Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is popping up this morning. Can the EU withdraw the deadline?

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/1167364663522332672?s=21

That would be brilliant. Francois, Mogg, IDS et al would go bananas.

GM228

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is popping up this morning. Can the EU withdraw the deadline?

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/1167364663522332672?s=21

No, there must be unanimous agreement between the EU27 and the UK to do so as per Article 50.3:-

Article 50 wrote:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. 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.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

There is no provision for the EU27 to withdraw the deadline.

Peregrinus

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is popping up this morning. Can the EU withdraw the deadline?

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/1167364663522332672?s=21

Can only be changed by unanimous agreement of the UK and the other member states of the EU. In practice this means that the UK has to request an amendment, and the EU-27 have to agree unanimously to give it.

is_that_so

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont see how, there has to be a day when everything stops, that's what october 31st is, in reality the deadline is really a week or two before because any changes made need to be ratified by the council


However this may be another part of the EU the UK does not understand and they all seem to think along the lines of Davis that things can be changed up until the last second.

They are right to an extent about last minute changes and many a summit has gone down to the wire but once it's been agreed and nothing better shows up that's it.

VinLieger

is_that_so wrote: »

They are right to an extent about last minute changes and many a summit has gone down to the wire but once it's been agreed and nothing better shows up that's it.

Ohh i know but the time frames required need a day or two at least between when the final changes would be agreed to an extraordinary summit being able to meet to pass it.

Stop moaning ffs

It has been pointed out elsewhere that Brown saying this raises the number to four of the last PMs don’t know how the EU works at all and haven’t read the relevant agreements

funkey_monkey

Can the EU even do this without agreement with the UK Gov? I didn't think they could do this unilaterally.

Shelga

Legal request to stop prorogation has been denied:

Judge refuses to halt parliament suspension plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49521132

Fr Tod Umptious

One person who is really going to suffer from a no deal Brexit is Santa Claus.

The next few months is the time kids start to focus in on what they would like from Santa so it's the time that parents start getting the presents.
It's the time when stocks are at their highest and when the main retailers like Argos and Smyth's have good offers.

And obviously parents buy on line and use parcel motel etc for delivery.

A no deal Brexit would make the cost of buying online from the UK more prohibitive and add God knows what sort of delivery issues.

And even buying in Argos or Smyth's will be a problem as I'm sure they have supply lines running through the UK etc

I ain't looking forward to it.

prawnsambo

GM228 wrote: »

Whilst we know there were false promises during the Referendum such as the £350M NHS rubbish and immigration issues I don’t believe (but open to correction) there were any “easiest deal in history” promises made in the campaign or indeed and specific promises around a deal. And even if there was were they official Referendum promises or just political rubbish spouted out for the media?

I'm not sure how you can differentiate between the media and the people who consume that media. But there was lots of talk of 'easiest deal in history' from the likes of David Davis, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson on the government side and Farage et al outside of that. A quick twitter or google search would find all this. The laughable part of all this is that people defending their current 'no deal' stance are using the remain literature as proof that that's where they got the idea.

Here's one example.

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, and the public indicated to Parliament they wanted to leave, not they wanted to leave but only if we got a deal.

As I stated previously I’m only playing devils advocate, but the over-riding point is that there was no option in the first instance to vote on deal or no deal so when people state “they voted to leave”, but “they didn’t vote to leave without a deal” it is not really an accurate argument to make because there was never a question of them voting on such a point.

You can't separate the vote from the campaign. It's never been done in the history of elections. If campaigns had no effect on how people voted, politicians and parties wouldn't be spending millions on them. That the question was simplistic, just means that the campaigns had to fill in the gaps. And the same talking points that were raised during the campaign are still being trotted out today. "Taking back control", "Sovereignty" and "Our borders" etc.

InTheShadows

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is popping up this morning. Can the EU withdraw the deadline?

https://twitter.com/htscotpol/status/1167364663522332672?s=21

Clutching at straws

The UK is implementing the democratic will of its citizens and leaving in a few weeks.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Most EU states had a VAT type system long before the EU.

The UK has had such long before EU membership, it was just called a "Purchase Tax" before being renamed VAT when they joined the EU. It was introduced in 1940 to help the war effort, but remained until being renamed VAT in 1973 to comply with EU requirements, it was also a lot dearer than the EU VAT.

Nitpick: Purchase tax was quite a different system to VAT, not just a different name for a similar tax.

It was similar in that it was an expenditure tax which was included in the price of goods but in other respects it was quite different. In particular it was only charged at the point of manufacture, import or distribution, and was calculated on the wholesale price of the goods. Value added further down the chain was not taxed. It only applied to goods considered to be "luxury goods", and different rates applied dependind on the degree of luxuriousness.

VAT was invented by the EU, but many non-EU countries have adopted it. The UK would be free to abandon it after Brexit, but SFAIK there are no proposals to do so.

InTheShadows

Shelga wrote: »

Legal request to stop prorogation has been denied:

Judge refuses to halt parliament suspension plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49521132

Great news.

storker

InTheShadows wrote: »

Clutching at straws

The UK is implementing the democratic will of its citizens and leaving in a few weeks.

Fantastic. Can't wait til they're gone. The UK now is like the obnoxious drunk at the party who just doesn't know when to leave.

Peregrinus

Shelga wrote: »

Legal request to stop prorogation has been denied:

Judge refuses to halt parliament suspension plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49521132

This is the Scottish case. There's a separate case being taken in the English courts.

And this decision is only a refusal to grant an interim order, which would apply pending the full hearing of the Scottish case. The full hearing is next week.

CelticRambler

GM228 wrote: »

Whilst we know there were false promises during the Referendum such as the £350M NHS rubbish and immigration issues I don’t believe (but open to correction) there were any “easiest deal in history” promises made in the campaign or indeed and specific promises around a deal. And even if there was were they official Referendum promises or just political rubbish spouted out for the media?

While I hate going over and over the "how should the Referendum have been run" debate (now ancient history :rolleyes: ) I can't let this pass as this was the fundamental flaw in the whole process. The Referendum was proposed by the government as a vote to change nothing, so it was in itself a promise to maintain all existing deals.

That went against every variation of common sense and good practice, leaving the door open for pro-Brexit supporters to make every vague promise they wanted (including, yes, the assertion that a post Brexit deal would be the easiest in history [see Led by Donkeys for multiple examples]) When the government belatedly started to counter these exaggerated claims with fact-based warnings, they were all dismissed as Project Fear by the now highly energised Leave campaign.

Your comparison with other referendums is inappropriate, because they ask for a vote on a single specific article of the constitution, e.g. in Ireland "allow abortion or not allow abortion", in Switzerland "align gun laws with those of the EU or not align". It is easy to subsequently debate and enact legislation on these specific points because it's unlikely to affect any other part of the country's socio-political landscape. Regardless of the decision, life goes on.

That was never going to be the case with the Brexit referendum: Britain's relationship with the EU had become so entwined over forty years that a vote to Leave would affect everyone in many different ways, whether they understood that or not. It was an idiotic choice to put to the people in a simplistic form, and it was an idiotic decision to frame the question "the wrong way round" - handing all the cards (most of them Jokers) to the other side. The ultimate irony is that, having voted to Leave, Britain made the same mistake again, handing all their cards to the EU - only this time they're all Aces.

is_that_so

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: Purchase tax was quite a different system to VAT, not just a different name for a similar tax.

It was similar in that it was an expenditure tax which was included in the price of goods but in other respects it was quite different. In particular it was only charged at the point of manufacture, import or distribution, and was calculated on the wholesale price of the goods. Value added further down the chain was not taxed. It only applied to goods considered to be "luxury goods", and different rates applied dependind on the degree of luxuriousness.

VAT was invented by the EU, but many non-EU countries have adopted it. The UK would be free to abandon it after Brexit, but SFAIK there are no proposals to do so.

VAT predates the EU by a long way. The French and Germans had a consumption tax during WW1 with the French bringing in the modern version in 1954, in the Ivory Coast of all places! They implemented it fully in 1958.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

I see a couple of problems with this, the EU has been put in a tough position by Johnson by framing no-deal as their choice and fault and that they are refusing to negotiate. This seems to have worked as there will be ongoing meetings with the UK to get the same deal. So that has worked well for the UK.

Here on Planet Earth, is was Johnson who loudly announced that he would not talk to the EU until they dropped the backstop. These twice a week talks are a total climbdown.

Meanwhile the EU has been open to negotiation on the content of the Political Declaration all along. It is the WA which they will not negotiate. There is no sign, none, that they have changed that longstanding position.

None of this is or will work out well for the UK.

newport2

BarryD2 wrote: »

Is that not broadly the case here too? Obviously there are people who are concerned but in my circles, I would say most just think it's a topic of ongoing boredom and sure, someone will sort it out and we'll all be grand etc.

I don't think so. Everyone I've spoken to here is aware it is going to have a negative affect on the economy and will thus impact them in some way. If we were leaving the EU ourselves, I think they would be up the wall about the possible impacts it could have.

I think a large part of it is down to the size of the country. The larger it is, possibly the more detached people are from politics and the establishment. It's very local in a small country like ours.

trellheim

Rory Stewart now waking up to the fact that I have been saying - that the ERG will not support any WA ( this is exactly why Steve Baker would not take the Govt junior ministry..... interesting that the moggster is still in )

https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1167361989863202816

prawnsambo

GM228 wrote: »

Most EU states had a VAT type system long before the EU.

The UK has had such long before EU membership, it was just called a "Purchase Tax" before being renamed VAT when they joined the EU. It was introduced in 1940 to help the war effort, but remained until being renamed VAT in 1973 to comply with EU requirements, it was also a lot dearer than the EU VAT.

Thanks for the history lesson. However it has no bearing whatsoever on the question asked or the answer. If you think it does, please explain how an Irish company could charge an export customer in a brexited UK a UK 'purchase tax' or an EU tax to a non-EU country.

Stop moaning ffs

Plot thickens. I had been following that twitter account too

Police march Brexit ‘leaker’ from Downing Street ‘after furious row’ with Boris Johnson’s feared enforcer Dominic Cummings

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9826358/brexit-leak-downing-street-sonia-khan-dominic-cummings/

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That would be brilliant. Francois, Mogg, IDS et al would go bananas.

The EU could offer a 30 day extension to allow Boris time to provide full details of the magic e-border.

The UK would then have to be seen rejecting it or it would allow Parliament time to block No Deal.

A Dub in Glasgo

Shelga wrote: »

Legal request to stop prorogation has been denied:

Judge refuses to halt parliament suspension plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49521132

This was for the Scottish court to issue an interdict (injunction) pending the full case that was scheduled to take place on the 6th. The judge refused the interdict but brought the case forward to Tuesday

funkey_monkey

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is the Scottish case. There's a separate case being taken in the English courts.

And this decision is only a refusal to grant an interim order, which would apply pending the full hearing of the Scottish case. The full hearing is next week.

There is also one going through the system in Belfast at the minute:

https://www.irishnews.com/news/politicalnews/2019/08/29/news/raymond-mccord-launches-legal-bid-to-stop-boris-johnson-s-move-to-suspend-parliament-1698187/

Professor Moriarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The EU could offer a 30 day extension to allow Boris time to provide full details of the magic e-border.

The UK would then have to be seen rejecting it or it would allow Parliament time to block No Deal.

I would so love it. Johnson, the ERG and DUP flouncing out of the EU with their ball.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think that the Irish government talking about what would happen in a no-deal situation could ever have been spun into Ireland accepting a no-deal.

I think it is simpler than that. The Government know for a fact that No Deal is utterly, instantly disastrous for the UK and therefore can't last long even if the UK are bonkers enough to try it.

There is no point in pissing everyone off, North and South of the border, by talking about checks and infrastructure when No Deal can't last more then a week or two.

VinLieger

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Plot thickens. I had been following that twitter account too

Police march Brexit ‘leaker’ from Downing Street ‘after furious row’ with Boris Johnson’s feared enforcer Dominic Cummings

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9826358/brexit-leak-downing-street-sonia-khan-dominic-cummings/

Just cant help but think he has to be alienating the entire civil service with his draconian behaviour

Charles Babbage

CelticRambler wrote: »

Your comparison with other referendums is inappropriate, because they ask for a vote on a single specific article of the constitution, e.g. in Ireland "allow abortion or not allow abortion", in Switzerland "align gun laws with those of the EU or not align". It is easy to subsequently debate and enact legislation on these specific points because it's unlikely to affect any other part of the country's socio-political landscape. Regardless of the decision, life goes on.

There is a further difference, in Ireland the nature of the abortion legislation to follow the referendum was clear. In Switzerland, the EU gun laws were clear that you were aligning with. In both cases fruther change was possible in the future, but the immediate implications of the the vote were clear.



The problem with Brexit is not only the widespread nature of the impact but the complete absence before the referendum of a plan for post Brexit arrangements. This lack of clariy was entirely deliberate, of course.

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is no point in pissing everyone off, North and South of the border, by talking about checks and infrastructure when No Deal can't last more then a week or two.

I think you are being very naive, it will take a week or two at least for the full ramifications to be felt and even then trying to get brexiteers to agree this is the fault of brexit and not everyone else they can point a finger at will be nigh impossible. Also how does a no deal last only a week or two ? Once October 31st hits everything is wiped off the board and they are starting from scratch, they cannot come cap in hand to the EU asking to get the WA as it wont exist anymore.