Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Christy42

10000maniacs wrote: »

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1096107756782792704

Did something happen at 8:00? My telly didn't pick it up.

Remember whenever any journalist says they will release big news at time X they are invariably lying. No matter which side of various trenches they sit on.

Here rain seemed to have done it. Wikileaks did similar before. There is generally a reason they hype it up instead of simply releasing it.

Spanish Eyes

I am of the opinion that some kind of agreement is in place as we speak.

So the vote in Parliament is down to the wire.

I betcha they will leave (their choice), but with a a Backstop, which is all we want here really to keep the peace. Yes, under the WA and GFA.

Well hopefully that is the case. But who knows?

J Mysterio

43 days till Brexit.
Fewer than 30 sitting days of Parliament.
May is actually losing support for the deal.
Tory party loving their stupid drama and personality nonsense.
This is just an absolute unmitigated disaster.

Hurrache

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I am of the opinion that some kind of agreement is in place as we speak.

So the vote in Parliament is down to the wire.

I betcha they will leave (their choice), but with a a Backstop, which is all we want here really to keep the peace. Yes, under the WA and GFA.

Well hopefully that is the case. But who knows?

An agreement between who?

Spanish Eyes

Hurrache wrote: »

An agreement between who?

UK and EU.

Very hopefully. What do you think yourself?

Water John

But they have reached an agreement. Just the UK failed abysmally to keep the Cabinet or the HOC informed of its contents, as it was being negotiated, and thus it got thrown in the bin by the UK.

J Mysterio

The arrogance of Steve Baker is just enraging. The guy literally thinks he can and should get his way. Tories, Parliament, the UK, the EU should all just bend to him.

The entitled, self righteousness of him is galling.

Folkstonian

Water John wrote: »

But they have reached an agreement. Just the UK failed abysmally to keep the Cabinet or the HOC informed of its contents, as it was being negotiated, and thus it got thrown in the bin by the UK.

But this isn’t the case - Gina Miller essentially won the right for parliament to have a meaningful vote on the final deal as far back as January 2017.

Everyone, including the European Union, has known very well that there was no final agreement until parliament voted in favour of it for two full years now.

Hurrache

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

UK and EU.

Very hopefully. What do you think yourself?

We all know there's one, the Withdrawal Agreement. But if you mean a secret agreement and what we're seeing now is just theatre, no.

Spanish Eyes

Water John wrote: »

But they have reached an agreement. Just the UK failed abysmally to keep the Cabinet or the HOC informed of its contents, as it was being negotiated, and thus it got thrown in the bin by the UK.

That fact fell off the radar. You are right. The WA was agreed by every EU country, but at the last minute MAY said NO.

Often wonder why. At the last minute too.

Harry Palmr

They are in for such a shock when they realise they have run out of road and no deal is an actual thing. I can see ships stacking up and others not even calling to British ports for delivery as they don't know the terms of the importation. That or the docks themselves fill up to bursting as everyone goes into a mad scramble "are these cars subject to a 10% tariff or what?"

Enzokk

Folkstonian wrote: »

But this isn’t the case - Gina Miller essentially won the right for parliament to have a meaningful vote on the final deal as far back as January 2017.

Everyone, including the European Union, has known very well that there was no final agreement until parliament voted in favour of it for two full years now.

You would expect that the leader of the UK would negotiate a deal that she knows will be accepted by parliament. I think the EU trusted her to negotiate a deal that will be acceptable. The fact that she has gone on her own way and not involved any other party is not something the EU has to deal with. I mean people complain that the EU has too much power and say in countries right now, now you want them to get in tune with domestic politics of a member?

Spanish Eyes

Hurrache wrote: »

We all know there's one, the Withdrawal Agreement. But if you mean a secret agreement and what we're seeing now is just theatre, no.

I hope the WA wins out. Better than No Deal I think.

But in fairness most people know that there are other players calling the shots.

Few know what is going on in the background amongst us, but others do I reckon.

boggerman1

Looking at question time and behind all the use of posh language and the 17th century look with moggy he really is a snake oil salesman.

Imreoir2

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

On another note, does anyone think that Ireland may be shafted by the EU with harmonisation of tax rates, specifically Corporate Tax rates, as a quid pro quo for their support for us re Brexit?

I note Victor Orban's Hungary has a CT rate of 9%. I doubt he would be happy with harmonisation either.

Just wondered what you all might think.

Will any (every) country have a veto? I am wondering about that.

The EU is powerless to shaft us, taxation is a national competence and at the time of the Lisbon treaty Ireland got specific confrmation on that point. Ireland is not the only country to oppose this, and even if we were, that would be enough, we have a veto.

Spanish Eyes

boggerman1 wrote: »

Looking at question time and behind all the use of posh language and the 17th century look with moggy he really is a snake oil salesman.

BBC is in the hands of the current Government.

I just listen back on the BBC Player app. Some great documentaries and so on.

Hurrache

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I hope the WA wins out. Better than No Deal I think.

But in fairness most people know that there are other players calling the shots.

Few know what is going on in the background amongst us, but others do I reckon.

Who and what?

Varta

Folkstonian wrote: »

But this isn’t the case - Gina Miller essentially won the right for parliament to have a meaningful vote on the final deal as far back as January 2017.

Everyone, including the European Union, has known very well that there was no final agreement until parliament voted in favour of it for two full years now.

But a meaningful vote doesn't mean the the EU has to agree with whatever they vote for. They can legitimately vote against the WA as many times as they like... so what?

sink

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU is powerless to shaft us, taxation is a national competence and at the time of the Lisbon treaty Ireland got specific confrmation on that point. Ireland is not the only country to oppose this, and even if we were, that would be enough, we have a veto.

On top of this Crotty v. An Taoiseach means that such a change would definitely require a constitutional referendum in this country. It doesn't matter if our own government caves to European pressure, it could not legally agree to it, only the citizens of Ireland have the sovereign power to do so.

J Mysterio

God bless Ian Dunt, he really just nails it.

The government has been defeated by MPs on propositions that they themselves backed two weeks ago. The whole edifice of blather and nonsense is coming tumbling down.

It's commonly accepted that there's no majority in the Commons for any given response to Brexit. But today it went a step further. It was inadequacy squared. It is clear now that there is not even a majority for the imaginary things MPs had only recently given a majority to. The whole British political system is imploding in on itself.

It was a shameful moment, one which was conducted without any honour or dignity whatsoever. Even for this government, which is quite plainly the worst of our lifetime, it was a despairing spectacle. The prime minister did not even attend the Commons for the result. She sat elsewhere, probably watching on a TV in an office somewhere, her political career departing her physical body.

"Is there some way you can encourage her to return to the despatch box and tell us what her plan actually is?" Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn asked John Bercow. The Speaker could not. Instead he peered at Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay and offered him the chance to respond.

The secretary of state sat unmoving in his seat. He is a man no-one had heard of, given arguably the most important ministerial appointment in post-war British history on the basis that he might not have the imagination to resign when he realised what it entailed. And now, when great moments come, he is unsurprisingly incapable of living up to them. He simply sat there. A government without a position, led by an absent prime minister, and a quivering, unmoving secretary of state.

"Or if the government chief whip wants to do so?" Bercow tried. No, he didn't want to get up either. The government was gone. It had vanished along, with its imaginary mandate.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/02/14/may-s-latest-brexit-defeat-the-edifice-of-nonsense-comes-tum

That letter from former ambassadors called this a fiasco. There are a lot of words for it: farce, catastrophe, shambles, ruination, humiliation, degredation and on and on.

CelticRambler

Gintonious wrote: »

No Deal is well on its way now, I don't see the EU moving, and I don't see the deal getting through Parliament.

Nahhh, it'll be grand. I heard a Tory politician earlier saying that the EU always keeps something in reserve to use at the last minute ... ... ... :rolleyes:

With all the various "last minutes" that matter - investment schedules, shipping times, parliamentary process, etc - already in the here and now, and yet still no sign of anything resembling consensus on what kind of Brexit they want, I think the only possible way for the moderate majority to avoid a No-Deal Brexit is to support the Peter Kyle/Phil Wilson proposal: sign off on the WA now in exchange for a public validation - this deal or no Brexit. That's the only circumstance that I can see in which the EU would be justified in granting an extension.

It'd still be very tight, timewise, as there's a reasonable chance such a public vote would produce a No Brexit result and the European Parliament elections would have to be re-jigged, but I'm sure the "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels" would burn enough midnight oil to sort that out.

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

God bless Ian Dunt, he really just nails it.



http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/02/14/may-s-latest-brexit-defeat-the-edifice-of-nonsense-comes-tum

That letter from former ambassadors called this a fiasco. There are a lot of words for it: farce, catastrophe, shambles, ruination, humiliation, degredation and on and on.

About the only politician calling out the insanity of it all is Anna Soubry. She was fantastic tonight on Ch.4 News and Newsnight (she says the ERG loons should have been kicked out of the party years ago).

sKeith

Harry Palmr wrote: »

They are in for such a shock when they realise they have run out of road and no deal is an actual thing. I can see ships stacking up and others not even calling to British ports for delivery as they don't know the terms of the importation. That or the docks themselves fill up to bursting as everyone goes into a mad scramble "are these cars subject to a 10% tariff or what?"

I don't think that's the shock that they will be having. There was a guy in the pub that blurted out Mays plan, i don't know if drunk or just wanting to show he knows Mays plan, or what the motive was for revealing if true, but what he said was that she was going to run down the clock and give the HoC an untimatum, pass her deal and get brexit, or brexit is going on hiatus ( revoke A50 ).


I think he said long delay, but the only delay that May herself can get is a good faith long delay, she can't get the short delay that needs EU agreement, but she can get a generational delay, put this whole mess under the rug until some other raving lunatic party tries to pull the brexit ref again, but i can't foresee it passing again in our generation.


https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-13/olly-robbins-brussels-bar-comments-lay-bare-the-brexit-truth


I tend to agree, I don't think May will allow a No Deal to happen.


Can she revoke A50 without parliment backing?

Infini

J Mysterio wrote: »

God bless Ian Dunt, he really just nails it.



http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/02/14/may-s-latest-brexit-defeat-the-edifice-of-nonsense-comes-tum

That letter from former ambassadors called this a fiasco. There are a lot of words for it: farce, catastrophe, shambles, ruination, humiliation, degredation and on and on.

This whole fiasco is an exercise in the worst levels of ignorance, arrogance and THE best example of human stupidity at its most potent. They cannot commit therefore they should quit. Instead they're grandstanding, going around in circles and quite literally making an absolute bollocks of their country's future. Plenty of these ERG (European Troll Group is a better fit) are utter loons but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are basically opportunistic parasites deliberately doing this for personal gain.

The only thing I will actually wonder of course is does May truly mean to crash out? She has always said Britain will leave on March 29th but has said as well that if they cannot agree there will be no Brexit or it will be delayed. This does lead to one thing: If she's consistent and parliament does not agree will she truly allow the country to go off that cliff OR will she enact her threat to delay or cancel Brexit? The one final card in the deck in all of this is that until the moment Britain crashes out they have the OUT card by cancelling A50. If parliament cannot agree to her deal the only option left bar crashing out would be to cancel A50 and stop Brexit entirely and the only way the EU will agree to this is if either this is the end of it or at the very least there is a 2nd referendum.

Just over a month left of this farce I wonder if anyone here has money in Uncle Paddy's on what is going to be the winning bet?!

tuxy

My understanding is that the UK can unilaterally decide to revoke article 50.

Peregrinus

Folkstonian wrote: »

But this isn’t the case - Gina Miller essentially won the right for parliament to have a meaningful vote on the final deal as far back as January 2017.

Everyone, including the European Union, has known very well that there was no final agreement until parliament voted in favour of it for two full years now.

Well, yes, and equally everyone has known all along that there is no final agreement until it is ratified on the EU side by the member states and by the European Parliament. There's nothing unusual in any of this; international agreements are normally formed by being negotiated and signed between the two parties, and then ratified by each of them in accordance with the requirements of their respective domestic laws. It doesn't enter into effect until ratified on both sides.

But the treaty is considered to be finalised at the point of signature. It may be ratified or it may not be, but it's generally said to have been "agreed" once it's settled and signed.

So, yeah, an agreement had been negotiated and settled between the EU and the UK. It just hasn't been ratified, so it hasn't entered into force. Certain interests in the UK argue in favour of seeking to get it amended before it does enter into force, but the same interests have acted in a way which makes amendment virtually impossible, so either (a) they are ignorant, ill-informed and incredibly stupid, or (b) white man speak with forked tongue; they don't want the agreement to be amended at all, and they don't want any version of it to enter into force. (Or of course (c) both of the above.)

Zubeneschamali

Folkstonian wrote: »

Everyone, including the European Union, has known very well that there was no final agreement until parliament voted in favour of it for two full years now.

And both sides have known since it was agreed in December 2017 that if a final deal is ever done it will include the backstop.

ilovesmybrick

As a bit of an aside I just finished Kevin O'Rourkes book, 'A Short History of Brexit'. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

prawnsambo

tuxy wrote: »

My understanding is that the UK can unilaterally decide to revoke article 50.

"According to their constitutional provisions". Which means parliament has to do it. Parliament can't even decide what day it is at the moment. It's bizarre.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes, and equally everyone has known all along that there is no final agreement until it is ratified on the EU side by the member states and by the European Parliament. There's nothing unusual in any of this; international agreements are normally formed by being negotiated and signed between the two parties, and then ratified by each of them in accordance with the requirements of their respective domestic laws. It doesn't enter into effect until ratified on both sides.

But the treaty is considered to be finalised at the point of signature. It may be ratified or it may not be, but it's generally said to have been "agreed" once it's settled and signed.

So, yeah, an agreement had been negotiated and settled between the EU and the UK. It just hasn't been ratified, so it hasn't entered into force. Certain interests in the UK argue in favour of seeking to get it amended before it does enter into force, but the same interests have acted in a way which makes amendment virtually impossible, so either (a) they are ignorant, ill-informed and incredibly stupid, or (b) white man speak with forked tongue; they don't want the agreement to be amended at all, and they don't want any version of it to enter into force. (Or of course (c) both of the above.)

And to confirm that an agreement is reached but it needs to be ratified, here is a story about CETA and how Italy threatened not to ratify the deal that has been agreed.

Italy says it won't ratify EU-Canada trade deal; Canada plays down threat

Italy will not ratify the European Union’s free trade agreement with Canada, Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio said on Friday, although Canadian officials played down the threat to the accord, which mostly took effect last year.

“Soon CETA (the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) will arrive in parliament and this majority will reject it and it will not ratify it,” Di Maio said at a farmers’ association gathering in Rome.

“If so much as one Italian official ... continues to defend treaties like CETA, they will be removed,” added Di Maio, who leads the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement, which governs the country with the right-wing League.

The CETA accord has been provisionally in effect since September. It needs to be approved by all 28 EU member states to fully come into force, and can theoretically be scuppered altogether if an EU member country formally notifies Brussels that it has permanently rejected it.

Hopefully this can put to rest the notion that there hasn't been an agreement between the UK and the EU.