Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

murphaph

Olly Robbins can only really have meant WA or revoke A50, if he said what it is he is alleged to have said. He knows the realities of the extenions. The EU would not agree to a lengthy delay. That has been stated in public repeatedly.

If that's what May is thinking, I think she can command a last minute revoke majority in the HoC. She can get most of her own party minus the ERG crowd and Labour can sit back and say "the government left us no choice but to revoke as crash out would destroy the economy".

Either way, British politics looks like it's going to reboot itself in the medium term. It is not fit for purpose.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

However what the meaningful vote does mean is that Parliaments input is concentrated into a single vote, so one particular group's problem with the deal is combined with another another groups particular problem with the deal leading to an overwhelming rejection. Without the meaningful vote, ratification could be split into a series of votes. It is true this may take a long time and require an extension but it would be a series of small battles rather than one big one. Overall the executive would be strengthened.


Unfortunately Remainers in the UK have been a problem for Ireland.

boggerman1

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

I am watching Politics Live here on BBC and it is the whole Brexit debate distilled. Carolyn Fairbairn who is director of the CBI is being talked to like shes stupid by some bluffer called Lucy Harris from BrexitCentral. Lucy Harris said WTO schedules arent a problem "We invented some of these rules".

People like her have cost me money and its infuriating.

Watched it too,unbelievable stuff from Lucy Harris.its the whole empire mentality that's frightening to hear.its going to harm us here too but the English need to go off the cliff and suffer hard.its the only way this will come to a head

BobbyBobberson

boggerman1 wrote: »

Watched it too,unbelievable stuff from Lucy Harris.its the whole empire mentality that's frightening to hear.its going to harm us here too but the English need to go off the cliff and suffer hard.its the only way this will come to a head

It was incredible. Like she is the head of the CBI and has some right wing blogger telling her what is best for the country. People like Carolyn Fairbairn have the patience of a saint. Same Lucy Harris turned around then and told a Tory MP that she spends lots of time with grassroot Tories and 70% of them want a no deal. 70% of a bingo hall out in little England want a no deal, searing insight there Lucy.

ambro25

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

I am watching Politics Live here on BBC and it is the whole Brexit debate distilled. Carolyn Fairbairn who is director of the CBI is being talked to like shes stupid by some bluffer called Lucy Harris from BrexitCentral. Lucy Harris said WTO schedules arent a problem "We invented some of these rules".

People like her have cost me money and its infuriating.

That remark makes me wonder whether you could sue groups like BrexitCentral, individually or collectively in a class action-like suit, since you've obviously sufferred damaged (like everyone else forced to contingency-plan ahead).

I'm aware of the proceedings available to certainforeign entities in the limited context of contract-like bilateral agreements (eg Eurotunnel), but not of whether there may be other possibilities under Common Law, eg tort law.

Leftfield, but genuine question, to legally-minded readers (-like me...but I'm very unfamiliar with personal causes of action and tort law outside of the ultra-niche IP context).

I'm mindful of the freedom of expression angle to the question, but until and unless snake oil merchants like Lucy Harris & Co. are made to face at least some consequences for their acts, the snake oil market is just going to stay open for the supplying. And in that context, Gina Miller certainly best showed that, unless you help yourself first, not much is going to happen.

An Ciarraioch

The following has been pretty much the EU line since the UK-wide backstop was agreed, but seems the UK could accept wording in the Political Declaration stating that checks would be unnecessary if it stays in a customs union:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-barclay-backstop/britain-could-accept-brexit-backstop-fix-outside-divorce-deal-eu-uk-sources-idUSKCN1Q41DQ

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what the meaningful vote does mean is that Parliaments input is concentrated into a single vote, so one particular group's problem with the deal is combined with another another groups particular problem with the deal leading to an overwhelming rejection. Without the meaningful vote, ratification could be split into a series of votes. It is true this may take a long time and require an extension but it would be a series of small battles rather than one big one. Overall the executive would be strengthened.


Unfortunately Remainers in the UK have been a problem for Ireland.

Walk me through this, all the meaningful vote confirmed was that parliament had to consent before article 50 was triggered. This is because joining the EU was made through an act of parliament and leaving it can only be done by an act of parliament. Parliament voted for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act and this allowed Theresa May to send the article 50 letter.

So why is agreeing to the Withdrawal Agreement related to that? It is highly unusual for a government to not bring a new treaty before parliament.

An Ciarraioch

An unexpected spanner in the works could emerge from Spain, where a general election has been called for the 28th of April - with the PP and Ciudadanos on course to form a coalition, Sanchez will have to tack to the right until then.

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The following has been pretty much the EU line since the UK-wide backstop was agreed, but seems the UK could accept wording in the Political Declaration stating that checks would be unnecessary if it stays in a customs union:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-barclay-backstop/britain-could-accept-brexit-backstop-fix-outside-divorce-deal-eu-uk-sources-idUSKCN1Q41DQ

Well there a more than a few problems with that, firstly the EU is still saying that they will not re-open the WA or put a time limit on the backstop. Also, being in a customs union means Theresa May has to compromise on one of her red lines and also,

The bloc is offering to instead tweak the accompanying political declaration on future EU-UK ties and says controls on goods would largely not be needed on the sensitive Irish border should the UK decide to stay in the bloc’s customs union.

I think at least we will get an answer at the last minute if the EU makes changes to deals and if they will throw us under the bus at that time.

Sources in the EU’s political hub Brussels currently do not expect any Brexit breakthroughs until mid-March, when the risk of the most damaging no-deal Brexit would have grown further.

May stands accused by some critics at home of running the clock down to force her lawmakers into a choice between her deal, no-deal or no Brexit. The EU believes the talks would go right down to the wire with a March 21-22, make-or-break summit of the bloc’s national leaders.

We will get to have a lot of answers after the summit on March 21-22, about the EU and our government. If it turns out that changes is then made to the backstop where we are bullied into it then all bets are off for Irexit here. If the stance is that everyone should get ready as it will get rough over the next few years but we are standing with our partners in the EU then I think the EU project will be enhanced as it is mainly small nations and only a handful of big nations.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

Walk me through this, all the meaningful vote confirmed was that parliament had to consent before article 50 was triggered.

Not that vote although that was introduced in the same Act. The term is understood to refer to the vote after the proposed deal has been formulated allowing Parliament to reject it in full.

steddyeddy

Did anyone here watch Question Time last night? I really fear for British people in the future with politicians like Jacob Mogg representing them. He seems to have zero idea about the implications of no trade Brexit, brushing off serious concerns from experienced business people with waffle.

BobbyBobberson

steddyeddy wrote: »

Did anyone here watch Question Time last night? I really fear for British people in the future with politicians like Jacob Mogg representing them. He seems to have zero idea about the implications of no trade Brexit, brushing off serious concerns from experienced business people with waffle.

I was literally about to ask the same, here watching it on catch up. In relation to JRM, Grace Blakeley made a really interesting point how his accent/tone made her question herself. This inner feeling to trust aristocrats.

I almost put my phone through the screen earlier, a man in the audience said "The EU is giving is nothing, is it not time to be optimistic and look forward to a life outside the EU?" Like does that guy ever sit down and think, what have I said there? What does that actually mean? How do people just operate on such vague crap.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not that vote although that was introduced in the same Act. The term is understood to refer to the vote after the proposed deal has been formulated allowing Parliament to reject it in full.

You are looking to blame Remainers for creating problems because Gina Miller brought a case that made parliament vote on the right to approve triggering article 50. I am trying to find out why the vote on the WA is different than any other time since 1924 with treaties. Treaties since 1924 has gone through parliament and the Gina Miller case didn't change this.

One way or another the Withdrawal Agreement was going to be voted on in parliament. If they aren't happy with it now and only have one vote, can you explain how it would have been different without the Miller case? How many votes were they going to have and how was it going to happen? How do you think they would have presented the WA without the Miller case?

Leroy42

I think part of the problem, part of the reason why the likes of Johnson, JRM etc can get away with it, is that for many the campaign is still being fought.

It is still a case of Remain v Leave. You cannot criticise any part of one without being immediately labeled the other.

Rather than people asking JRM on QT what will actually happen in a No deal, what he actually thinks should be planned for, how he plans to pay for everything etc, he is instead simply there to argue for Brexit. People want him to fight the good fight, to ensure they leave rather than the threat that it will all be reversed.

So the debate has never moved on from the simple positions of Remain or Leave. That leaves no room for detailed discussion about the actual outcomes as JRM frames everything in light of the fight to save Brexit, rather than save UK.

Water John

This interactive shows how over the last while, the MPs in HOC have evolved int four voting blocs. It's really good, as you scroll down through time and votes you see the blocs emerge.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/feb/15/how-brexit-revealed-four-new-political-factions

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

You are looking to blame Remainers for creating problems because Gina Miller brought a case that made parliament vote on the right to approve triggering article 50. I am trying to find out why the vote on the WA is different than any other time since 1924 with treaties. Treaties since 1924 has gone through parliament and the Gina Miller case didn't change this.

One way or another the Withdrawal Agreement was going to be voted on in parliament. If they aren't happy with it now and only have one vote, can you explain how it would have been different without the Miller case? How many votes were they going to have and how was it going to happen? How do you think they would have presented the WA without the Miller case?

I think the problem with one single vote is that the different and possibly contradictory objections can be combined, added together to defeat the vote. Individual votes would have had their objectors but smaller in number therefore more likely to pass.

Also, without the meaningful vote, a lot of the legislation would have been created through statutory instruments not requiring a vote.

I can't say for sure that we would have a deal now without the meaningful vote but I don't think it has helped Ireland overall.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the problem with one single vote is that the different and possibly contradictory objections can be combined, added together to defeat the vote. Individual votes would have had their objectors but smaller in number therefore more likely to pass.

Also, without the meaningful vote, a lot of the legislation would have been created through statutory instruments not requiring a vote.

I can't say for sure that we would have a deal now without the meaningful vote but I don't think it has helped Ireland overall.

I have no clue what you're saying here. The WA requires a full vote of parliament. What are you talking about SIs for?

Greenman

Mod: snip.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the problem with one single vote is that the different and possibly contradictory objections can be combined, added together to defeat the vote. Individual votes would have had their objectors but smaller in number therefore more likely to pass.

Also, without the meaningful vote, a lot of the legislation would have been created through statutory instruments not requiring a vote.

I can't say for sure that we would have a deal now without the meaningful vote but I don't think it has helped Ireland overall.

But an Act of Parliament has to pass before you move on to legislation where statutory instruments may be required. So you will still need approval from parliament before you can move to legislation where those come in.

Statutory instrument (UK)

A statutory instrument is used when an Act of Parliament passed after 1947 confers a power to make, confirm or approve delegated legislation on:

the Queen and states that it is to be exercisable by Order in Council; or
a Minister of the Crown and states that it is to be exercisable by statutory instrument.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

I have no clue what you're saying here. The WA requires a full vote of parliament. What are you talking about SIs for?

No, prior to the Act which brought in the meaningful vote, the proposed deal was not required to be ratified in the form of a single vote although legislation would be required to be brought into line.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

But an Act of Parliament has to pass before you move on to legislation where statutory instruments may be required. So you will still need approval from parliament before you can move to legislation where those come in.

Provision for some SIs were passed in the Withdrawal Act 2018 but even without these, being able to spread legislation over a series of votes would have helped the deal not be rejected outright since each vote would have had a smaller amount of objectors.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

Provision for some SIs were passed in the Withdrawal Act 2018 but even without these, being able to spread legislation over a series of votes would have helped the deal not be rejected outright since each vote would have had a smaller amount of objectors.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that only for the way the HoC has to vote that TM could have got this through?

ERG would reject whatever deal she came back with (save for the EU simply giving the UK everything). Labour have been very clear that they want a GE and the bext way to get that is to vote down the government as often as possible.

DUP are never going to back it.

You think TM would have somehow tricked everyone or something? Yesterday they couldn't even agree to vote for something the HoC had already voted for. So even if TM managed to get some part through, she would have been pulled back as soon as ERG etc realised what was going on.

Seth Brundle

So yes, there will be sales of chlorinated chicken and hormone laced beef in the UK soon...

https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1096445982865145857

Professor Moriarty

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So yes, there will be sales of chlorinated chicken and hormone laced beef in the UK soon...

https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1096445982865145857

I can't wait for them to go now. The mask has slipped over the past two years and it's now obvious that the Tories and Trump will make perfect bedfellows.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that only for the way the HoC has to vote that TM could have got this through?

ERG would reject whatever deal she came back with (save for the EU simply giving the UK everything). Labour have been very clear that they want a GE and the bext way to get that is to vote down the government as often as possible.

DUP are never going to back it.

You think TM would have somehow tricked everyone or something? Yesterday they couldn't even agree to vote for something the HoC had already voted for. So even if TM managed to get some part through, she would have been pulled back as soon as ERG etc realised what was going on.

Well, no I think it would have been difficult even without the Meaningful Vote. However without it, the no voters could have been split making it easier to get the eventual deal through.

The idea of the vote made sense when we thought that parliament would rescue us from big bad Mrs May. We did not realise that it would mainly benefit the hard Brexiteers.

LeinsterDub

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So yes, there will be sales of chlorinated chicken and hormone laced beef in the UK soon...

https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1096445982865145857

Really it looks like nothing will change initially anyway

The mutual recognition agreement replicates the current deal between the EU and US on technical standards for exported goods

briany

As far as the whole chlorinated chicken thing goes, your average Brexiteer is unlikely to care where their Tesco chicken comes from, as long as it's edible and affordable. UK farmers may have a thing or two to say if the market suddenly becomes awash with meat such that they have to lower their own practices and prices to compete, but by the stage there is any negative consequences seen by the public at large, the blame will have been well and truly deflected.

Seth Brundle

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Really it looks like nothing will change initially anyway

...but don't forget the bit I've added in bold...

The government said it wants to replicate these agreements "as far as possible".

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

As far as the whole chlorinated chicken thing goes, your average Brexiteer is unlikely to care where their Tesco chicken comes from, as long as it's edible and affordable. UK farmers may have a thing or two to say if the market suddenly becomes awash with meat such that they have to lower their own practices and prices to compete, but by the stage there is any negative consequences seen by the public at large, the blame will have been well and truly deflected.

The problem with that is if they lower their standards then they may not be able to export to the EU.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

No, prior to the Act which brought in the meaningful vote, the proposed deal was not required to be ratified in the form of a single vote although legislation would be required to be brought into line.

I don't think you're correct there. The WA includes financial provisions, and afaik, they have to be approved by parliament.