Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

trellheim

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's too late for either. I'd say the likeliest outcome is Parliament taking control again and unilaterally revoking Article 50 though that might complicate things.

i really really dont know where you are getting that from I've seen no evidence at all ?

Strazdas

Mezcita wrote: »

Time will tell I suppose. Certainly the EU refusing a further extension request would put the definite squeeze on the UK and I agree that it's the right course of action to make the UK come to their senses. I just don't see the EU saying no while there is still a chance that the UK could cancel Brexit.

The chance to cancel it is right now though. Why do they need to keep waiting until after deadlines have passed? Halloween is four months away.....plenty of time to finally put a halt to the Brexit crisis if they so desired

ancapailldorcha

trellheim wrote: »

i really really dont know where you are getting that from I've seen no evidence at all ?

No deal is something they've shot down repeatedly by the biggest margin. The only way to achieve this at crunch time is to revoke Article 50.

robinph

Strazdas wrote: »

The chance to cancel it is right now though. Why do they need to keep waiting until after deadlines have passed? Halloween is four months away.....plenty of time to finally put a halt to the Brexit crisis if they so desired

Because that gives them 4 months of claiming to have tried "something" and hope that some voters believe them. Doesn't really matter what else happens in the meantime, they have to run down the clock to retain an appropriate level of brexityness.

Stop moaning ffs

Revoking isn’t even in the conversation. Hasn’t ever been mentioned in months.
No way it’s triggered st this stage /up to deadline

robinph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No deal is something they've shot down repeatedly by the biggest margin. The only way to achieve this at crunch time is to revoke Article 50.

The only way to achieve a revoke vote in parliament is if Bercow were to change the method of voting so that it is a choice between option A or option B, which would no doubt result in some legal challenge. But they will only ever vote on approving option A and separately approving option B and therefore we are forever stuck in a limbo of nothing.

robinph

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Revoking isn’t even in the conversation. Hasn’t ever been mentioned in months.
No way it’s triggered st this stage /up to deadline

I'd say that is just because we are focused on the Tory leadership for now, and Labour are just sitting on the fence.

I'm sure the concurrent LibDem leadership contest that is going on at the moment is mentioning revoke, but they are getting zero coverage.

Call me Al

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's too late for either. I'd say the likeliest outcome is Parliament taking control again and unilaterally revoking Article 50 though that might complicate things.

I think we are past that stage by now.

The UK is going to have to leave the EU for this current crisis to resolve itself. If they don't leave this disaster will rumble on and Farage will become ever more present, painful, and (frighteningly) powerful.

Of course their brexit will land them into a myriad of other possible crises, but as they have done up until now, they will lurch from one crisis to another fire-fighting and making it up as they go. I foresee this in the short to medium term.
Long term they will lick their wounds and paper over the cracks. The public will be poorer and it remains to be seen how that manifests itself.

ambro25

Mezcita wrote: »

Time will tell I suppose. Certainly the EU refusing a further extension request would put the definite squeeze on the UK and I agree that it's the right course of action to make the UK come to their senses. I just don't see the EU saying no while there is still a chance that the UK could cancel Brexit.

And I understand that sentiment perfectly well.

But the EU's ascendency is premised on it being a rules-based construct, and kicking the Brexit can indefinitely until the UK should eventually come to its politico-socio-economic senses, does the EU less geopolitical favours than keeping the UK in: there comes a point wherein granting extensions one after the other (or even a single, much longer one) effectively makes a mockery of Article 50, in fact and in meaning, to the extent of providing its detractors with the very ammunition which they've so far had to invent.

Joe_ Public

I dont think its a terrible way to try to untangle this devilishly tricky conundrum by blankly consigning No Deal to the nuclear waste sarcophagus where it belongs and try to take the thread from there. Richard Harrington was on sky this morning saying he will do all in his power to prevent it and seems there's at least one tory mp joining this band by the day. I know what the odds say, but i dont believe it can or will happen. I've always believed a 2nd referendum was likely, but it's complicated in a procedural sense so i wouldn't wager my life on it.

No deal won't happen though. The country will mobilise against it in a way we haven't seen yet, remain side is simply dormant at the moment but that wont last as the clock ticks down.

Strazdas

robinph wrote: »

Because that gives them 4 months of claiming to have tried "something" and hope that some voters believe them. Doesn't really matter what else happens in the meantime, they have to run down the clock to retain an appropriate level of brexityness.

Indeed, but which makes a total mockery of granting more and more extensions. The UK is making no attempt whatsoever to engage in ending the Brexit crisis.

Lemming

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

"...colonies rising up against their imperial oppressors..."

Says Anne not realising it’s the 4th of July and America celebrating its independence from Britain

She might not, but Farage (sat next to her whilst delivering her tone-deaf vomitting fit) and Bannon most certainly do and I dare say it was suggested to her to include those lines, banking on some media exposure finding its way into US talking circles.

Sam Russell

Let it be known, once they have a new PM, that there will be no extension after the 31st October 2019.

That leaves a choice of three outcomes:
1. No deal crash out.
2. WA as is, with political declaration as is.
3: Revoke Art 50.

Make your mind up time, and get ready for the brown stuff hitting the fan - whichever one is chosen.

Leroy42

On the one hand granting extensions allows the EU to kick the can down the road, in the hope that something comes up (sanity in the UK).

On the other, the very reason for the A50 time limit was to prohibit countries for triggering the process and then simply extending it again and again in the hope that the EU give in.

I would see the later of those as the bigger issue in regards to an extension, particularly an extension with no clear outcome in mind.

If an extension is granted, another Ref of GE is not enough. It is very likely that neither will return a definitive answer, and as we saw with both the local and EU elections all parties will spin the result whichever way suits them best. The EU should only grant an extension on the basis of the UK government signalling that they are working on something different.

Either get the WA through, or failing that Revoke. No Deal is not in the EU's interests so giving the UK more time to consider it seems uncalled for.

The last extension gave the view to the UK that they had the EU in a bind, scared of a No Deal. And whilst the EU are rightly scared of it, they shouldn't be so scared as to let the UK, a soon to be 3rd country, to dictate the terms or the schedule.

If granted another extension, Johnson or Hunt will simply say they are buying the preparation time to No Deal. But instead put it to them that no extension unless they go back and say that either WA or revoke and if it takes a GE to do that then so be it.

Professor Moriarty

Lemming wrote: »

She might not, but Farage (sat next to her whilst delivering her tone-deaf vomitting fit) and Bannon most certainly are and I dare say it was suggested to her to include those lines, banking on some media exposure finding its way into US talking circles.

Dunno. When even the Telegraph has a front page headline criticising your anti Brexit speech, you know you've gone too far.

Joe_ Public

Varadkar and other EU politicians have indicated that they would likely consider an extension on the basis of a GE or new referendum. I dont personally believe they are totally ready to give up on the UK just yet, for all the impatience that is increasingly circulating around the continent.

Lemming

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno. When even the Telegraph has a front page headline criticising your anti Brexit speech, you know you've gone too far.

It - assuming it is a Farage/Bannon thing - wont have been aimed at consumption by a British audience apart from having any coincidental approval, but rather to plant a seed of propaganda into the minds of MAGA supporters and/or Trump that will be very hard to shake off once it takes root, allowing them [Farage/Bannon] to start spinning narrative after narrative to suit themselves.

Or of course, it could literally just have been the tone-deaf projectile vomiting of a woman once commented upon by a TV interviewer after the fact as being a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

The timing just seems quite coincidental given the person sat next to her who is exceedingly adept at media manipulation (or has access to someone who is, i.e. Bannon)

reslfj

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, but which makes a total mockery of granting more and more extensions. The UK is making no attempt whatsoever to engage in ending the Brexit crisis.

Don't forget the EU in early April had the EU Parliament election coming up and the new commission and a new council president was due.
The extension to Oct. 31 removed Brexit somewhat from the election in EU27 states
It did end most of the debate around the need for UK's participation in that election, too.

By October all in the new EU commission will be in place and the EU27 will again be 'fully fit for fight'.
The UK must realise that the next extension will be much harder to get passed in the council and even if granted may have some much more stringent conditions attached.

Lars

Question:

Whats the mechanics of revoking A50? Does it really have to be put to a common s vote, or could May just turn around and revoke it of her own accord?

reslfj

Some of the EU27 countries expected to be hardest hit by a 'No Deal' Brexit - Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark and France - will be hit to a large degree by an estimated fall in UK's import of farm products.

But due to the outbreak of African swine fever in China the price of pork is 30-40% higher now than a few months ago. More important there is buyers on the world market that can replace the current export of ham and bacon to the UK market.

The 'African swine fever' outbreak in China and the higher price is expected to last at least 2 or 3 years. Large sectors of e.g. Danish farming might prefer to get a Brexit 'No Deal' over with now rather than an extension and having it later.

High prices on pork often have a positive effect on other farm products as well.

I am not sure how this will play out in Ireland ?

Lars

reslfj

Deleted User wrote: »

Question:

Whats the mechanics of revoking A50? Does it really have to be put to a common s vote, or could May just turn around and revoke it of her own accord?

It should be revoked by the same UK constitutional process used to send the original A50 notification.

Seems it needs approval in parliament. But I expect there might be more or less dirty tricks the PM can use.

Lars

Joe_ Public

Deleted User wrote: »

Question:

Whats the mechanics of revoking A50? Does it really have to be put to a common s vote, or could May just turn around and revoke it of her own accord?

Am no UK constitutional expert, but I would assume that she could do this in theory at least. But i doubt the EU would accept it, assuming they're not duty bound to do so, unless it was the express will of parliament.

I also believe the PM can be bypassed when it comes to revocation, but it would require a lengthy passage of a bill through both houses so time would appear to be very against it.

trellheim

UK can revoke A50 on its own, doesnt require EU27 assent but would create a worse firestorm in uk politics (although on saying that I find that actually difficult to believe it could get worse but I would probably be proven wrong ! )

MrMusician18

trellheim wrote: »

UK can revoke A50 on its own, doesnt require EU27 assent but would create a worse firestorm in uk politics (although on saying that I find that actually difficult to believe it could get worse but I would probably be proven wrong ! )

I don't think anyone is arguing that the UK cant revoke unilaterally. The question is the about the process to produce a revocation that is valid.

trellheim

same way they invoked it ... letter from PM to Head of European Council

Joe_ Public

trellheim wrote: »

UK can revoke A50 on its own, doesnt require EU27 assent but would create a worse firestorm in uk politics (although on saying that I find that actually difficult to believe it could get worse but I would probably be proven wrong ! )

You could be right but i have read that the EU council has to ratify it. Now, may well be almost certain that they wont oppose it, but i was of understanding thats the procedure anyway.

Charles Babbage

trellheim wrote: »

same way they invoked it ... letter from PM to Head of European Council

The orginal letter had the support of parliament. A new one would have to have too.

Imo, no extension. Let the cards fall where they may.

I reckon Parliament would revoke or accept current deal. PM may prorogue? Parliament and that would be a fantastic sort of affront to "taking the power back" and would help in the long run. The UK electorate losing all power instantly.

Giving an extension has its merits but only if Ireland is actively gaining from it during it. Real preparation. Companies moving. Our produce getting into new markets effectively with the help of new trade deals.

But imo, just put it to them. Let Boris eat it. I don't even want the UK to stay anymore. The harder they get hit because of no extension, the better it will be for the Irish border. If we give them too much time to prepare, NI will be less and less important.

Joe_ Public

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The orginal letter had the support of parliament. A new one would have to have too.

Yes, and that was only because Gina Miller instituted and won a court case forcing the government to introduce legislation before notification of A50. There is a theory that because that legislation was passed, it means there would be no need to pass new legislation for a revocation, that the initial act will do. In the same way Theresa May did not need to pass a new act in order to seek an extension. The problem is, though, any move to revoke without new legislation would almost certainly be challenged in the courts so the whole thing would be in danger of being bogged down and, basically, filibustered.

Capt'n Midnight

J Mysterio wrote: »

Rather amusing that Brexit was initially to happen for April Fools Day and is now scheduled to take place on Halloween: the day the dead roam free in our plain of existence.

The new date means that warehouse would need to be filled again.

except they are already full

and

more space is needed for the run up to Christmas