Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

I can only take it you haven't read the Withdrawal Agreement; I've explained the Transition Period to you now as well. The UK will be treated in effect as a member of the EU during the Transition Period.

Here's the WA: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

prawnsambo wrote: »

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

Ok, here's the full text - can you show me where this is stated? I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, but you've made the claim and I'm interested to see if it's correct or not.

Enzokk

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

I can only take it you haven't read the Withdrawal Agreement; I've explained the Transition Period to you now as well. The UK will be treated in effect as a member of the EU during the Transition Period.

Here's the WA: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

Yes I understand they will be treated as a member, but they will not be a member in that time. It is a small distinction but an important one. I am not a lawyer or constitutional expert but if everybody is reporting that an extension is required to pass the legislation required before the UK leaves the EU on March 29th, I am not going to argue on it. It has been clear for a while now that an extension will be needed if her deal is passed. The only one denying it was May and she is not the most credible source right not.

robinph

When I stuck my name on the latest revoke petition it was at 100,000 yesterday evening, last time I looked it was well over 600,000.

Now the website seems to have crashed. I guess everyone has got into work and suddenly got busy trying to sign it.

prawnsambo

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

...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.

Sorry, you're correct. Add to that the UK no longer taking part in EU governance structures and bodies.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes I understand they will be treated as a member, but they will not be a member in that time. It is a small distinction but an important one. I am not a lawyer or constitutional expert but if everybody is reporting that an extension is required to pass the legislation required before the UK leaves the EU on March 29th, I am not going to argue on it. It has been clear for a while now that an extension will be needed if her deal is passed. The only one denying it was May and she is not the most credible source right not.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the plain English explanation in the preamble of the Withdrawal Agreement

CONSIDERING that it is in the interest of both the Union and the United Kingdom to determine a
transition or implementation period during which – notwithstanding all consequences of the United
Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union as regards the United Kingdom's participation in the
institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, in particular the end, on the date of entry into
force of this Agreement, of the mandates of all members of institutions, bodies and agencies of the
Union nominated, appointed or elected in relation to the United Kingdom's membership of the
Union – Union law , including international agreements, should be applicable to and in the United
Kingdom, and, as a general rule, with the same effect as regards the Member States, in order to
avoid disruption in the period during which the agreement(s) on the future relationship will be
negotiated,

RECOGNISING that, even if Union law will be applicable to and in the United Kingdom during the
transition period, the specificities of the United Kingdom as a State having withdrawn from the
Union mean that it will be important for the United Kingdom to be able to take steps to prepare and
establish new international arrangements of its own, including in areas of Union exclusive
competence, provided such agreements do not enter into force or apply during that period, unless so
authorised by the Union,

prawnsambo

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Ok, here's the full text - can you show me where this is stated? I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, but you've made the claim and I'm interested to see if it's correct or not.

That's not the letter requesting the extension. This is.

Here's the part that gives the reason:

if the motion is passed, I am confident that Parliament will proceed to ratify the deal constructively. But this will clearly not be completed before 29 March 2019. In our legal system, the Government will need to take a Bill through both Houses of Parliament to enact our commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement into domestic law.

BonnieSituation

dresden8 wrote: »

We're all concentrating on the commons but if it does get through there any word on which way the lords will jump?

Given how the lords has been acting the last 3 years which has been one of somewhat of a brake on the madness of the HOC the lord's will be all over any revocation or deal vote. No doubt about it.

BonnieSituation

Scoondal wrote: »

To sum up Donald Tusk's statement yesterday :
UK can get an extension to 23 May if the withdrawal agreement is passed before 29 March. Or a longer extension might be agreed if there is a referendum or a general election.
But on independant ie, they say that France, Belgium and Spain oppose any extension short or long.
Anyway the UK parliament will not agree to the UK/EU agreement.
So it must be a UK general election or referendum or a "No Deal" exit on 29 March.
What else can happen ?

We literally pay no heed to the independent.ie around these parts. You should too.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's not the letter requesting the extension. This is.

Here's the part that gives the reason:

Ah you're right, was looking at the wrong letter.

As an aside I note you linked to what seems to be an obscure website... I was having trouble finding it earlier, is it just not very available or just not well indexed by google?

ArmaniJeanss

Peregrinus wrote: »

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?

I'd have thought as a gov website that you'd have to put in valid name/address to sign it, double checked off the electoral register? Maybe not.

It did seem to go viral last evening after the TMPM speech so it could be genuine.

Also I suspect that it operates a queueing system, so if say 300,000 people signed it between 8.30pm and 11.30pm (normal hours) that the total wouldn't get updated straightaway. It might just verify a block of 100 every 10 seconds or something so what might look like 100 people signing at 4am is actually 11pm signatories being finally added.

black forest

The german Bertelsmann foundation has published a study about the economic consequences of Brexit today. They are looking at two different outcomes. Soft Brexit and a No Deal Brexit.


https://twitter.com/bstbrussels/status/1108645016010964992?s=21


Direct link to article

Lets have a look at the No Deal Brexit:

Citizens in EU countries (excluding the UK) would have to bear income losses of 40 billion euros per year with a hard Brexit. The British themselves would be hit hardest by a "No-Deal-Brexit": UK citizens would suffer income losses of 57 billion euros per year (around 900 euros per capita). In Germany, too, the loss of income due to a hard Brexit would be high at around 10 billion euros per year. This would make the loss of income in Germany the highest in Europe, after the UK. France and Italy would also see significant income losses amounting to billions of euros.

European region per region they are listing the losses. Ireland will be hit hard:

According to the authors, it would cost the Irish 720 euros per capita and year (around 3.5 billion in total). The Netherlands would also be severely affected given its relatively small population, but with over three billion euros in income losses.

Others like the US and China will be the winners:

The study also shows that some countries outside Europe could benefit from Brexit. According to the simulations, US incomes would benefit from a hard Brexit and could rise by around 13 billion euros annually. In China, incomes would rise by around five billion euros annually, in Russia a slight increase of around 260 million euros annually would be expected due to Brexit. "European value chains are negatively affected by Brexit. This would make trade within Europe more expensive and trade with the rest of the world could become more attractive." says Ponattu.

So in Europe you will find no winners. The whole 38 pages study can be downloaded as a pdf ....


Here


Don ´t worry most of it are tables. Even Dominic Raab could read it, in theory.

Shelga

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.

If I was someone like Dominic Grieve, I would seriously consider doing this, but I would actually fear for my life, after doing so. Certainly, I would be stepping up my security, or hiring some if I didn't have any yet. These are incredibly dangerous times the UK finds itself in, and the tension could spill over into something horrific at any moment. It is almost unbelievable that it has come to this.

I judge MPs harshly for not having voted for an amendment on a second referendum last week. They should have grabbed the chance with both hands, but no, it was more party politics. It may have been their only chance- now it's May's deal, no deal, or revoke- all of which will be disastrous.

ToBeFrank123

May blames the MPs.
MPs blame May.
Nothing new here really. Both sides trying to shift blame as much as possible.
And because no-one is willing to take any responsibility, Hard Brexit is looking more and more likely unless the EU can rescue them again. But what is the point, a couple months from now, they will be at the same cliff edge with the same arguments and lack of taking responsibility.

prawnsambo

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Ah you're right, was looking at the wrong letter.

As an aside I note you linked to what seems to be an obscure website... I was having trouble finding it earlier, is it just not very available or just not well indexed by google?

Conservative Home is a pretty well read website for Tories. But yeah, obscure is probably the new paradigm for Tories. The letter was pretty widely disseminated on Twitter, but I wanted a link that didn't require lots of clicking.

Enzokk

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the plain English explanation in the preamble of the Withdrawal Agreement

At the very least the, EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT) BILL, will need to be passed for her deal to become legal in the UK. This is from my linked article,

Only needed if Britain is to leave with a deal, this bill must pass in order for the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU to have domestic legal effect. But it cannot be introduced to parliament until lawmakers have voted to approve the deal.

It gives effect to the transition period, due to run until December 2020, as well as the rights of EU citizens, a financial settlement with the bloc and an agreement on how to avoid a hard border in Ireland if a future trade deal with the EU cannot be concluded in time.

Many provisions are expected to be contentious, so the bill’s passage is unlikely to be quick.

So if this is the only legislation required that needs to be passed it could still take time that would have required an extension.

Akrasia

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the plain English explanation in the preamble of the Withdrawal Agreement

The WA isnt a treaty, its an agreement to allow a transition period. To bring the WA into force requires legislation to change the UK statutes so that every law that currently applies between the UK and the EU will still have the same effect after A50 is concluded. From the date A50 is completed, the UK is a third country and all treaties cease to apply. The WA is an agreement that the UK will mirror all EU laws for the length of a transition period and the EU will reciprocate by allowing the UK access to EU infrastructure. All this requires statutory instruments and legislation

robinph

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd have thought as a gov website that you'd have to put in valid name/address to sign it, double checked off the electoral register? Maybe not.

It did seem to go viral last evening after the TMPM speech so it could be genuine.

Also I suspect that it operates a queueing system, so if say 300,000 people signed it between 8.30pm and 11.30pm (normal hours) that the total wouldn't get updated straightaway. It might just verify a block of 100 every 10 seconds or something so what might look like 100 people signing at 4am is actually 11pm signatories being finally added.

I don't think it does any checks against the electoral register. You just need a valid post code and then respond to the link in an email, the numbers then update instantly (from having previously signed some much less viral petitions).

prawnsambo

robinph wrote: »

I don't think it does any checks against the electoral register. You just need a valid post code and then respond to the link in an email, the numbers then update instantly (from having previously signed some much less viral petitions).

Looking at the JSON data, it appears that there are votes from all over the world. When I looked, there were over 700 from Ireland. Of course there were thousands from China as well (The Chinese love voting ), but at the time, votes from outside the UK were less than 20k of a 540k total.

Calina

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Florence Foster Jenkins.

But I digress.

robinph

Shelga wrote: »

I judge MPs harshly for not having voted for an amendment on a second referendum last week. They should have grabbed the chance with both hands, but no, it was more party politics. It may have been their only chance- now it's May's deal, no deal, or revoke- all of which will be disastrous.

The peoples vote amendment would never have passed last week, but they needed to ensure that the no deal one passed and keep as many MPs on board with that.

prawnsambo

For anyone who wants to have a look at the Withdrawal Agreement but doesn't have the time to wade through the almost 600 pages of it, there's a handy summary that's about one tenth the size.

Leroy42

robinph wrote: »

The peoples vote amendment would never have passed last week, but they needed to ensure that the no deal one passed and keep as many MPs on board with that.

And the question now is will it pass in the next few days? What will have changed that suddenly they feel confident in getting their message across, and why were they not in that position already?

The surest way to have halted TM's direction would have been to have cemented a clear alternative that were prepared to vote her down. But, for a variety of reasons that never happened and so TM was able to continue on on the basis that at least her way was a way.

So in part, her message of last night was correct. MP's have failed to make a decision, only pointing out what they don't want. And thus they are left with two options. TM's deal or crash out. TM is betting, realistically I believe, that despite the lack of any clear direction from the HoC (or even the country) that when faced with the cliff edge they will opt for the lessor of two evils.

TM will have delivered Brexit and the EU will have got its agreed deal accepted.

Macy0161

Leroy42 wrote: »

The surest way to have halted TM's direction would have been to have cemented a clear alternative that were prepared to vote her down. But, for a variety of reasons that never happened and so TM was able to continue on on the basis that at least her way was a way.

A pretty big reason was she kept whipping to defeat them, on the promise of more votes to come, which she has effectively reneged on now.

ArmaniJeanss

Leroy42 wrote: »

And the question now is will it pass in the next few days? What will have changed that suddenly they feel confident in getting their message across, and why were they not in that position already?

A second referendum vote getting through HoC is still a huge long shot - but it was an impossible shot a week ago so Labour were right not to support it.

It now needs a terrible divisive speech by May (tick), a few million marching on Saturday, the petition reaching say 5 Million over the weekend, a few key MPs coming out in favour of it, a media push from more than just the Guardian. And it might just gather momentum over the last week.
Probably not though.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Akrasia wrote: »

The WA isnt a treaty, its an agreement to allow a transition period. To bring the WA into force requires legislation to change the UK statutes so that every law that currently applies between the UK and the EU will still have the same effect after A50 is concluded. From the date A50 is completed, the UK is a third country and all treaties cease to apply. The WA is an agreement that the UK will mirror all EU laws for the length of a transition period and the EU will reciprocate by allowing the UK access to EU infrastructure. All this requires statutory instruments and legislation

Sorry, but this just isn't what the WA says. It puts the UK and EU into a transition period where all Union Laws apply in and within the UK. At the end of the transition period everything you say is correct.

Leroy42

And I just like to say that Corbyn is a disgrace for leaving the meeting last night simply because Chuka was there. And to come out with such a limp wristed excuse "the meeting was different that we were told" is just so feeble.

I doubt the meeting was ever going to achieve anything but he continued inability to actually take any leadership position is deeply concerning for the future and it gives the very real possibility that this sort of carry on will continue on for the future.

Akrasia

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Sorry, but this just isn't what the WA says. It puts the UK and EU into a transition period where all Union Laws apply in and within the UK. At the end of the transition period everything you say is correct.

The word 'Should' is what you're missing.

'Should' is not 'will'. It requires additional measures to bring them into force

ToBeFrank123

May has put her party before country and Corbyn has done the same.

They are all the same, party first, country last.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

And the question now is will it pass in the next few days? What will have changed that suddenly they feel confident in getting their message across, and why were they not in that position already?

The surest way to have halted TM's direction would have been to have cemented a clear alternative that were prepared to vote her down. But, for a variety of reasons that never happened and so TM was able to continue on on the basis that at least her way was a way.

So in part, her message of last night was correct. MP's have failed to make a decision, only pointing out what they don't want. And thus they are left with two options. TM's deal or crash out. TM is betting, realistically I believe, that despite the lack of any clear direction from the HoC (or even the country) that when faced with the cliff edge they will opt for the lessor of two evils.

TM will have delivered Brexit and the EU will have got its agreed deal accepted.

Theresa May has whipped against ALL these other motions.
She is acting as if it's being a free vote of the HOC it's not.

Her vote has hammerred twice now. It is on her as PM to solve this. There are potential majorities to get a Bexit through but she is whipping against the alternatives.

Therefore the only possibility of an alternative getting through was a massive revolt of the conservative party.

They did it for the WA and it is up to her to adapt.

What she said yesterday about the Parliament was basically: Even though the Commons has dealt two historic Gov defeats on the biggest issue in a half decade they have not gone further an added more historic anti-Government defeats. Therefore it's all their fault. They should have done this.




People should also start to see the post-truth element of these 'Statements'.

When she is under pressure she goes through all the theatre of a dramatic announcement, gathers the UK or world media, projects the whole show of importance/decision but syas nothing or diverts with a new talking point (blames parliament).

All her Statements have been like this. All theatre, no substance.

US and UK are starting to resemble more and more the 'Surkovian' Russian model of the early 2000's.

You project democracy and democratic processes which become increasingly weak and fake as time goes on.
Like a movie set.

THe model is called 'sovereign democracy'.

It is perfect for disguising a drift to right wing authoritarianism.

Right wing authoritanarianism seems to be the model to resist a democratic response to oncoming global issues like inequality and climate change.