Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

dr.fuzzenstein

trellheim wrote: »

One thing to remember is that by having the UK government take no action , the Brexiteers will achieve their aim, as 31 October they are out if nothing else happens

(it is always harder to get action taken than do nothing)

Therefore

1. A huge set of interests - the Brexiteers - win by stymying any deal or extension
2. In order for anything different to happen, the PM must either get a deal, revoke A50 or request an A50 extension
3. All three of those options are as unlikely (to me) as anything else thats been bandied about for any number of reasons we've talked about them all here.
4. therefore Hard Brexit is by far the most likely option - someone prove me wrong !

You cannot prove future events, there are just different scenarios with varying degrees of probability.
Deal, no deal, remain, you cannot prove either scenario with 100% certainty.
Or would you willing to bet your house and job on one scenario?

Nody

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The so what is that there will be a GE to follow and a likely extension granted to facilitate it. Of course, the EU doesnt have to oblige if or when it is requested, but i think thats highly unlikely. Of course, goes without saying i could be wrong. Just an opinion.

Extension can only be granted if it's asked for however; if the PM is not willing to ask for it then GE or not does not matter as the crash out happens on 31st Oct and all the Tory PM needs to do is stall it long enough to ensure the GE has to happen after that date to "win" and the parliament can stand around stomping their foot angrily about it to no effect.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Extension can only be granted if it's asked for however; if the PM is not willing to ask for it then GE or not does not matter.

The government could lose a vote of no confidence triggering a GE. In that situation, the EU would grant an extension.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The government could lose a vote of no confidence triggering a GE. In that situation, the EU would grant an extension.

Who in the UK do you see having the authority to ask for it? The sitting government is still the only party allowed to ask for the extension as they still do represent the UK even if they lost a vote of confidence until the GE has been completed and a new government has been formed.

Strazdas

Nody wrote: »

Extension can only be granted if it's asked for however; if the PM is not willing to ask for it then GE or not does not matter as the crash out happens on 31st Oct and all the Tory PM needs to do is stall it long enough to ensure the GE has to happen after that date to "win" and the parliament can stand around stomping their foot angrily about it to no effect.

What would happen there though is Remain MPs would spot what Johnson was up to long before October 31 and would be taking drastic measures to sabotage him

Nody

Strazdas wrote: »

What would happen there though is Remain MPs would spot what Johnson was up to long before October 31 and would be taking drastic measures to sabotage him

Makes no difference; short of the remain MPs suddenly growing a pair and all deciding to oust the whole government AND somehow get a new pro EU government created by the Tory card carrying members the Brexiteers can simply keep forming new governments until the time runs out. This is the part that people seem to forget; there is no reason for the Tory party to call a GE (they know they would lose by a landslide) nor is there a reason for the Brexiteers to agree to one. Their card carrying members who'll vote for the new PM are all making Farage look wishy washy by comparison in their view on Brexit as well and will keep voting in Brexiteers as the new PM until they die. Hence short of a miracle there will not be a Tory PM or government that will want to cancel A50 or call a GE and the parliament has no way to force a GE to be held any more. The only party that wins by default are hardcore Brexiteers due to the default outcome which is time limited; hence all they need is stalling for a few months and they get what they want. To get another outcome requires a PM with integrity (good luck with that one) or a sudden realization by parliament what will happen and that they vote through what Brexit they do want and push the government to enact it (to date they have failed to agree what they want; only agreeing on what they don't want and only on rare occasions). That's sitting in the same category as Boris getting a new deal from EU in terms of chances of it happening.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Who in the UK do you see having the authority to ask for it? The sitting government is still the only party allowed to ask for the extension as they still do represent the UK even if they lost a vote of confidence until the GE has been completed and a new government has been formed.

There must be a GE within seven weeks of a lost confidence vote. Assuming a PM who doesn't want a No Deal is voted in then they could ask.

Alternatively, as the EU doesn't want No Deal, they could unilaterally offer a continuation of existing arrangements until a new government is in place. Of course, theoretically this could be refused by a government who has no mandate but that would be an extraordinary move that could be unconstitutional.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There must be a GE within seven weeks of a lost confidence vote. Assuming a PM who doesn't want a No Deal is voted in then they could ask.

Alternatively, as the EU doesn't want No Deal, they could unilaterally offer a continuation of existing arrangements until a new government is in place. Of course, theoretically this could be refused by a government who has no mandate but that would be an extraordinary move that could be unconstitutional.

Article 50 wrote:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

The treaty don't allow that; without an counterpart asking for an extension they are out 31st Oct. If we use your 7 weeks as a basis that gives the parliament until 20th Sep. to somehow oust the sitting government and they are all going on vacation on 25th July (no chance it will happen by then) and return on 3rd of Sep. (or possibly later if he wants to delay them further). Hence your claim is that in the three weeks (or less) the parliament will somehow get together and get through a vote of no confidence? And that's assuming Boris would tip his hand that early in the first place which even with him is highly unlikely and beyond the fact that Corbyn would likely whip against such a vote of no confidence yet still the parliament will suddenly throw of all the whips etc. they obeyed previously to join together in a way they have not done in the three years before... Optimistic does not even start to cover that as an option.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

The treaty don't allow that; without an counterpart asking for an extension they are out 31st Oct. If we use your 7 weeks as a basis that gives the parliament until 20th Sep. to somehow oust the sitting government and they are all going on vacation on 25th July (no chance it will happen by then) and return on 3rd of Sep. Hence your claim is that in the three weeks the parliament will somehow get together and get through a vote of no confidence? And that's assuming Boris would tip his hand that early in the first place which even with him highly unlikely...

I didn't say that they would grant an official extension, just that current arrangements would continue until the new government would be in place. Which would be a matter of weeks. Anyway, matters will come to a head well before then. Johnson will be asked to declare his hand in parliament and MPs will make their minds up based on his answer. Any obfuscation will be taken as a refusal to discount No Deal and matters will escalate from there. A large majority of MPs are vehemently against No Deal. Party loyalty to a populist versus crashing out will be the decision for many Tory MPs

Spanish Eyes

Both potential incumbents are total charlatans.

Remember they are only pitching themselves to 200k or so Tory members. That is DEMOCRACY, remember!

I doubt there will be a No Deal exit. If there is, the intelligence of either incumbent is non existent. But sure we know this already.

And they know this also, if they have have brains. So they are charlatans. End of story.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

The government could lose a vote of no confidence triggering a GE. In that situation, the EU would grant an extension.

No they wouldn't.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

No they wouldn't.

Why?

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I didn't say that they would grant an official extension, just that current arrangements would continue until the new government would be in place. Which would be a matter of weeks. Anyway, matters will come to a head well before then. Johnson will be asked to declare his hand in parliament and MPs will make their minds up based on his answer. Any obfuscation will be taken as a refusal to discount No Deal and matters will escalate from there. A large majority of MPs are vehemently against No Deal. Party loyalty to a populist versus crashing out will be the decision for many Tory MPs

To put that in perspective the last two votes of no confidence to succeed were 1979 and 1923 respectively; yes they may be against a no deal but they need to move way beyond that inc. going against their respective leader & whip on the topic (as well as being accused of destroying the Tory party in the next GE and likely not be reelected as the party refuses to back them as they went against the party leadership). Now compare that to vote along party lines or simply abstain and ask yourself; do the politicians in parliament put the country or party first in general? That's the inertia you're talking about overcoming here.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Why?

Several reasons;

1 - the UK would have to request one; that request would have to come from the sitting government and there is zero chance they will ask for one under either Bojo or Hunt.

2 - even if they did, the EU would be aware that there is almost no conceivable configuration that could emerge from a GE to put in place the steps needed to rescind A50.

3 - the EU has had enough of this sh*t and governments and industry need to get on with it. We are ready. Let's get on with it.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

To put that in perspective the last two votes of no confidence to succeed were 1979 and 1923 respectively; yes they may be against a no deal but they need to move way beyond that inc. going against their respective leader & whip on the topic (as well as being accused of destroying the Tory party in the next GE and likely not be reelected as the party refuses to back them as they went against the party leadership). Now compare that to vote along party lines or simply abstain and ask yourself; do the politicians in parliament put the country or party first in general? That's the inertia you're talking about overcoming here.

There are 30 plus Tory MPs who are meeting regularly to form an anti No Deal group . They are already talking about various strategies. One is a bill on Northern Ireland. Another is an emergency debate. How many Tories would put country before party? In this case, quite a few if it stopped No Deal. Here's the thing. Many One Nation Tory MPs are feeling increasingly alienated from their own party and no longer see it as their natural home now that the ERG run it. A looming No Deal will be the final straw. Some will lose their seats, some may return with increased majorities as Remain voters switch to them. In fact, I think 30 is, ahem, a conservative estimate.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

Several reasons;

1 - the UK would have to request one; that request would have to come from the sitting government and there is zero chance they will ask for one under either Bojo or Hunt.

2 - even if they did, the EU would be aware that there is almost no conceivable configuration that could emerge from a GE to put in place the steps needed to rescind A50.

3 - the EU has had enough of this sh*t and governments and industry need to get on with it. We are ready. Let's get on with it.

1. As I said, it's possible there could be a new government by October.
2. Indeed, finding a coalition that would rescind would be difficult. Finding a coalition that would want an orderly withdrawal agreement based on May's agreement should be much easier.
3. We are not ready. Crashing out will hammer Ireland's economy and destroy the GFA.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

1. As I said, it's possible there could be a new government by October. 2. Indeed, finding a coalition that would rescind would be difficult. Finding a coalition that would want an orderly withdrawal agreement based on May's agreement should be much easier. 3. We are not ready. Crashing out will hammer Ireland's economy and destroy the GFA.

An extension to implement the agreed WA is the only basis on which one might be granted. The EU isn't interested in byzantine UK politics. If the UK asks for one, it will be considered.

The EU is as ready as it will be. Crash out will hurt the Irish economy and complicate the GFA but we'll manage.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

An extension to implement the agreed WA is the only basis on which one might be granted. The EU isn't interested in byzantine UK politics. If the UK asks for one, it will be considered.

The EU is as ready as it will be. Crash out will hurt the Irish economy and complicate the GFA but we'll manage.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the impact of a No Deal on Ireland. I'm sure the WA will be agreed. They will then get to work on agreeing a soft or no Brexit.

There's also an important political aspect that Johnson is overlooking or ignoring. Currently, only 32% of people want a No Deal Brexit. That figure will only decrease in the aftermath of Britain crashing out. Unless he wants to destroy the Tory party and his legacy, Johnson might want to think again about No Deal once the Tory membership has crowned him.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree on the impact of a No Deal on Ireland. I'm sure the WA will be agreed. They will then get to work on agreeing a soft or no Brexit.

There's also an important political aspect that Johnson is overlooking or ignoring. Currently, only 32% of people want a No Deal Brexit. That figure will only decrease in the aftermath of Britain crashing out. Unless he wants to destroy the Tory party and his legacy, Johnson might want to think again about No Deal once the Tory membership has crowned him.

Boris is damned if he do; damned if he don't though but one case is clearly better from his perspective. Let's say he goes for cancelling A50 or extending it. Next GE the Brexit party will eat the Tories for breakfast for failing to deliver as even party faithful will punish them hard. If he does go ahead with a crash out (for what ever reason) at least he can buy himself some time to fix it and blame "The people voted for this and I'm only doing the democratic duty here" (and of course it's all May's fault for not negotiating a better deal earlier and waste the time we had to do so). The second case gives him some (albeit small) chance of remaining as a PM after the GE and more importantly pushes the problem forward a few years. He can try to build a legacy on solving things, improving NHS or lowering taxes or what ever and still have the party behind him. If he pushes a cancellation of A50 or extension his hardcore brexit party members will push him out for someone else instead before next GE due to the betrayal.

Hence without being ironic Boris best bet is to crash out (if needed) and try to salvage the situation afterwards because at least he's not going to be kicked out by his own party members. Extend A50 and chances are he'll be challenged and gone within 6 months replaced by the next Brexiteer who is willing to promise that they will leave come hell and high tide to the party members. You can see that attitude already in this election and it's not going to grow softer out of the blue esp. as there appear to have been a wave of ex Farage party members joining exactly to be able to push that agenda and vote accordingly on the next PM.

reslfj

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

No they wouldn't.

Why?

Because A50 very clearly says an extension needs the accept by the UK and by all EU27 member states - and before the Treaties incl A50 cease to apply (after Oct 31.).

The EU27 will follow the law and the treaties - and A50 and A49 don't leave much space for the Eu27 to operate in.

After a GE has been called, I am of the impression, that a caretaker government should not take or allow any action that permanently changes the UK's position. It should the EU27 ask for a short extension until after the GE.
Is this different in the UK?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

....
3. We are not ready. Crashing out will hammer Ireland's economy and destroy the GFA.

A no deal will first and foremost devastate the UK.

As England is by far the largest economy the trade via English harbours and the Eurostar trains will be the main focus area for the EU.
These will be the points where UK politics breaks followed by an actual economical break down in the UK. The EU27 will clearly focus their first effort on England.

When the UK breaks down politically it will shortly after have to ask the EU27 for a deal - any deal really - the cost of which could easily be much higher for the UK than now.

Transport to/from Ireland by sea directly from/to continental harbours, I guess, will also be higher on the EU27's agenda than an early physical control along the land-border.

Tariffs and control will need to be collected at the land border Ireland<->NI, but even if it seems as many lorries each day, the volume is far lower than between EU<->England.
Note, Ireland buys more goods in the UK than it sells to the UK, and the 440 million citizens in the EU26 - 100 times the Irish population - can easily absorb a fair amount of extra Irish quality products.

Lars

PS! I do understand about the networked supply chains North-South incl e.g. Irish milk being dairy processed in NI and largely sold back to Ireland. But these are the large amounts and regular transports - relative easy to handle without much physical control - at least in the early stages of a no deal.
Tariffs will have to be paid from day 1. but for a shorter period this is after all 'just' money.

A Shropshire Lad

There wont be a No Deal Brexit. Parliament will block it all the way. The only way it could happen is if theres a general election and the numbers change, but unlikely before October deadline. Also its hard to imagine the Cons will want an election at all given they would be losing loads of seats to Brexit party and others.

Nody

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

There wont be a No Deal Brexit. Parliament will block it all the way. The only way it could happen is if theres a general election and the numbers change, but unlikely before October deadline. Also its hard to imagine the Cons will want an election at all given they would be losing loads of seats to Brexit party and others.

Can people stop saying this and actually state HOW they are suppose to stop it? Yes; they voted against no brexit but they also failed to agree for ANY direction to take instead. Hence the parliament can sit there and vote against no brexit until they go blue in their face but short of actually stepping up and voting FOR what should be instead they will stop nothing. Hence voting against no brexit means nothing if they don't vote what the government has to do instead; and they have never had a majority for any solution and guess what happens then? Crash out 31st October no matter how much they vote against it.

To add; the only solution I've heard/read/seen to date is on the previous page with the no confidence vote which require both (currently) main parties to go against their respective whips and leaders to join up and this has to happen in a very short time interval.

reslfj

Nody wrote: »

,,,and more importantly pushes the problem forward a few years.

...he'll be challenged and gone within 6 months replaced by the next Brexiteer

"A few years" or "6 months"

How long do you think the UK can keep floating after a no deal and no mini deals ?

The UK political situation will break within a short period after a no deal Brexit and the economical break down will follow shortly there after.
We are talking some weeks rather than months and absolutely not years.

The EU27 may sound very diplomatic. The worst Michel Barnier has ever said may well be 'tick tick, the clock is ticking"

But be NOT fooled by him being a very professional negotiator - behind him is the EU27 Council and just one member state is needed to force the iron fist of the the EU27 saying "No No No" to the UK.

I'm pretty sure the game is up soon.

Lars

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

There wont be a No Deal Brexit. Parliament will block it all the way. The only way it could happen is if theres a general election and the numbers change, but unlikely before October deadline. Also its hard to imagine the Cons will want an election at all given they would be losing loads of seats to Brexit party and others.

Can people stop saying this and actually state HOW they are suppose to stop it?

Same way as in March and April.

I don't understand people saying Parliament can't stop No Deal when they already did it.

Nody

reslfj wrote: »

"A few years" or "6 months"

How long do you think the UK can keep floating after a no deal and no mini deals ?

The UK political situation will break within a short period after a no deal Brexit and the economical break down will follow shortly there after.
We are talking some weeks rather than months and absolutely not years.

And by crashing out he can then turn around and claim "See how bad it actually turned out but you wanted out; now I'm going to fix it by signing this deal that sucks but we'll improve it later" and remain as a PM and have a chance to remain as a PM after next GE. Ask for an extension and he's gone well before next GE. The point is no matter what crashing out will give him a better chance than asking for an extension because in the second case his own party will nail him on the wall and vote him out were as in the first case he has a chance to hang on until next GE in a few years and possibly build his legacy as a brilliant politician.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Can people stop saying this and actually state HOW they are suppose to stop it? Yes; they voted against no brexit but they also failed to agree for ANY direction to take instead. Hence the parliament can sit there and vote against no brexit until they go blue in their face but short of actually stepping up and voting FOR what should be instead they will stop nothing. Hence voting against no brexit means nothing if they don't vote what the government has to do instead; and they have never had a majority for any solution and guess what happens then? Crash out 31st October no matter how much they vote against it.

What will shift the blockage is a GE. May spent her entire premiership keeping the Tory party intact and in power. Which brings me to your point about Johnson gaining from No Deal. Even if his government were to survive through to November and he presided over a No Deal, he has a wafer thin majority. I can only imagine what Ulster industry and farmers would be saying to the DUP. The idea that Johnson can lower taxes while improving the NHS doesn't compute. Especially as tax revenues will tank after crashing out. I'm afraid I can't see Johnson being re-elected after crashing out and a subsequent GE.

But just to reiterate, September will see the large majority of MPs across the Commons putting enormous pressure on Johnson to avoid No Deal.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Same way as in March and April.

I don't understand people saying Parliament can't stop No Deal when they already did it.

What has Parliament resolved to do to practically block no deal?

If it counts down to end of October with nothing sorted then the only way Parliament can block no deal is what exactly? What did that vote actually put in place beyond a meaningless platitude with no actual mechanics!?

Zubeneschamali

So No Deal happened in March and in April too?

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What will shift the blockage is a GE. May spent her entire premiership keeping the Tory party intact and in power. Which brings me to your point about Johnson gaining from No Deal. Even if his government were to survive through to November and he presided over a No Deal, he has a wafer thin majority. I can only imagine what Ulster industry and farmers would be saying to the DUP. The idea that Johnson can lower taxes while improving the NHS doesn't compute. Especially as tax revenues will tank after crashing out. I'm afraid I can't see Johnson being re-elected after crashing out and a subsequent GE.

But just to reiterate, September will see the large majority of MPs across the Commons putting enormous pressure on Johnson to avoid No Deal.

Two words; borrowing and inflation. I agree the economy will shrink; I agree that Boris will be walking on thin ice ready to crack at any time; I agree that Boris is unlikely to be the next PM but asking for an extension guarantees he will not remain as a PM. Small chance vs. no chance option with a politician who's as hardcore believer as May was it does not really become hard to see how he's likely to swing.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So No Deal happened in March and in April too?

Difference being if the next PM asks for an extension (as done in March) they will be outed very quickly exactly as what happened with May. What do you think Boris values more; country or personal gain and glory?

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Can people stop saying this and actually state HOW they are suppose to stop it? Yes; they voted against no brexit but they also failed to agree for ANY direction to take instead. Hence the parliament can sit there and vote against no brexit until they go blue in their face but short of actually stepping up and voting FOR what should be instead they will stop nothing. Hence voting against no brexit means nothing if they don't vote what the government has to do instead; and they have never had a majority for any solution and guess what happens then? Crash out 31st October no matter how much they vote against it.

To add; the only solution I've heard/read/seen to date is on the previous page with the no confidence vote which require both (currently) main parties to go against their respective whips and leaders to join up and this has to happen in a very short time interval.

Why would Labour whip against a vote of no confidence in the the Tories?