Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

What would happen if the game plan is Johnson resigning on the 31st?

He can't ask for extension, and parliament can't elect a new caretaker PM.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

What would happen if the game plan is Johnson resigning on the 31st?

Parliament will take further action well in advance of the 31st if Boris defies them and the law.

Sam Russell

Mortelaro wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

Not appointing is not compulsory retirement. Compulsory retirement is something which can only be done by the European Court of Justice and only where the member concerned no longer fulfills the conditions required for the performance of their duties or if they have been guilty of serious misconduct.

The ECJ is bound to operate within the confines of the TFEU and the TEU which dictates these matters, there is no provision for the ECJ to alter them, that is beyond it's competence.

The matters surrounding the membership and operation of the Commission is set by the TFEU and the TEU, there are no creative ways around those treaties and for good reason.

Whoever thought this idea up is actually very smart and obviously well versed in EU law as it really could hold the EU to ransom.

That's your opinion
Until you prove that you are a constitutional lawyer or privy to the inner workings of the commission that's all it is as is mine
Regardless, I'm not concerned for the reasons I posted earlier
The UK parliament is well able to legislate to undo mr Cummings plans and the EU commission are well able to accommodate that

It was a surprise when the ECJ decided that the UK could unilaterally revoke Art 50 - as it was the perceived wisdom that it would require a unanimous vote by all EU 28 to agree to a revoke.

If the UK decide not to appoint a commissioner, then at what point is it necessary for such a commissioner to be present and voting?

Unanimous decisions in the EU are rare, and could be decided by 'nem con', that is no one voting against. Would the (voluntary) absence of a UK Commissioner be much of a problem?

Is it a requirement that the Commissioner is nominated by the UK Gov? Could the Crown nominate a Commissioner (on instruction from the HoC?

It all sounds a bit of a Cumming cunning plan from Baldrick.

johnnyskeleton

cryptocurrency wrote: »

You do have a lot of faith in this frenchman

declanflynn wrote: »

You have a lot of faith in depaffel the Turkish man

Mod note:

Stop the one liners please

Capt'n Midnight

GM228 wrote: »

What is outlined for in your post is provided for under the TEU and TFEU where there is unanimous agreement of the European Council, it requires unanimous agreement of each head of state including the UK so long as they remain a member of the EU.

The two salient points remain in all circumstances.

* The commission has operated for months while waiting for replacements.

* The commissioners act in the interests of the EU not their own country.

Boris not nominating a replacement won't stop the EU from functioning.

Joe_ Public

Deleted User wrote: »

What would happen if the game plan is Johnson resigning on the 31st?

He can't ask for extension, and parliament can't elect a new caretaker PM.

The bill compels him to seek the extension not later than the 19th, so that presumably gives them time to manoeuvre in the event of PM not playing ball. But to be honest, i dont think anybody really knows what happens if all this comes to pass.

prawnsambo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The two salient points remain in all circumstances.

* The commission has operated for months while waiting for replacements.

* The commissioners act in the interests of the EU not their own country.

Boris not nominating a replacement won't stop the EU from functioning.

Just to put this one to bed. Here's an actual expert in EU law on the subject.

briany

I doubt this can happen, but what ought to happen is that if Boris openly defied parliament, then the executive power should transfer to the next highest in government to perform the task. If that person refuses, hand off to the next, and the next, and the next until someone willing is found, even if it's the leader of the opposition.

GM228

Sam Russell wrote: »

It was a surprise when the ECJ decided that the UK could unilaterally revoke Art 50 - as it was the perceived wisdom that it would require a unanimous vote by all EU 28 to agree to a revoke.

Not really, it was held that it would have turned a unilateral sovereign right into a conditional right and that was not compatible with EU law.

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the UK decide not to appoint a commissioner, then at what point is it necessary for such a commissioner to be present and voting?

The commissioner must be present for the commission to function and for anything resulting from the commission having legal force, not just for voting rights.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Unanimous decisions in the EU are rare, and could be decided by 'nem con', that is no one voting against. Would the (voluntary) absence of a UK Commissioner be much of a problem?

That's because the TFEU allows in the majority of matters for majority decisions, however in the case of a reduction in the number of commissioners it requires a unanimous decision of the EC.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is it a requirement that the Commissioner is nominated by the UK Gov? Could the Crown nominate a Commissioner (on instruction from the HoC?

It all sounds a bit of a Cumming cunning plan from Baldrick.

The commissioner is recommended by the PM in conjunction with advice of the Foreign Secretary.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The two salient points remain in all circumstances.

* The commission has operated for months while waiting for replacements.

* The commissioners act in the interests of the EU not their own country.

Boris not nominating a replacement won't stop the EU from functioning.

Indeed, and in relation to the first point unanimous agreement was required from the EC to do so. Without such agreement the numbers can not be reduced and the Commission can not function as required under the TEU in which case the second point bears no relevance.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Just to put this one to bed. Here's an actual expert in EU law on the subject.

It's interesting to note he mentions Martin Bangemann, the matter was referred to the ECJ by the EC in 1999.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31999D0494


However, several ECJ judgments dealing with the matter all confirmed that a unanimous decision of the EC was required to reduce the numbers.

For example see the Germany vs Commission of EC Case C334-99 case:-

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1567942342589&uri=CELEX:61999CJ0334

Findings of the Court

According to the second paragraph of Article 213(1) EC, and the second paragraph of Article 9(1) CS, the number of Members of the Commission may be altered by the Council, acting unanimously.

Or the Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH vs Commission of EC Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/00 case:-

The second paragraph of Article 215 EC lays down the rules for replacing a member of the Commission: [t]he vacancy thus caused shall be filled for the remainder of the Member's term of office by a new Member appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States. The Council may, acting unanimously, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled

The Commission's decision of 1 July 1999 cannot therefore be interpreted as a decision to reduce the number of Members of the Commission, a decision which only the Council, acting unanimously, may take under the second subparagraph of Article 213(1) EC.

The ECJ has indeed confirmed the Commission can continue to work with less than the required number of commissioners but only upon unanimous agreement of the EC in accordance with the TFU and TFEU meaning the PM must also agree with this.

Now it is put to bed.

Hermy

briany wrote: »

As for removing him before that, I don't think the parliamentary will is there for that.

Perhaps but the Tories think otherwise it seems.

briany

Hermy wrote: »

Perhaps but the Tories think otherwise it seems.

With the purge that's gone on in the Cons, it's really not surprising that they'll try to oust him by not giving them their support at the next GE. Then again, he's one of the most recognisable faces in parliament and therefore least needing of party support. Same thing as Ken Clarke, who could probably get reelected, if he wanted to, but he's retiring.

Bercow has said he'd planned on stepping down over the Summer, but he was astute not to, because you know that the current 'government' would have tried their level best to get someone into the chair who was little more than their puppet.

cryptocurrency

Hermy wrote: »

Perhaps but the Tories think otherwise it seems.

They will hold on as long as they can but they all know the game is up. Boris holds his nerve and gets in november election and he is king in the UK for 5 years.

Mortelaro

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What would happen if the game plan is Johnson resigning on the 31st?

He can't ask for extension, and parliament can't elect a new caretaker PM.

That cannot happen because the law has specific dates earlier in october that the PM must send the request to Brussels
It also can be just a representative of the British government court appointed that delivers the request should Boris not do it

Mortelaro

cryptocurrency wrote: »

They will hold on as long as they can but they all know the game is up. Boris holds his nerve and gets in november election and he is king in the UK for 5 years.

To be honest if Boris is the clear winner of the election, then the Brits will have made their bed and will have to deal with the consequences, not too many will have much sympathy

Infini

cryptocurrency wrote: »

They will hold on as long as they can but they all know the game is up. Boris holds his nerve and gets in november election and he is king in the UK for 5 years.

Boris and his friends antics are alienating everyone including his own party and supporters. Honestly remember May's gambit and how she thought she could win a majority but ended up losing. A GE is not a guaranteed victory for them.

J Mysterio

devnull wrote: »

The Tories are looking for reinforcements it seems:
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1170439183208472578

From one right wing party to another.

What was it that Farage said about British people collaborating with people outside the UK?

Wasnt this fella castigated when he did this before already? At it again. Is it treason?

briany

Infini wrote: »

Boris and his friends antics are alienating everyone including his own party and supporters. Honestly remember May's gambit and how she thought she could win a majority but ended up losing. A GE is not a guaranteed victory for them.

Not after B-day where Farage makes good on his ultimatum to run candidates. At that point, BXP siphon off a good amount of Conservative votes, causing them to lose seats. Not a tactic I'd pursue if I were Farage as it would surely make Brexit less likely by increasing Lib and Lab seat numbers, but I'm not against him making the mistake all the same.

rogue-entity

cryptocurrency wrote: »

The EU is an economic threat to the UK

cryptocurrency wrote: »

EU wants tax harmonisation, federalisation, EU army...the US support of Brexit is not a coincidence. I expect the US and UK to work closer with their regime change plans for Brussels over the coming years.

Let me fix that for you:

The EU is an economic threat to the US

EU wants to reduce or eliminate tax avoidance by the wealthy and corporations, closer alignment on issues relevant to the single market, less dependence on an unreliable and unpredictable ally for security and defence....the US support of Brexit is not a coincidence. I expect the US and UK to work closer with their regime change plans for Brussels over the coming years.

I don't believe it's a coincidence that this joyride began after the 'Panama Papers' and the EU's collective decision to introduce an Anti Tax-Avoidance Directive. Quite a few extremely wealthy individuals will benefit from the UK's exit but not the individuals that voted believing that exiting the EU will bring about an economic windfall.

It aligns with Trump's interests, he appears to see any other nation or trading bloc that can rival the US as an implicit enemy, he'd rather the EU was out of the picture so he could strike US-advantageous deals with individual European Countries.

Popeleo

cryptocurrency wrote: »

jeysus much more then that left HK back to mainland china in the last few weeks so I suppose they are doomed too.

Rolls eyes.

Depends on your definition of 'doomed' - HK are 22 years into their 50 year transition agreement. Expect continuing pressure for the next three decades as all notions of sovereignty are squeezed out of the HK people and they are subsumed into the mainland, the HK dollar is swapped for the yuan and 'one country two systems' ends. The Chinese don't put up with dissent.

Of course, this is just the undoing of the British colonial era gunboat diplomacy and the First Opium War that led to the UK controlling HK (all caused by the Chinese somehow getting upset by the British East India company smuggling huge quantities of opium into China).

The British Empire was built on such tactics. Try repeating that today and we in Ireland will all get to use our expired iodine tablets as the fallout drifts over the Irish Sea.

briany

rogue-entity wrote: »

Let me fix that for you:



I don't believe it's a coincidence that this joyride began after the 'Panama Papers' and the EU's collective decision to introduce an Anti Tax-Avoidance Directive. Quite a few extremely wealthy individuals will benefit from the UK's exit but not the individuals that voted believing that exiting the EU will bring about an economic windfall.

It aligns with Trump's interests, he appears to see any other nation or trading bloc that can rival the US as an implicit enemy, he'd rather the EU was out of the picture so he could strike US-advantageous deals with individual European Countries.

This is exactly the thing. China and U.S.A don't want another player in the game. It's this ground on which they oppose the E.U., and nothing to do with sovereignty in principle, but sovereignty because it removes collective bargaining power.

J Mysterio

Skirmishes with police and such. Violence can only get worse you would think, no mattet the outcome.

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1170421368002895877

A Shropshire Lad

A french veto would be a dream for Johnson in the current situation surely ?

gooch2k9

J Mysterio wrote: »

Skirmishes with police and such. Violence can only get worse you would think, no mattet the outcome.

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1170421368002895877

I'd say them lads aren't too fussed about the Brexit situation. Just a handy opportunity to kick off. I can't think of one possible impact of the EU on my life that would make me want to attack the police.

ancapailldorcha

Several posts have been deleted for being well below the forum standard. In addition, sanctions have been issued for repeated use of insults and cryptocurrency has been permanently banned.

Please bear the forum charter in mind before posting.

reslfj

Derek Eager Registrar wrote: »

...
... give them (the UK) their blessed no deal and when Britain inevitable don't pay their outstanding debts then shut down access in and out of the UK, both airspace and ports until they crack.
An economic blockade.

The EU27 has time and again stated that it is the UK's right to leave and the EU27 will not punish the UK. All valid treaties and agreements outside the those, that "shall cease to apply" in the words of TEU A50.3 (currently Oct. 31), will continue after Brexit.

E.G.

1. The long haul lorries will be able to get ECMT permits (but only for 5-10% of current EU27 traffic).
2. Planes will be permitted to fly over EU27 and make emergency landings in EU27.
3. EU's WTO MFN tariffs will apply to UK export and Calais will try its best to customs check it

(point 1 and 2 will receive a 12 month grace period by the EU27, but point 3 is Brexit day 1 in Calais and maybe a little later in Ireland)

But the raw facts are that any Brexit will harm the UK in many ways also outside its trade and economics. It will be chaotic after a few days / a week and diminish the UK production and GDP on the mid to longer term.
Note the transition periods in the WA will postpone most harm to the UK until mid/late 2022. The UK will de facto continue in the CU/SM until the end of the last transition period.

A 'No deal' will, however, be felt very hard and fast. It will inevitable be felt as punishment by large parts of the UK population (but self-punishment is all it is)

There will be an extremely urgent need for the UK to make some deals with the EU27. This will however not be possible to even negotiate with the EU27 before the main points of the WA text - citizens, backstop, money - have been ratified by the UK - full stop.

The EU members states have just 6-7% of their trade (and for some members even much less) with the UK. Almost all UK->EU27 export products can be replaced by equal products from within the SM or be imported using one of the 60+ world class FTAs the EU has.
Yes there may for a period be too few Opel Astras for sale in the EU27 (10% tariff is very much). But the owner the French PSA-Group will likely just sell some more same sized Peugeot or Citroën cars within the EU27 until the Astra production has increased within the EU27.

EU members export to the UK can be redirected to customers within the 445 million SM or marketed via the EU's FTAs incl CETA/Canada and very soon via the EU's new FTAs with Japan, Mercosul/Mercosur, Singapore and more.

The UK, however, will have no trade deals of economic significance. The Faeroe Island export of fish to the UK deal doesn't count here.
The EU27 will e.g on average apply 11.4% duty on UK fish.

For example, dairy products are taxed on average at 44.8%, meat at 17.8%, fish at 11.4%, clothes at 11.5%, and cars at 10%

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/com-2019-394-final_en.pdf

Even after the WA text has been ratified by the UK, the EU27 can't lower its WTO MFN tariffs without an agreed FTA deal with the UK about substantial parts of the mutual EU<->UK trade (WTO rule). This will take time - more counted in years than in months.

Lars

* Note UK assembled cars have only 25-33% UK added value, the rest is imported components or sub-components. A 20% GBP devaluation will only lower the cost of a UK build car by 5-7% ( 1/4 - 1/3 * 20%)

Ronan|Raven

I am convinced I am in a coma and this nonsense is not reality.

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1170610941383385088

Raab rabbiting on about how they have solutions but dont want to give them to the EU.. for fear of getting ridiculed.
How can you actually negoitiate with this level of amateurism?

A Shropshire Lad

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

I am convinced I am in a coma and this nonsense is not reality.

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1170610941383385088

Raab rabbiting on about how they have solutions but down want to give them to the EU.. for fear of getting ridiculed.
How can you actually negoitiate with this level of amateurism?

I stopped listening to Raab ever since he decided not to support the WA , that he himself had negotiated.


The man litterally cannot agree with himself !

Headshot

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

I am convinced I am in a coma and this nonsense is not reality.

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1170610941383385088

Raab rabbiting on about how they have solutions but down want to give them to the EU.. for fear of getting ridiculed.
How can you actually negoitiate with this level of amateurism?

But that's the thing, they have no notion of negotiating. They wanted a hard Brexit and don't care about the repercussions because they'll be isolated from it.

This suppose deal scenario that BJ was on about non stop was just for the media and remainers who were easy to lap it up like Amber Rudd.

BJ had no intention of dealing and you could see this from his cabinet picks

J Mysterio

Rudd explicitly said that she was resigning because of (a) treatment of the 21 dissenters and (b) because the government are not spending time on trying to negotiate a deal.

She said 80-90% of the government focus was on No Deal planning.

J Mysterio

For all the Brexiteer bluster, things are going from bad to worse for them. Varadkar brilliant here.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1170699558248157191

Put up or shut up time. 'We want to negotiate with you, we're just not sure you enjoy sufficient support in your parliament'.