withdrawal agreement according to Sky News

Eod100

Dup sticking to their guns https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1110528845378215940?s=19

Loafing Oaf

Mr Rees-Mogg said it was now clear Mrs May would not deliver a no-deal Brexit

Is this clear? Or any clearer than it was a week ago. I'm not aware that TM has as yet clarified what she would do if her deal ultimately fails.

BobbyBobberson

Laois_Man wrote: »

DUP pushing the case of a long extension to allow a new PM to find a more palatable withdrawal agreement according to Sky News

I mean I dislike them enough as it is. But to put everyone through this for even longer. My god.

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I agree.

And now SF according to some on here.

But it is completely different. The DUP have always been, and run on the basis that, they will take up their seats.

Your position is that SF should go back on their promise to the voters for this particular event (and I have a certain sympathy for that). But once they do it once, what is to stop it being demanded of them again? Who decides what is an important event?

But also, as I have pointed out, it isn't just down to SF. IF they were to take up their seats, particularly on the basis of getting a deal that they would see as beneficial to Ireland, that would go down very badly with many in the HoC. Of course the only votes that will matter are those in the HoC, but papers like the Express will put massive pressure on MP's due to their stance on SF twarting the will of the people, and forcing the UK into a deal they don't want. It would be the ultimate loss of control to many.

mariaalice

Does anyone know why the Queen as head of state could not in step at this stage?

She is the head of state above parliament.

Anteayer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm confused here too, as much by the language as by the procedures. But at 15.55.57 William Cash states that the SI 'was laid precisely one hour before' and proceeds to question May right to do it. She seems to say that because the house voted for an extension previously that was why they had gone ahead and done it.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/ac629c09-2d0d-4c6b-9733-59ea4569596d

I can only assume that they know what they're doing...

Seeing as no-one answered last time. :pac: How hard would/will it be for the EU to update Article 50? Would it just be a referendum for us and everyone else's parliament ratifying? We can't have rubbish like this hanging over the EU again.

listermint

mariaalice wrote: »

Does anyone know why the Queen as head of state could not in step at this stage?

She is the head of state above parliament.

The Queen has no truck in this.

Her role is and has been for sometime as quaint tourist attraction and to maintain the palace as being impartial. Safeguarding their own future position in doing so and any public monies they receive.

BobbyBobberson

Deleted User wrote: »

Seeing as no-one answered last time. :pac: How hard would/will it be for the EU to update Article 50? Would it just be a referendum for us and everyone else's parliament ratifying? We can't have rubbish like this hanging over the EU again.

I cant imagine it would be too hard to be honest. I would say many countries will want to change the process (though i am not sure what they would change). I mean, I find the whole thing mind numbing and I say that as a remainer who voted in London and am now in NI. I can only imagine that those on the continent want the whole thing cleaned up.

Anteayer

mariaalice wrote: »

Does anyone know why the Queen as head of state could not in step at this stage?

She is the head of state above parliament.

She's got very, very little power to do anything beyond what her government tells her to do. Constitutionally she's just a figurehead.

Also the current Queen has been extremely politically neutral and in all her years hasn't every tested the limits of that. I mean if she were to intervene by making a speech calling for unity and pragmatism, it might be subject to people giving out about her interfering in politics but in reality I don't think anyone could or would be able to sanction her for so doing. In fact they'd likely all end up in worshiping her majesty mode and say nothing.

I'd have my doubts that she'll do anything. I mean she's been reduced to having to express her political views through choices of hat!

Spook_ie

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-and-dublin-in-intense-talks-on-no-deal-plan-for-irish-border-uk-brexit/


Interesting paragraph buried in the article

But officials indicated that arrangements for the Irish border are still not finalized. This is a fraught issue for the EU because if a hard border can be avoided in a no-deal scenario, it calls into question the need for the controversial Northern Ireland backstop — a key part of the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with London that many Brexiteers say is preventing them from voting for the deal.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Seeing as no-one answered last time. :pac: How hard would/will it be for the EU to update Article 50? Would it just be a referendum for us and everyone else's parliament ratifying? We can't have rubbish like this hanging over the EU again.

Referendums are no longer required for all treaty amendments, depending on the nature of the change and the mechanisms involved, it can be amended by national parliaments.

So amending article 50 to make it more robust is likely something that can be done without a convoluted process.

An Ciarraioch

Anteayer wrote: »

She's got very, very little power to do anything beyond what her government tells her to do. Constitutionally she's just a figurehead.

Also the current Queen has been extremely politically neutral and in all her years hasn't every tested the limits of that. I mean if she were to intervene by making a speech calling for unity and pragmatism, it might be subject to people giving out about her interfering in politics but in reality I don't think anyone could or would be able to sanction her for so doing. In fact they'd likely all end up in worshiping her majesty mode and say nothing.

I'd have my doubts that she'll do anything. I mean she's been reduced to having to express her political views through choices of hat!

Ironically, Michael D has more executive power, theoretically at least, as constitutionally he has the power to tell the Dáil to reach an agreement, rather than dissolving it.

Eod100

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is this clear? Or any clearer than it was a week ago. I'm not aware that TM has as yet clarified what she would do if her deal ultimately fails.

She said it was a choice of her deal, no Brexit or slow Brexit yesterday. I think the default if MV3 doesn't pass this week, Brexit date is 12th April. But she said yesterday that won't opt for No Deal unless a majority of the HOC backs it. So looks like it would be go back to the EU and look for an extension again? So possibly EU elections and deadline of the end of the year?

FrancieBrady

Anteayer wrote: »

Also the current Queen has been extremely politically neutral and in all her years hasn't every tested the limits of that. I mean if she were to intervene by making a speech calling for unity and pragmatism, it might be subject to people giving out about her interfering in politics but in reality I don't think anyone could or would be able to sanction her for so doing. In fact they'd likely all end up in worshiping her majesty mode and say nothing.

But, but, but, could she not just do it this one time?

MrMusician18

Deleted User wrote: »

Seeing as no-one answered last time. :pac: How hard would/will it be for the EU to update Article 50? Would it just be a referendum for us and everyone else's parliament ratifying? We can't have rubbish like this hanging over the EU again.

It would require treaty change, and treaty change is always hard, as everyone will want to renegotiate the items they currently have issue with.

Wide ranging reform treaty would almost certainly require a referendum here as the test for a reference is transfer of competency/sovereignty. Even a limited change to art. 50 alone would probably require a referendum, as any change would impinge national rights, particularly of the departing nation.

Sam Russell

storker wrote: »

Understandable, I think. At least if they go, then at the last 2+ years has resulted in the departure of the perennial awkward squad. If they revoke article 50 then after all the political panto and nearly three years of pointlessness, they're still in the tent urinating on the sleeping bags, and what's to stop them triggering the whole mess again at some point in the future?

Well, if the revoke Art 50, then they can only start the process again by going through their own constitutional requirements.

Now, because last time they held a referendum that although as advisory, the UK Gov determined that it was mandatory. I think the ECJ would adjudge that the UK then would have to precede another Art 50 notification by a national referendum followed by a vote through parliament. Now Brexit ref2 would be fought on a different rule book to the last one, if at all.

Given that, who would want to go through all that again. If Art 50 is revoked, then Brexit is dead for at least a generation.

Anteayer

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Ironically, Michael D has more executive power, theoretically at least, as constitutionally he has the power to tell the Dáil to reach an agreement, rather than dissolving it.

He has a few more powers and also the Irish presidency has pushed out the envelope a bit and is a fairly active office, usually held by someone who has serious political ability and often a deep thinker.

I think in a similar mess here, the president might intervene certianly by appealing for sense to prevail anyway.

The Queen probably won't based on her own history of how she's done things in office and also on the far narrower role that she actually has. The monarch interfering in politics would also have major issues harking back to the English Civil War. I'd say she'll just let them figure it out and probably try to make a nice speech at Xmas.

I mean had she really wanted to call for calm she could have laid it on thick in her Christmas message, but she didn't. So I suspect that's probably the limit or her involvement.

Laois_Man

Spook_ie wrote: »

if a hard border can be avoided in a no-deal scenario

Could Stormont, if it was restarted, have the power to okay the necessary checks to occur at Northern Ireland's ports an airports - effectively enforcing a hard border down the Irish sea?

Probably not - That's the only way it could be avoided that I can see.

Everyone has been banking on the no-deal scenario not coming to pass and I still think it won't

seamus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, if the revoke Art 50, then they can only start the process again by going through their own constitutional requirements.

It's also worth remembering that the EU court ruled that unilateral revocation of A50 was only permitted if it was done in good faith.

In the event that they pulled A50 just to buy themselves more time, that could be deemed invalid by a European court and the UK unceremoniously kicked out of the EU.

The revocation would need to be done because the UK had changed its mind, not to abuse the process.

Eod100

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, if the revoke Art 50, then they can only start the process again by going through their own constitutional requirements.

Now, because last time they held a referendum that although as advisory, the UK Gov determined that it was mandatory. I think the ECJ would adjudge that the UK then would have to precede another Art 50 notification by a national referendum followed by a vote through parliament. Now Brexit ref2 would be fought on a different rule book to the last one, if at all.

Given that, who would want to go through all that again. If Art 50 is revoked, then Brexit is dead for at least a generation.

I think ECJ AG said they could revoke unilaterally, but doesn't seem to be binding on court. Whether that means UK could do that without another ref is another question though.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1204/1014981-brexit-article-50/

Joe_ Public

One thing i have read in the event of the pm not fulfilling her assurance on the no deal front is parliament again taking control with a “humble address” move which labour used last year on the backstop issue. It’s not a binding thing afaik, but places a lot of pressure on the executive not to comply with it. Maybe others are more knowledgeable on the details?

An Ciarraioch

Back to the DUP - seems they'd be prepared to delay Brexit for 12 months, rather than approve the Withdrawal Agreement, so it would appear a No Deal Brexit is swiftly receding:

https://news.sky.com/story/dup-prefer-long-brexit-delay-to-pms-deal-sky-sources-11675614

Spook_ie

Laois_Man wrote: »

Could Stormont, if it was restarted, have the power to okay the necessary checks to occur at Northern Ireland's ports an airports - effectively enforcing a hard border down the Irish sea?

Probably not - That's the only way it could be avoided that I can see.

Everyone has been banking on the no-deal scenario not coming to pass and I still think it won't

Border control at airports and on the Celtic Sea, check if goods originated in NI/GB or here = no hard border in Ireland.

Loafing Oaf

Eod100 wrote: »

She said it was a choice of her deal, no Brexit or slow Brexit yesterday. I think the default if MV3 doesn't pass this week, Brexit date is 12th April. But she said yesterday that won't opt for No Deal unless a majority of the HOC backs it. So looks like it would be go back to the EU and look for an extension again? So possibly EU elections and deadline of the end of the year?

"But the bottom line remains: if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal, we would have to seek a longer extension."

I suppose that is pointing pretty clearly towards a no/slow brexit. But does it leave the door open to 'no deal' happening by default, even if HoC does not proactively vote for it?