Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

The constitution is itself a law, and therefore adopting or amending the constitution is legislation. Changes to the constituion may also require changes to other laws, so legislation by the people may give rise to further or consequential legislation by the Oireachtas (and still further legislation by Ministers who need to make or amend regulations, etc) , but that doesn't mean that the high-level change made by the people isn't legislation; it is.

I think its the other way round. Legislation such as that allowing divorce or same sex marriage could only be enacted after changes to the constitution. However the constitutional changes were not themselves enough; it still needed the Oireachteas to draft and pass legislation to bring them into force.

All legislation must conform to the constitution but only the Oireachteas can enact legislation.

10000maniacs

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is the thinking that now is the time of maximum pressure on the brexiteers. They are faced with WA or possibly no brexit.

Giving them an additional extension, particularly if it is a longer one, will remove this pressure and allow the Tories to focus on internal power struggles rather than facing up to the realities of brexit. This could, if say Johnson were made PM, have the effect of almost starting the whole thing again.

So, the thinking is that forcing the UK to make a decision now will result in the WA being passed rather than the hope that revokes happens in the future but which carries with it the very real, and IMO increasing, likelihood of a No Deal Brexit.

Yes I agree. I think there will be political and civil unrest if Boris is residing over the UK exiting the EU.

RickBlaine

Will we know this evening after the summit if Brexit will occur on Friday? I presume there will be another press conference like the previous summit.

There is some tasks I need to do in work tomorrow but only if a no-deal Brexit is still a possibility tomorrow morning.

ancapailldorcha

RickBlaine wrote: »

Will we know this evening after the summit if Brexit will occur on Friday? I presume there will be another press conference like the previous summit.

There is some tasks I need to do in work tomorrow but only if a no-deal Brexit is still a possibility tomorrow morning.

The EU will offer an extension with the high probability of some conditions attached. This IMO is the most likely outcome. May will then put it before Parliament where it will almost certainly pass.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

I think its the other way round. Legislation such as that allowing divorce or same sex marriage could only be enacted after changes to the constitution. However the constitutional changes were not themselves enough; it still needed the Oireachteas to draft and pass legislation to bring them into force.

All legislation must conform to the constitution but only the Oireachteas can enact legislation.

Bit of a side issue in this thread, so we shouldn't get bogged down in it.

But, basically, it depends on the wording of the specific constitutional provision. On divorce, it says "a court designated by law may grant a dissolution of a marriage where" [specified conditions are satisfied]. That means you do need further legislation identifying a particular court and conferring on it the jurisdiction to grant divorce decrees. Similarly on marriage it says "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex", which means you need a marriage law dealing with boring things like notice requirements and who can act as a celebrant and the form of ceremony permitted and so forth.

But in relation to, say, education it says that "Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the state." No mention there of further laws. So you don't need an Act of the Oireachtas to say that parents have a right to home-school, or to send their children to private schools. There's already a law which gives parents that right; the Constitution. Similarly you don't need an Act of the Oireachtas to say who is eligible to be elected President; the Constitution provides that "every citizen who has reached his thirty-fifth year of age is eligible for election to the office of President." And if a referendum were to approve an amendment changing that to, say, thirtieth year of age, that would be immediately effective; you wouldn't need any further legislation from the Oireachtas to give effect to it.

Enzokk

I feel sorry for those that thought the EU would throw us under the bus at the last moment. The last moment has passed already and I guess we have a second go at the EU caving, but the signs does not look good.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1115917048079626241

Anteayer

It's very much a side issue. The Irish constitution has been abused to legislate in the past by placing things into it to specifically prevent the Oireachtas from being able to act on them, a prime example of this being the specifics of at the divorce procedure. That was designed to tie the hands of the Oireachtas and very deliberately so.

Generally constitutions should be used for basic fundamental principles of law, not the mechanics of how a piece of legislation works.

Ireland also has a procedure where a bill can be referred to referendum. It requires a petition made to the president by a majority of the Seanad and a third of the Dáil to initiate the process. The president can either defer signature until there's a referendum, or a new Dáil is formed after a general election in which case the process would start again.

Again, neither of these procedures are remotely comparable to what's going on in the UK.

Ireland's constitutional referenda are a legal requirement to amend the constitution, so only things which require constitutional change are going to be put forward. They're quite technocratic in nature and very specific.

What the UK's done is basically give a binary choice of "leave" or "remain" on a topic that is so complicated that nobody really knew what the options were in the first place.
During the debate, all sorts of versions of Brexit were sold, and they certainly were not the hardest and most extreme type. There were people discussing and proposing everything from the softest of soft Brexits to the hardest of hard, but the major issue was they were discussed in a complete vacuum without any notion of talking to the EU.

They then presented Brexit as a fait accompli, but without any explanation or understanding of what they wanted.

It's taken the UK until really the last few weeks to start to begin to debate what Brexit actually is and to get away from this mantra of "brexit means brexit" which was utterly meaningless drivel.

My sense now is that we're headed for at its most extreme, a customs union scenario and there's a fairly strong possibly that the whole process just falls apart and Brexit disappears as a bad memory.
The risk of a crash out doesn't look all that high anymore, to me anyway.

I think the UK's slowly coming to the realisation that this wasn't such a brilliant idea and the hubris is starting to evaporate.

Whatever about internal party politics and jostling for position in the Tories, delivering economic ruination is not really going to be much of a legacy for anyone.

In a way, I think it's possibly going to be a hard lesson in knowing who your friends are and what you are as the last throes of empire finally disappear.

They've a choice between a relationship with the EU that's built upon a foundation of a big vision for a peaceful, prosperous Europe and genuine solidarity between neighbours or, they have a possibility of begging for a very transactional relationship with the US, in which they're the very much weaker party and it's even worse with a president who smells weakness and exploits it.

It's really a choice between the status quo, or a future of being an pulled between great powers.

The whole purpose of the EU is it gives a group of relatively like-minded mid-sized and small neighbouring countries the ability to act as a group, pool their resources and influence where they need to and continue to exist as small and medium independent countries under a shared umbrella of the EU.
Without that umbrella, we're all the play things of the the US and China really. Even Russia's not all that relevant anymore, other than as a military threat.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

I think its the other way round. Legislation such as that allowing divorce or same sex marriage could only be enacted after changes to the constitution. However the constitutional changes were not themselves enough; it still needed the Oireachteas to draft and pass legislation to bring them into force.

All legislation must conform to the constitution but only the Oireachteas can enact legislation.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just to give an example of that, I think, wasn't there a case of someone asking the High Court to allow his divorce so he could remarry under the recently passed Divorce ref, but before the enabling legislation had been put through?

Not sure of the result though. I think one of the parties was terminally ill.

As pointed out earlier, the first divorce in Ireland was granted BEFORE the enabling legislation came into force.

As we have Judge made law, the High Court could make the decision on the basis of the constitution, rather than wait for the actual legal change.

Once the constitution was changed, that was all that was needed, but it is not the normal way things are/were done.

Kermit.de.frog

Well, this is certainly a first

https://twitter.com/xtophercook/status/1115999943666409474

MrMusician18

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't the point.

Politicians cower before cries of 17.4 million people voting for Brexit. Few have the spine to stand up to this. Another referendum either cements the 2016 vote from a political standpoint or solves the dilemma faced by the MP's who care enough about their country not to plunge it into economic ruin based on a nebulous mandate based on unicorns from a referendum that was held nearly three years ago by giving them a mandate to cancel Brexit.

The point I was getting at were some on this thread try to delegitimise the referendum by stating that it wasn't binding while at the same time advocating a second referendum.

A bit of a contradiction really...

Tell me how

Anteayer wrote: »

It's taken the UK until really the last few weeks to start to begin to debate what Brexit actually is and to get away from this mantra of "brexit means brexit" which was utterly meaningless drivel.

My sense now is that we're headed for at its most extreme, a customs union scenario and there's a fairly strong possibly that the whole process just falls apart and Brexit disappears as a bad memory.
The risk of a crash out doesn't look all that high anymore, to me anyway.

I think the UK's slowly coming to the realisation that this wasn't such a brilliant idea and the hubris is starting to evaporate.

Whatever about internal party politics and jostling for position in the Tories, delivering economic ruination is not really going to be much of a legacy for anyone.

I'm not sure if any lesson has been learned just yet. The negotiation to leave turned out to be more haphazard and difficult for the UK than most actually thought it would be.
Plenty said negotiating new deals would be difficult but actually stumbling so much walking out the door wasn't ever expected.

I wonder though if in the minds of Brexiteers (of which there were at least 17.4M) the EU is still to blame for the mess in trying to hold on to the UK and continually fear mongering (neither is happening in my view).

The national psyche in the UK has had centuries of enforcement, I'm not sure if anything has changed in this respect as a result of the last 2 years and that unfortunately it could take a generation of difficult times outside the EU to see that together is best.

I do hope I am wrong, I have nieces and nephews born and living in the UK.

First Up

Anteayer wrote:

Again, neither of these procedures are remotely comparable to what's going on in the UK.

That is my point.

Sam Russell

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not sure if any lesson has been learned just yet. The negotiation to leave turned out to be more haphazard and difficult for the UK than most actually thought it would be.
Plenty said negotiating new deals would be difficult but actually stumbling so much walking out the door wasn't ever expected.

I wonder though if in the minds of Brexiteers (of which there were at least 17.4M) the EU is still to blame for the mess in trying to hold on to the UK and continually fear mongering (neither is happening in my view).

The national psyche in the UK has had centuries of enforcement, I'm not sure if anything has changed in this respect as a result of the last 2 years and that unfortunately it could take a generation of difficult times outside the UK to see that together is best.

I do hope I am wrong, I have nieces and nephews born and living in the UK.

It seems the Tory slogan for the Scottish Indy Ref was 'Stronger Together' but when it comes to the EU, the same group were saying the opposite.

It appears that English hegemony is the ultimate yard stick.

briany

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The point I was getting at were some on this thread try to delegitimise the referendum by stating that it wasn't binding while at the same time advocating a second referendum.

A bit of a contradiction really...

I don't really see a contradiction. The first referendum indicated what direction to take the UK, but heading in that direction has lead the UK to a bit of a fork in the road and interminable, bitter debate over which road now to take. Since the political class cannot agree, it would make sense to have some way of breaking the deadlock. Is that not reasonable?

And since the UK seems to poo-poo the idea of a GE, or implementing something like a citizens' assembly, or a citizens jury, there really aren't many options left except to once again put the question to the public in order to indicate the way forward, and I'd have thought the British political class would have been delighted to hand off this hot potato of a question. The alternative is that you could end up having this scenario of a no-deal where it's unlikely that the majority of the electorate wanted it (unless one wants to make the argument that all those, to a man, who voted Leave would take no-deal over May's deal or Remain), and that's going to lead to absolute murder at the ballot box.

Junkyard Tom

Brexit is dead. Long live Brexit. Now we will witness the coalescing of anti-EU politics in Britain, although I can't see any single coherent political party emerging for the same reason the leave vote 'won'.

Don't like foreigners? Brexit.
Britain was better in t'olden days? Brexit.
The EU is a capitalist conspiracy? Brexit.
The EU is a socialist conspiracy? Brexit.
Enjoy money laundering and avoiding tax? Brexit.
Thick stupid? Brexit.

briany

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Brexit is dead. Long live Brexit. Now we will witness the coalescing of anti-EU politics in Britain, although I can't see any single coherent political party emerging for the same reason the leave vote 'won'.

Don't like foreigners? Brexit.
Britain was better in t'olden days? Brexit.
The EU is a capitalist conspiracy? Brexit.
The EU is a socialist conspiracy? Brexit.
Enjoy money laundering and avoiding tax? Brexit.
Thick stupid? Brexit.

It's an odd one, but if you're an anti-EU party, it's necessary for your existence and your political capital that your country is in the EU and remains so. Once it leaves the EU, your support tanks because you're seen as having fulfilled your purpose. Witness what happened to UKIP after the 2016 referendum. They were like a bee that had lost its stinger. And there's also the fact that Brexit is a bit of a step into the unknown and if it's a bit of a disaster you have to take ownership of that. Or, well, you would, but politicians tend to be slippery characters when it comes to being held to account.

Itssoeasy

So, Theresa May has made her pitch to the EU27. I’m right in thinking that a country like Malta or another small country in the EU saying no could put the UK in a bad way ? I wouldn’t be surprised if Emanuel Macron puts the boot in on the UK and while he may not stop the UK getting an extension he’ll make it hard on them. I know a few Irish people who go on holidays to France and have for decades and they say the France and UK thing is a real dislike of each other.

Anteayer

If he does block an extension it's more about putting it up to the French Eurosceptic far right rather than anything else. Macron cannot really afford to have Brexit rolling on in 2020 when he's got Marine Le Pen who's pitching very similar stuff to UKIP and the Tory far right on immigration and Europe.

SleetAndSnow

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So, Theresa May has made her pitch to the EU27. I’m right in thinking that a country like Malta or another small country in the EU saying no could put the UK in a bad way ? I wouldn’t be surprised if Emanuel Macron puts the boot in on the UK and while he may not stop the UK getting an extension he’ll make it hard on them. I know a few Irish people who go on holidays to France and have for decades and they say the France and UK thing is a real dislike of each other.

Its true, was on a holiday before. Was running late for the ferry home, pulled over by police for an obstructed number plate due to bikes. He was doing everything to delay us, saw the IRL on the plate, apologized greatly for the delay and let us go! Thought we were British because we spoke English.

Regardless, He seems pretty adament to have concessions in the interviews he is doing and has said lately that nothing is set in stone basically. Can't see him vetoing it but can't see him agreeing to anything without the UK losing out on something either.

Itssoeasy

Is there any ETA on when we will know the EU27 decision or is it a case of “we will know when we know” aka at some point.

Itssoeasy

Anteayer wrote: »

If he does block an extension it's more about putting it up to the French Eurosceptic far right rather than anything else. Macron cannot really afford to have Brexit rolling on in 2020 when he's got Marine Le Pen who's pitching very similar stuff to UKIP and the Tory far right on immigration and Europe.

But wouldn’t the mess that brexit has caused logically( I know logic) be a help to Macron by stopping the argument that may be made by LePen and that crowd by making them see how messy it is.

ancapailldorcha

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Is there any ETA on when we will know the EU27 decision or is it a case of “we will know when we know” aka at some point.

Quite late I imagine. 27 heads of state have to come to a unanimous agreement.

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Well, this is certainly a first

https://twitter.com/xtophercook/status/1115999943666409474

Given the choice, why do the Irexit people want to turn Ireland from being one of the pupet masters of the EU into a pupet under EU control? If you accept that this is the nature of the relationship, then it seems clear enough which side of that relationship you want to be on.

This image is arguably quite accurate. The membership of the EU gives you a seat at the table that has the power. Leaving makes you dependant and open to being controlled by a bloc in which you no longer have any say.

SleetAndSnow

Guardian reporting that Merkel wants an extension till years end while Macron is saying until just before EU elections, gonna be a long night.

Also this:
https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1116048520061100032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1116048520061100032&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fbrexit-emergency-summit-liveblog-updates-4585599-Apr2019%2F

FrancieBrady

Who has their finger on the pulse on twitter folks?

briany

SleetAndSnow wrote: »

Guardian reporting that Merkel wants an extension till years end while Macron is saying until just before EU elections, gonna be a long night.

As short of an extension as Macron is allegedly proposing is completely useless. The UK knows and the EU knows it. It's not enough time for a GE and not enough time for a referendum. It's really not enough time for anything except the Conservatives and Labour to engage in their current charade a bit more, and the only hope that has of being any way successful is for one side or the other to crack under the threat of no deal and come to terms, but this is a highly uncertain and dangerous game.

An Ciarraioch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who has their finger on the pulse on twitter folks?

Alberto Nardelli tends to be quick off the mark with informed updates.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who has their finger on the pulse on twitter folks?

I'd say Tony Connolly would be a good shout for keeping up to date on how this mess rumbles on tonight.

An Ciarraioch

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'd say Tony Connolly would be a good shout for keeping up to date on how this mess rumbles on tonight.

He tweeted earlier in the week that he had some family matters to take care of, so only looking on like the rest of us for now.

ShooterSF

briany wrote: »

As short of an extension as Macron is allegedly proposing is completely useless. The UK knows and the EU knows it. It's not enough time for a GE and not enough time for a referendum. It's really not enough time for anything except the Conservatives and Labour to engage in their current charade a bit more, and the only hope that has of being any way successful is for one side or the other to crack under the threat of no deal and come to terms, but this is a highly uncertain and dangerous game.

I don't see what an extension to the 22nd of May doesn't facilitate that one to June 30th, what the UK requested, does.