Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

iguana wrote: »

That petition is zipping along very likely to pass half a million before 8am.

Am I alone in thinking that - to my lasting regret - this overnight performance may be a bit too zippy to be entirely legit? I mean, about 150,000 Brits are supposed to have signed this in the wee small hours. Are there really that many insomniac Remainers?

lawred2

iguana wrote: »

That petition is zipping along very likely to pass half a million before 8am.

Could reach 30m and it would still be ignored.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK Parliament could change its mind. There's some evidence that some MPs voted against the deal in MV2 only because they expected to have a later opportunity to vote for it. Getting a majority for the deal might be a bit of a long shot, but I wouldn't rule it out. (May certainly hasn't!)

Other things that could happen include:

- Revocation of A50 notice before 29 March. (I doubt this will happen, but it certainly could.)

- Shift in policy by government (probably associated with ditching T May) to seek cross-party consensus for softer Brexit; request to EU for longer extension to pursue renegotiation of Pol Dec to soften it.

And no doubt we could imagine other possibilities.

I don't understand this even though a lot of MPs made this comment. Why would you vote against something twice if you were going to vote for it at the end? What is the purpose? There wasn't going to be any further changes to the agreement and this isn't a game. The problem I think is most MPs are in it not to better the lives of their voters, otherwise they would not be complaining about not being able to take the UK and Ireland to the cliff edge of disaster.

lawred2 wrote: »

It is largely only ever crackpots that ring in to phone in shows

You know it gets bad when your suggestion gets rubbished by another caller on the call in. You could expect the presenter to do that, he did laugh at the suggestion of Ireland joining the UK, but when the caller that agrees with the principle thinks you are wrong about the implementation then you should pause to think whether you are on the right side here.

Soulsun wrote: »

May to be gone by Friday.
It's a complete shambles.

I have given up trying to predict when she will be gone. I must admit it is starting to pile up against her but I still think she will not be moved. She said it herself I believe, she is a stubborn woman.

VinLieger

Just put some money on no deal, a hard border some point in 2019 and euro and sterling to hit parity at some point in 2019.

jester77

It's probably for the better if her short extension request is rejected. It gives them a week to come to sense and request a longer extension with a new government in place. The current circus is going nowhere but defaulting out.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Am I missing something or what exactly is the point of extending the Art 50 period if the WA deal is approved?

intellectual dosser

I don't think I've ever been this concerned about Brexit. With several EU countries murmuring that they will veto an extension it looks like its going to be WA on the third count, or a hard Brexit, with the latter the most likely.

The main concern is that it would be the hardest of Brexits, I understand some protocols have been put in place for such an event but I think everyone has been zombie-ing towards an extension. There is now no further time to flesh these protocols out further, I'm fearing chaos on March 30th.

L1011

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Am I missing something or what exactly is the point of extending the Art 50 period if the WA deal is approved?

Because the UK hasn't even vaguely got around to implementing the legislative changes needed to leave

prawnsambo

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Am I missing something or what exactly is the point of extending the Art 50 period if the WA deal is approved?

The WA being approved is just the start of the process for Westminster. There's a raft of legislation needed to put it into effect as well as all the SIs that have still to be passed to try and replicate or replace the laws and treaties that membership of the EU built up.

Joe_ Public

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/the-maybots-binary-messages-have-become-just-a-series-of-noughts?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

More genius from John Crace on the latest escapades of the uk’s Lino (“hard to nail down, but easy to walk over”)

I do wish that Simon Hoggert was still around too, to cast his gimlet eye on these surreal happenings. Nobody ever caught the absurdities of political life better imo, though Crace has been a very decent substitute.

kuro68k

May is the worst PM in British history.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

L1011 wrote: »

Because the UK hasn't even vaguely got around to implementing the legislative changes needed to leave

prawnsambo wrote: »

The WA being approved is just the start of the process for Westminster. There's a raft of legislation needed to put it into effect as well as all the SIs that have still to be passed to try and replicate or replace the laws and treaties that membership of the EU built up.

That's what the transition period is for. There are 2 scenarios:

1) WA -> Transition Period to 2020 (extendible to 2022);
2) No deal -> Crash Out.

The legislative changes etc. can all occur during the Transition Period, as the UK must abide by all EU laws and regulations during this period. If anything, the UK needs an extension more for the no deal scenario.

Mr.Wemmick

L1011 wrote: »

Because the UK hasn't even vaguely got around to implementing the legislative changes needed to leave

Which makes her speech of great personal regret complete nonsense. She has run down the clock and caused this delay, her.. not MPs, the house, Larry the Cat, and what ever way you look at it, she would have run out of time and needed an extension anyway.

She needs to go and take her shambles of Brexit with her.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/the-maybots-binary-messages-have-become-just-a-series-of-noughts?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

More genius from John Crace on the latest escapades of the uk’s Lino (“hard to nail down, but easy to walk over”)

I do wish that Simon Hoggert was still around too, to cast his gimlet eye on these surreal happenings. Nobody ever caught the absurdities of political life better imo, though Crace has been a very decent substitute.

'Leader in name only' if anyone is wondering what LINO stands for. What Lino herself stands for is anyone's guess.

I did like this bit: "you can rely on the Labour leader to choose the wrong molehill to die on"

prawnsambo

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Which makes her speech of great personal regret complete nonsense. She has run down the clock and caused this delay, her.. not MPs, the house, Larry the Cat, and what ever way you look at it, she would have run out of time and needed an extension anyway.

She needs to go and take her shambles of Brexit with her.

Not quite. Everybody seems to forget that "The treaties shall cease to apply" from brexit day onwards. Of course brexit day has become somewhat fluid, but when the treaties cease to apply, they have to be replaced or removed from UK law.

First Up

murphaph wrote:

The Labour party have been less than useless but it's not reallly fair to say they would be voting in favour of no deal. The UK still has the power to revoke A50. There is still a choice between revocation and no deal if her deal is rejected. May would ultimately be responsible for a no deal. She was always going to be with her idiotic red lines that were never on the ballot paper. She is a stubborn stupid person with no emotional intelligence to boot.

murphaph wrote:

It's time for her to go.


It's time for the sensible Tories to vote her out in a motion of no confidence put forward by the leader of the so called opposition.


She is the problem.

She epitomises the problem but removing her won't make the problem go away.

I listened to Ivan Rogers (the former UK perm rep in Brussels) last night. He highlighted the idiocy of the red lines but he also described the astonishing level of ignorance about Europe (and N Ireland) in today's political class in the UK.

When cabinet ministers struggle to understand the concept of the Single Market or Customs Union (and are almost proud to flaunt their ignorance), you have to wonder where a sensible and informed PM can be found.

Leroy42

Isn't it more likely now that MP's will have to vote for her deal?

The majority of MP's agree that No Deal is not really an option, and now it appears that the only real option, well at least the only option that is available, is that of TM's deal.

I understand that theoretically other options, but not with TM at the helm. On 5Live this morning a SNP MP was asking what way she would vote given this option, and she simply stated that it should never have come to this. And she is right, but doesn't deal with the reality they find themselves.

Are MP's, of whatever persuasion, really going to vote against the only way to avoid No Deal?

Joe_ Public

prawnsambo wrote: »

'Leader in name only' if anyone is wondering what LINO stands for. What Lino herself stands for is anyone's guess.

I did like this bit: "you can rely on the Labour leader to choose the wrong molehill to die on"

Yes i think he captures both leaders pretty well. I also liked Fintan O’Tooles take on May in last weekends IT. She started out wanting to be like her cricket idol Geoff Boycott, but ended up more a Tim Henman. A good very effective analogy imo.

Enzokk

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

That's what the transition period is for. There are 2 scenarios:

1) WA -> Transition Period to 2020 (extendible to 2022);
2) No deal -> Crash Out.

The legislative changes etc. can all occur during the Transition Period, as the UK must abide by all EU laws and regulations during this period. If anything, the UK needs an extension more for the no deal scenario.

No, the deal has to be translated to legislation. That is why she actually needed parliament to vote for her deal in December to have enough time to pass all the legislation that is needed. That is why the talk about the EU caving at the last moment at any time now is ridiculous, the last moment was in November already and the time now was supposed to be spent on legislation.

Factbox - What Brexit legislation does Britain still need to pass before EU exit?

The government plans to pass several pieces of major new legislation and hundreds of changes to existing law to adapt Britain to life outside the EU.

And it is also why her attack on MPs is so strange. She may bully them into voting for her deal now, but they can still make it difficult for her to get the legislation passed.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not quite. Everybody seems to forget that "The treaties shall cease to apply" from brexit day onwards. Of course brexit day has become somewhat fluid, but when the treaties cease to apply, they have to be replaced or removed from UK law.

As I said above, this is only correct in the event of a no deal Brexit.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't it more likely now that MP's will have to vote for her deal?

The majority of MP's agree that No Deal is not really an option, and now it appears that the only real option, well at least the only option that is available, is that of TM's deal.

I understand that theoretically other options, but not with TM at the helm. On 5Live this morning a SNP MP was asking what way she would vote given this option, and she simply stated that it should never have come to this. And she is right, but doesn't deal with the reality they find themselves.

Are MP's, of whatever persuasion, really going to vote against the only way to avoid No Deal?

The revoke option is available to all MPs. And it doesn't matter who the PM is. If someone brings a motion to revoke, John Bercow is almost bound to allow it through. The problem is finding someone with the intestinal fortitude to do this. I imagine that the TIG would do it in a heartbeat, but the very fact of their doing it would probably doom it to failure. It will take a high-ranking Tory or Labour MP to bring it to the house and have any hope of getting cross party support for it. A Dominic Grieve or Keir Starmer type.

prawnsambo

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

As I said above, this is only correct in the event of a no deal Brexit.

No, it's part of Article 50:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Enzokk wrote: »

No, the deal has to be translated to legislation. That is why she actually needed parliament to vote for her deal in December to have enough time to pass all the legislation that is needed. That is why the talk about the EU caving at the last moment at any time now is ridiculous, the last moment was in November already and the time now was supposed to be spent on legislation.

I think we're at cross-purposes here. Of course the WA needs to be translated into legislation via the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill/Act.

What I'm saying is incorrect is that all of the EU legislation (etc.) needs to be transposed into UK law prior to this date - that must be done before the end of the Transition Period.

Now I agree that there are many SIs which need to be passed that fall between two stools - those legal matters imposed by EU law which apply to non-EU issues as they relate to the UK. I understand most of these have been completed. These should have been done by 29 March in any event, so why aren't they on track... they apply regardless of the WA being passed or not!

But an extension to legislate is not IIRC a reason for seeking the extension in May's letter?

A Dub in Glasgo

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

That's what the transition period is for. There are 2 scenarios:

1) WA -> Transition Period to 2020 (extendible to 2022);
2) No deal -> Crash Out.

The legislative changes etc. can all occur during the Transition Period, as the UK must abide by all EU laws and regulations during this period. If anything, the UK needs an extension more for the no deal scenario.

The UK needs to get both the HoC and the HoL to ratify the WA - that is now impossible to achieve before 29th March therefore the UK has requested an extension to enable this. The EU have agreed on one condition.. the HoC ratifies the WA first and then an extension can be granted

Enzokk

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

As I said above, this is only correct in the event of a no deal Brexit.

No, because the UK will not be a member of the EU any longer. So any legislation that mentions the UK as part of the EU needs to be changed before they leave.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes i think he captures both leaders pretty well. I also liked Fintan O’Tooles take on May in last weekends IT. She started out wanting to be like her cricket idol Geoff Boycott, but ended up more a Tim Henman. A good very effective analogy imo.

Nah, Tim Henman was a mediocre player who massively outperformed his talent over the course of his career. I'm trying to think of someone famous enough to have been as useless as TM.

prawnsambo

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

But an extension to legislate is not IIRC a reason for seeking the extension in May's letter?

It's the actual reason that she gives in her letter requesting an extension.

Enzokk

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

I think we're at cross-purposes here. Of course the WA needs to be translated into legislation via the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill/Act.

What I'm saying is incorrect is that all of the EU legislation (etc.) needs to be transposed into UK law prior to this date - that must be done before the end of the Transition Period.

Now I agree that there are many SIs which need to be passed that fall between two stools - those legal matters imposed by EU law which apply to non-EU issues as they relate to the UK. I understand most of these have been completed. These should have been done by 29 March in any event, so why aren't they on track... they apply regardless of the WA being passed or not!

But an extension to legislate is not IIRC a reason for seeking the extension in May's letter?

Yeah I think we are talking about the same thing, but it has been reported that there will need to be time to get the legislation passed for a long time before the UK leaves. That is why Theresa May delaying the votes has been so contentious. She has reduced the time the UK MPs has to scrutinize the new legislation that will be needed before they leave. There will be time to pass other legislation after they have left but this doesn't mean they can leave without passing the legislation required for the WA.

That is why negotiations concluded in November. This is because of the time needed. If as you say it is not needed then surely they would still have been negotiating until a few weeks ago on the WA.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

prawnsambo wrote: »

No, it's part of Article 50:

...except the WA expressly creates a transition period. Have a look at the WA, all Union Law continues to apply to the UK during the TP with the exception of ability to negotiate trade deals with third countries.

Leroy42

prawnsambo wrote: »

The revoke option is available to all MPs. And it doesn't matter who the PM is. If someone brings a motion to revoke, John Bercow is almost bound to allow it through. The problem is finding someone with the intestinal fortitude to do this. I imagine that the TIG would do it in a heartbeat, but the very fact of their doing it would probably doom it to failure. It will take a high-ranking Tory or Labour MP to bring it to the house and have any hope of getting cross party support for it. A Dominic Grieve or Keir Starmer type.

There is no signal of anything close to a majority in the HoC for this course of action. They talk about unicorns, but that is one right there.

There are, currently, two options facing the HoC. How and why they got to this point is irrelevant. If they have a vote on 28th on TM's deal, the choice will either be to accept the deal or to crash out.

The HoC has had 3 years to come to a position on revoking A50, to come to a position on CU and SM and whatever else the remainers dream of. Last week they had the change to test the idea of a 2nd Ref and choose not to risk it for fear of losing. TM doesn't work on that basis, the end justifies the means.

Of course things could happen in the next few days, but at this point it is highly unlikely. The ERG can see the Crash out ideal within their grasp, Brexit Day could still be delivered by 29th March.

So I think that TM's deal with finally get through as she has systemically and brazenly in some cases, ruled out any chance of alternatives.