Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

Donald Trump wrote: »

He's no Biffo

Serious comments only please.

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just to answer this. (In my opinion).

The UK made a great play that the referendum was mandatory (when in fact it was not). The UK Supreme Court found tha Parliament must be consulted re Brexit. The EU are fully behind each state complying with their own constitutional requirements.

So putting all this together, I would think that the ECJ would find that to invoke Art 50 again, having revoked it, the UK would first have to hold a referendum, perhaps with greater oversight to prevent illegal activities by either side. Then there would have to be parliamentary approval for the actual Art 50 notification, perhaps through a full act getting both HoC and HoL approval.

This would be a high bar for Brexiteers to achieve, without bad faith charges being levied.

I think if they do revoke Art 50, it will be a long time before they talk about it again.

I don't think it's as complicated as that.

If the UK invoke Article 50 again, having revoked it, they get a no-deal Brexit the very next day, that is the only message that the EU can afford to send.

Rain Ascending

Deleted User wrote: »

If people are saying avoid No Deal Brexit, what are the suggestions for bringing down/exposing the Brexiteers/English rightwing which has been behind these Europhobic campaigns and propaganda in politics and media for decades now?


How do people see them getting their comeuppance?

Good question.

But the short answer is, I don't.

On their ground, the best you can do is to fight them to a standstill, a draw. At the end of the day, to win the argument you need to challenge the views a large number of Leave voters have about themselves. There's no communication strategy that can achieve that: "culture eats strategy for lunch".

Instead you have to outflank the extremes by constructing an alternative narrative, one that appeals to a different group, primarily in the younger generations, a narrative that tells of the positives of the EU. This has been sadly neglected in the UK, but ironically, Brexit provides some openings:

• Resurrect John Hume's messages about a shared future in Europe, irrespective of our cultural identities. The success of the GFA and the Northern Ireland peace process was in part based on the Single Market dramatically reducing the impact of the border.
• Embrace Freedom of Movement. The idea that you can take your skills to any country in Europe and make a living without going through the endless hoops forced on citizens of third countries is very attractive to many. But, even more important, it also makes it easy to return to the home nation without much further hassle (think pensions, benefit rights, etc.).
• Talk honestly about the nature of the global economy and what sets its governing regulatory frameworks and agreements. It's largely a technocratic process, driven by expertise and a mix of national and commercial interests. However, there are just two or three major players: the US, the EU and occasionally, China. The UK will have to choose who to align with and then its a question of whose values are most closely match those of the UK...

These are the kinds of arguments needed to argue positively as to why the UK should stay closely aligned with the EU. They won't appeal to hard-core Leavers -- but then that's not the target audience.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think it's as complicated as that.

If the UK invoke Article 50 again, having revoked it, they get a no-deal Brexit the very next day, that is the only message that the EU can afford to send.

No, they don't. Art 50 starts a two-year clock running, which can only be shortened by mutual agreement. If the UK validly revokes it's Art 50 notification, we are back to square 1; it's as if they had never invoked it. And if, subsequently, they invoke Art 50, that starts a two-year clock running.

The only way around this would be to argue successfully that the revocation was null and void, and that it had never stopped the clock running the first time. Your prospects of getting the European Council to take that view, and the ECJ to uphold it, must depend on the actual facts surrounding a revocation, but I think you'd be fighting an uphill battle.

The consequence would not be that the UK had a no-deal Brexit the day after serving the second notice; it would be that they would be deemed to have had a no-deal Brexit some weeks or months or years before, when the original clock, which had never stopped, ran out. And that would create enormous legal problems not just for the UK but for the whole EU, since everything done in the meantime by a Parliament with UK MEPs, by a European Council with UK participation, by a European Commission with a UK-nominated Comissioner, would be of doubtful validity.

KildareP

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they don't. Art 50 starts a two-year clock running, which can only be shortened by mutual agreement. If the UK validly revokes it's Art 50 notification, we are back to square 1; it's as if they had never invoked it. And if, subsequently, they invoke Art 50, that starts a two-year clock running.

The only way around this would be to argue successfully that the revocation was null and void, and that it had never stopped the clock running the first time. Your prospects of getting the European Council to take that view, and the ECJ to uphold it, must depend on the actual facts surrounding a revocation, but I think you'd be fighting an uphill battle.

The consequence would not be that the UK had a no-deal Brexit the day after serving the second notice; it would be that they would be deemed to have had a no-deal Brexit some weeks or months or years before, when the original clock, which had never stopped, ran out. And that would create enormous legal problems not just for the UK but for the whole EU, since everything done in the meantime by a Parliament with UK MEPs, by a European Council with UK participation, by a European Commission with a UK-nominated Comissioner, would be of doubtful validity.

If they revoke Article 50 and then immediately retrigger it, is the EU obliged to offer any deal? Sure, it's a two year countdown clock but it could well be two years of stating "You had your deal and you blew it, you're on your own now, goodbye".

Calina

Typically, the WA is the wind up deal. The Brits appear never have understood the difference between winding things up and what the future is.

So if they revoked and then reissued article 50 there would to be a wind up deal followed again by an outline for the future.

I cannot see the liability side of things changing much as it was a methodology rather than a figure despite the yowling about 39 billion.

So the issue will come to the NI border again.

A lot depends on how the UK approached it this time. Would they have a framework plan in place, outlining what sort of Brexit? Would May's red lines exist? If they went for Norway ++ up front, although that is an element of the future, woukd it make the wind up negotiations straightforward?

The UK's approach to negotiations was highly confrontational this time. If they took a mutually beneficial approach, would things be different? How would their media behave?

The process of reaching the end point might look a lot different.

The UK has not looked for a mutually beneficial arrangement. They have sought to pull one over on the EU at every stage. Their language has been anything but designed to reach a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If they revoke and reissue Art 50, their approach will have to change. But I do not see that part happening.

ancapailldorcha

FYI, tonight's Channel 4 dispatches episode focuses on EU migration and what happens if free movement stops:

https://twitter.com/c4dispatches/status/1114954083511808006?s=21

20silkcut

listermint wrote: »

Yeah and on the other side you have brexiteers calling ordinary citizen remainers elite and the 1 percent when the facts are at odds to that.

Only way to tackle this is to tackle the sellers of lies Boris mogg and their like. Challenged on everything they say

The power of a charismatic orator trumps logic and fact.
The leave side had that in abundance with Farage,Johnson and Mogg.

Who did the remain side have?
Tony Blair?? John Major ?? Yesterday’s men both, largely ignored.
If such a contemporary charismatic figure had to emerge on the remain side then Brexit would be dead and buried long ago.
The fact the remain argument remains relatively popular without any real figurehead or leader to rally around is telling. It’s like a team playing without a manager.

Igotadose

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

FYI, tonight's Channel 4 dispatches episode focuses on EU migration and what happens if free movement stops:

So... a trade deficit was bad, but being out of business is not bad. His business was thriving then. And, once there's no freedom of movement, HMG will gladly allow in seasonal workers from Russia.

Guy seems like a classic Tory supporter - all about emotion, no cold-blooded business logic and not voting for his own economic best interests. I'm sure he'll be able to sell his apples as long as they continue to meet UK only regulations (once they diverge from EU ones, which he hates, of course meaning he can no longer sell into the EU, or maybe he has 2 types of apples, one for the UK market, one for the EU, I doubt there's big demand for his apples far from the UK, like the US.)

My guess is he takes longer to go out of business than the flower seller who voted for Brexit and now realizes he'll be out of fresh flowers and a job pretty fast.

Then again, maybe the apple grower will hire out-of-work UK employees, any job that pays anything will be at a premium if there's a crash out.

Peregrinus

KildareP wrote: »

If they revoke Article 50 and then immediately retrigger it, is the EU obliged to offer any deal? Sure, it's a two year countdown clock but it could well be two years of stating "You had your deal and you blew it, you're on your own now, goodbye".

They're obliged to engage in good faith with the process. I think, unless times had passed and circumstances had changed signficantly, that would probably mean offering the same deal again.

I suspect the UK strategy would be to try to avoid repeating some of the (many, many) errors they made first time around. E.g. they might not serve art. 50 notice until they had arrived at a consensus among themselves as to what the point of Brexit was, what is was supposed to acheive, and therefore agreed some rational parameters around what they wanted and what they hoped to get in a Withdrawal Agreement. Plus, they could be much less stupid in setting "red lines" (and this would lead the EU to change its offer; the present WA is very much constructed around the UK's red lines.)

What would very much not happen is the fulfilment of the Brexiter fantasy that, if only the UK demand for inexhaustible cake is articulated by someone who is stupid enought to think inexhaustible cake possible and a demand for it reasonable, the EU will fall over in a heap and offer inexhaustible cake.

First Up

20silkcut wrote:

The power of a charismatic orator trumps logic and fact. The leave side had that in abundance with Farage,Johnson and Mogg.

Anyone who finds Farage or Mogg charismatic needs help. Johnson is an engaging chancer but his time as Foreign Minister doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to do anything other than amuse.

20silkcut wrote:

Who did the remain side have? Tony Blair?? John Major ?? Yesterday’s men both, largely ignored. If such a contemporary charismatic figure had to emerge on the remain side then Brexit would be dead and buried long ago. The fact the remain argument is so popular without any real figurehead or leader to rally around is telling. It’s like a team playing without a manager.

Blair relied on his "charisma" to sell the Iraq war. That went well didn't it?

Major may be as dull as dishwater but he left the legacy of the Anglo Irish agreement that paved the way for the GFA.

I'll take substance over "charisma" any day and the UK electorate would be wise to do the same

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suspect the UK strategy would be to try to avoid repeating some of the (many, many) errors they made first time around. E.g. they might not serve art. 50 notice until they had arrived at a consensus among themselves as to what the point of Brexit was, what is was supposed to acheive, and therefore agreed some rational parameters around what they wanted and what they hoped to get in a Withdrawal Agreement.

But if they did that, they would realize Brexit is a bloody stupid idea and never leave at all.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

FYI, tonight's Channel 4 dispatches episode focuses on EU migration and what happens if free movement stops:

https://twitter.com/c4dispatches/status/1114954083511808006?s=21

Its a bit of a wrong slant on this.

There is no government or business case for a reduction in immigration. That people may have voted for Brexit thinking it might be is their fault.

All that will happen is that 'rules' will be put in place such that it seems that the UK has taken back control. But those 'rules' will be adjusted as needed by business and the people on the street will notice no real difference in terms of the numbers of immigrants, although it may be from different countries than previously.

The knock on effect though is that immigrants will never look to integrate, seeing as they are classed and treated as temporary visitors. They won't put down roots, they won't integrate. This the ghettoisation of certain areas will increase rather than reduce.

And it only highlights the real desire of Brexit. It has nothing to do with the common man, nothing to do with Richard Littleengland. It has everything to do with the elites looking to get away from the regulations of the EU and open up new and lower labour markets for themselves.

Shelga

Is it just me, or does it feel like the tide has really turned against Brexit in the last few 3-4 days? Despite the situation as it currently stands being that the UK will leave the European Union without a deal in approximately 60 hours, unless something else happens (which it clearly will), it just feels like everyone is finally sick and tired of it and just wants it to go away. Even some of the crazies on the right in the UK.

It's not featuring nearly as heavily in the news today, that former Telegraph editor admitting it's a mistake, Tories and Labour sitting down together... it just feels like it's running out of steam at last, and somehow won't happen at all.

Wishful thinking maybe? But since everyone now accepts that no deal won't happen, the whole thing feels like it's starting to unravel as people realise the whole thing is completely pointless and will bring no discernible benefits.

Laois_Man

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

FYI, tonight's Channel 4 dispatches episode focuses on EU migration and what happens if free movement stops:

https://twitter.com/c4dispatches/status/1114954083511808006?s=21

My God....what an absolute areshole to work for!
He's the kind of absolute gob****e I'll actually take great pleasure in seeing getting screwed by the whole thing. It's the 48%, those in the 52% that have seen sense and those effected outside the UK that I feel sorry for.

At the risk of sounding like James O'Brien, I would love to ask him what it is that those un-elected bureaucrats based in Luxembourg told him to do exactly? Give somebody decent workers rights/pay perhaps?

Apart from the fact that he has more than doubled the UK's trade deficit with the EU, even if it was the correct number it still wouldn't make any sense

Tell me how

Shelga wrote: »

Is it just me, or does it feel like the tide has really turned against Brexit in the last few 3-4 days? Despite the situation as it currently stands being that the UK will leave the European Union without a deal in approximately 60 hours, unless something else happens (which it clearly will), it just feels like everyone is finally sick and tired of it and just wants it to go away. Even some of the crazies on the right in the UK.

It's not featuring nearly as heavily in the news today, that former Telegraph editor admitting it's a mistake, Tories and Labour sitting down together... it just feels like it's running out of steam at last, and somehow won't happen at all.

Wishful thinking maybe? But since everyone now accepts that no deal won't happen, the whole thing feels like it's starting to unravel as people realise the whole thing is completely pointless and will bring no discernible benefits.

Think it is possible that this is a calm before the storm period. If Brexit happens, or looks like it definitely won't happen, there will be a lot of consternation. Ok, hard to see it happening in the next week giving Parliament repeatedly voting to not leave without a deal but if it shifts so that it is unlikely to happen, the Tommy Robinson's and Nigel Farages will try to drum up a lot of public outcry over democracy being railroaded.

Best thing would be May's deal put to the people and for it to be rejected with the option to remain winning. That is unlikely to happen though.

Shelga

I don’t even know how you’d run a second referendum, as there is no credible plan to sit opposite Remain on the ballot paper. And that is the inherent flaw of Brexit.

If they run it as May’s deal vs Remain, you’d probably see Remain win by 60-70%, but turnout would probably be very low. Hard to know what’s going to happen.

Tell me how

Shelga wrote: »

I don’t even know how you’d run a second referendum, as there is no credible plan to sit opposite Remain on the ballot paper. And that is the inherent flaw of Brexit.

If they run it as May’s deal vs Remain, you’d probably see Remain win by 60-70%, but turnout would probably be very low. Hard to know what’s going to happen.

Use May's deal. That is credible in the sense that she has negotiated it and the Eu will accept it (ok, ignoring the fact that parliament rejected it).

Be perfectly clear on the narrative that despite several people saying that they do not like this deal, they have not being able to suggest an alternative, and so, this is it, this is the deal which is on the table. Now is the time to give Jacobs Rees-Mogg what he asked for and go to the people with the deal before deciding whether to leave or stay.

bilston

I still believe something will be sorted.

I think May will have to accept a customs Union to get her deal backed by Labour. They will agree this today or tomorrow, she will go to the EU on Wednesday with this plan who will then agree to an extension to allow her time to get it through the HoC and then UK will leave the EU fairly quickly.

On the other hand she may not come to any agreement with Labour and will bring nothing to the EU on Wednesday and then I could see France and one or two others saying "non" to any extension and then we really are into no deal territory.

ilovesmybrick

May is off to Berlin tomorrow to meet Merkel. You would think her time would be better spent meeting MP's face to face rather than travelling to Berlin, considering there's the EU leaders meeting the following day. This entire process has made me so cynical about May's abilities that I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrows meeting again turns out to be one of the "Germany runs the EU, so if we change their minds..." ones again.

ancapailldorcha

Laois_Man wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like James O'Brien, I would love to ask him what it is that those un-elected bureaucrats based in Luxembourg told him to do exactly? Give somebody decent workers rights/pay perhaps?

That's the problem. The media pushes these facile narratives and people are never asked to actually explain why they believe it or elaborate on their beliefs at all.

maynooth_rules

Tell me how wrote: »

Use May's deal. That is credible in the sense that she has negotiated it and the Eu will accept it (ok, ignoring the fact that parliament rejected it).

Be perfectly clear on the narrative that despite several people saying that they do not like this deal, they have not being able to suggest an alternative, and so, this is it, this is the deal which is on the table. Now is the time to give Jacobs Rees-Mogg what he asked for and go to the people with the deal before deciding whether to leave or stay.

Precisely. This is Brexit, its not unicorn fantasy brexit that cant happen. The idea that something shouldnt be done because of the likes of Tommy Robinson and Farage is worrying. The right thing should not be prevented from happening because of the fear of social unrest, which i personally think wont happen

Laois_Man

Here's my new favorite HoC speech - witah all the best points we constantly make on this thread

Every Brexiteer should be forced to watch it!

https://twitter.com/dk3113r/status/1114953939634589696

Bit cynical

bilston wrote: »

I still believe something will be sorted.

I think May will have to accept a customs Union to get her deal backed by Labour. They will agree this today or tomorrow, she will go to the EU on Wednesday with this plan who will then agree to an extension to allow her time to get it through the HoC and then UK will leave the EU fairly quickly.

However a customs union would still need a period of negotiation with the EU so a long extension of about a year would be required.

aidyhawse

Bit cynical wrote: »

However a customs union would still need a period of negotiation with the EU so a long extension of about a year would be required.

This is on future relations so, the negotiations would be done during the transition phase, allowed for within the WA to December 2020 and extendable to December 2022.

Macy0161

The biggest issue with the Customs Union is going to be satisfying Labour that it is legally binding, imo. And they are right not to trust May or the rest of the Conservative Party.

Russman

I'm not convinced Labour will sign up to anything tbh. They really want no part of the potential s**t show this could all become (not that it isn't one already). If they were to agree to some "fudge" mechanism, they'd be wide open to the blame game by the Tories.

What is the actual process that the HoC would have to invoke to avoid a no-deal, if it came to 8pm on Thursday with no agreement or extension in sight ?

Professor Moriarty

Russman wrote: »

I'm not convinced Labour will sign up to anything tbh. They really want no part of the potential s**t show this could all become (not that it isn't one already). If they were to agree to some "fudge" mechanism, they'd be wide open to the blame game by the Tories.

What is the actual process that the HoC would have to invoke to avoid a no-deal, if it came to 8pm on Thursday with no agreement or extension in sight ?

Theresa May writes to EU and revokes A50.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Russman wrote: »

I'm not convinced Labour will sign up to anything tbh. They really want no part of the potential s**t show this could all become (not that it isn't one already). If they were to agree to some "fudge" mechanism, they'd be wide open to the blame game by the Tories.

What is the actual process that the HoC would have to invoke to avoid a no-deal, if it came to 8pm on Thursday with no agreement or extension in sight ?

Theresa May writes to EU and revokes A50.

They agree to sit on Friday (which is not planned) and do exactly that - vote to revoke. May then sends a note to Brussels.

aidyhawse

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Theresa May writes to EU and revokes A50.

I believe May would need a majority in HoC and a credible reason (although a HoC majority may provide that).