nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

kuro68k wrote: »

The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Leroy42

It is quite a staggering come down though for the UK if the deal goes through.

Essentially all they will have achieved is they gave up their seats in the parliament and any veto over laws and regulations.

I think it will go through, because the alternative of No deal is simply not even worth contemplating. But this is about the worst possible outcome to a project ever devised.

ilovesmybrick

lawred2 wrote: »

An agreement between whom?

On the political declaration between the UK and the EU.

lawred2

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

An agreement has been reached. Now back to Westminster and see what drama emerges there!

An agreement between whom?

MrMusician18

Strazdas wrote: »

Pretty sure some of them are anti-EU in fact (not sure what their specific objection is).

The hard populist left objects to the EU since they see it as a neo-liberal project whose goal is to drive down working and environmental standards. I don't think that stands up to objective scrutiny but however...

I'm not sure why Mattie McGrath voted against the motion as I wouldn't really associate him with the left. Given Thomas Pringles constituents exposure to NI, his vote was a surprise, him being of the left notwithstanding.

Mc Love

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

An agreement has been reached. Now back to Westminster and see what drama emerges there!

It has to go through, people will ask there MP's to vote for it if it risks no access to medicine etc, a peoples vote isnt happening under May's stewardship.

kowtow

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

An agreement has been reached. Now back to Westminster and see what drama emerges there!

Looking at the leaked pages of the agreement, it includes plenty of solemn commitments to avoid the backstop, including the use of alternative technologies etc. etc.

Also some rehash of social and workers rights etc. - text which could be aimed directly at the UK labour party.

McDonnell on Newsnight last night took care to leave the door open the way I read it, I'll stick to my prediction from yesterday that May will swing this through parliament one way or another.

I don't think the Merkel foot stamping is aimed at the UK at all, more at keeping the rest of the 27 quiet so that this declaration full of hope and ambition can do what it needs to do in London.

ilovesmybrick

An agreement has been reached. Now back to Westminster and see what drama emerges there!

Zubeneschamali

farmchoice wrote: »

i think this is all a bit of playacting to be honest, may needs to be seen to go to Brussels and get concessions, so the EU politicians are doing what politicians do best and creating a bit of drama for her and letting her seem to have a bit of a win.

Given that May and the EU have agreed everything important, it is relatively safe to play silly buggers with the Political Declaration on the Future Relationship, which is pretty meaningless.

For this reason I would not be surprised if the November summit is called off at the last minute, there are more late night BS negotiations, and then a last minute Hurrah! in time for the very last last minute December summit.

This makes it look as if the UK got something difficult from the negotiations, and also gives time for pressure to pass the deal to ramp up in Parliament, which seems to be going a bit better.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

A possible outcome is that the Court may rule not only that the Treaty does not allow notice to be withdrawn unilaterally, but that it does not allow notice to be withdrawn at all, regardless of the views of other member states.

No Court is going to eject the UK from the EU if the UK wants to stay and the EU wants them to stay.

I doubt A50 can be withdrawn unilaterally, but if it can, I can see immediate moves to amend it so that it can't. Too late for this round of brexit, but if they do withdraw A50, England could well resubmit it later.

seamus

Merkel is basically refusing to play the game. She knows that there's an element of "can I speak to your manager please" in all of this, and that the UK want to bring other EU leaders to the table to negotiate further.

Merkel is setting out in no uncertain terms that the EU negotiation team have full authority on this and EU leaders are going to do nothing but confirm the deal that the team come back with.

Merkel is always portrayed as the unofficial leader of the EU by the media, but realistically she's just setting out the same position that all EU leaders will take. If there's no agreement to sign off on, then there's no point in wasting their time attending any meetings.
It does however also send a message to other EU states who might feel like they want to stick their oar in - stay out of it, stop muddying the waters.

Water John

Merkel would very well understand the issue of borders having come from East Germany.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think this is right. Under the WA the "single customs territory" covers all products except fisher products, so the UK gets exclusive fishing rights in its own waters, but will be subject to tariffs if it sells the catch to the EU-27 (which, currently, is what it does with most of its catch).

Ah ok, then perhaps I misunderstood it, (and in my defence some commentators have as well).

I will go back into it and have another look.

But it still does not take away from my main point. That Merkel, in particular, seems to be putting additional pressure on the EU states to agree to the deal and move on. Of course part of this is also to try to put the pressure on May as she has been allowed to drag this entire process out, but it does come across as the deal is done, and there is no room for any discussion by either the UK or the EU states.

That being the case, it makes it even more impressive that Ireland were able to secure from the very outset that the NI border would be an integral part of any WA.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But within the agreement the UK have got a big win in terms of fishing. They can continue to freely sell their product to the EU, but their is only an agreement to discuss access to UK waters for EU countries.

I don't think this is right. Under the WA the "single customs territory" covers all products except fisher products, so the UK gets exclusive fishing rights in its own waters, but will be subject to tariffs if it sells the catch to the EU-27 (which, currently, is what it does with most of its catch).

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which in turn raises the question, if in fact referendums are binding, shouldn't that be acknowledged, and the system adapted to reflect that? For example, it seems wrong that you can challenge the outcome of a bye-election in the courts if there has been electoral malpractice, but you can't challenge the outcome of a referendum in the same way. And it seems wrong that, if Parliament is effectively bound to enact the result of the legislation, the Bill they would enact isn't drafted before the referendum, so that the public can know, when they vote, what is going to be enacted on the basis of their vote.

Is it the case, though, that the referendum can't be legally challenged? What about this one?

I understand your other point about legislating befor a binding referendum in such a way that the public know what they are voting for. It could work in certain referendums. However in the case of Brexit, the final outcome is the result of negotiations and the government does not know the stances the other negotiating parties will take. They must balance their interpretation of voter intentions with what they can effectively negotiate with the other parties.

Leroy42

farmchoice wrote: »

i think this is all a bit of playacting to be honest, may needs to be seen to go to Brussels and get concessions, so the EU politicians are doing what politicians do best and creating a bit of drama for her and letting her seem to have a bit of a win.

all the dealing now is about the political declaration which might turn out to be no more then wishful thinking when it comes to the actual deal that is agreed some time in the next 2,3, 10 years.

But within the agreement the UK have got a big win in terms of fishing. They can continue to freely sell their product to the EU, but their is only an agreement to discuss access to UK waters for EU countries.

In terms of Gibraltar, Spain seem very happy with the current situation that effectively leaves Gibraltar in the position it is now, so Spain get nothing from the deal.

We would be happy if the NI issue was simply left to a later date?

EdgeCase

I’m not convinced that’s the case. Merkel isn’t even bothering to go to the EU meeting as she considers it a waste of time as there’s been no progress and isn’t likely to be.

I know that’s possibly in part to put pressure on the UK to cop on but at the same time it must be infuriating to keep being dragged to meetings that turn out to be about nothing.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not sure I follow this. What do you man by an advisory referendum which is binding on the Parliament?

The argument is made, with some force, that a formally advisory referendum is politically binding in a very strong way; that Parliament has no real choice but to legislate to give effect to the referendum.

And this argument seems to have found considerable traction in the UK. As noted, before the referendum the government's position was that the referendum result would be evaluated, and it would be for the government or parliament to decide what mandate, and how strong a mandate, the referndum conferred. But after the referndum it has been a completely different story. The margin of victory was thin, two of the four countries in the UK voted to remain, evidence of substantial electoral abuses has emerged, and the "Leave" campaign offered an ambiguous and incoherent vision of what Brexit might entail. There's plenty of material there for a goverment or parliament to question exactly what they have or haven't been mandated to do and how strong, sufficient or reliable that mandate is, but that hasn't happened at all. There's general agreement on both sides of politics that the referendum must be "respected", which means legislating to leave regardless of whether the terms of leaving bear any resemblance to what was offered in the referendum, and regardless of whether the terms of leaving actually enjoy public support now.

All of which suggests that, in reality, a formally advisory referendum is very strongly binding. Parliament can no more not legislate for Brexit than the queen can, say, decide to withhold her assent from a Bill passed by parliament. Legally, she has the right to do that; politically it's unthinkable.

Which in turn raises the question, if in fact referendums are binding, shouldn't that be acknowledged, and the system adapted to reflect that? For example, it seems wrong that you can challenge the outcome of a bye-election in the courts if there has been electoral malpractice, but you can't challenge the outcome of a referendum in the same way. And it seems wrong that, if Parliament is effectively bound to enact the result of the legislation, the Bill they would enact isn't drafted before the referendum, so that the public can know, when they vote, what is going to be enacted on the basis of their vote.

farmchoice

Leroy42 wrote: »

Merkel is pushing hard to get this deal over the line. She is basically telling the countries with concerns over fishing rights and Spain with Gibraltar that a deal is too important to put at risk and to sort it out.

Lucky we have had NI border at the very core of the WZ from the start because it really looks like the EU is going to cave again to UK demands (I say that in relation to these particular parts, I understand that there must be give and take).

It seems that the calculation of the UK, from the outset, that the EU would give in on many things to get a deal was spot on, just that they miscalculated the influence the NI border would have.

i think this is all a bit of playacting to be honest, may needs to be seen to go to Brussels and get concessions, so the EU politicians are doing what politicians do best and creating a bit of drama for her and letting her seem to have a bit of a win.

all the dealing now is about the political declaration which might turn out to be no more then wishful thinking when it comes to the actual deal that is agreed some time in the next 2,3, 10 years.

Robert McGrath

prawnsambo wrote: »

Did they have any rationale for doing this? Or was it just so they could be contrarian.

Mick Barry was just on Morning Ireland. Their opposition is essentially because “neo-liberalism is stitched into every part of this deal”.

Usual crack from these lads of prioritising the purity of their ideology over necessary compromise that seeks to actually benefit people’s lives in the real world.

Leroy42

Merkel is pushing hard to get this deal over the line. She is basically telling the countries with concerns over fishing rights and Spain with Gibraltar that a deal is too important to put at risk and to sort it out.

Lucky we have had NI border at the very core of the WZ from the start because it really looks like the EU is going to cave again to UK demands (I say that in relation to these particular parts, I understand that there must be give and take).

It seems that the calculation of the UK, from the outset, that the EU would give in on many things to get a deal was spot on, just that they miscalculated the influence the NI border would have.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

And in particular they need to think about what is the point of having a concept of an advisory referendum if the advice is (a) absolutely binding on Parliament, but (b) cannot be reconsidered or revoked by the people. That just looks like a recipe for disaster, and why would anyone want to build recipes for disaster into their constitution?

Not sure I follow this. What do you man by an advisory referendum which is binding on the Parliament?

Peregrinus

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Every referendum in the UK is advisory in the real sense since even if it stated that it were binding in the act that enabled the referendum, it could be reversed by a subsequent act of parliament.

The only reason there were not more hurdles, such as minimum turnout or super majority or all nations voting the same way was because Cameron felt he could win a straight question. Adding conditions would have empowered his critics by stacking the odds against them and not killing off the European question in the conservative party for good (which was his goal). If the simple majority voted for Brexit but the rules of the referendum meant they still lost, Cameron would have lost politically anyway.

The key thing to remind yourself of is the politically binding nature of the referendum. MPs would be signing the end of their careers if they ignored the result, only to be substituted by those that wouldn't at the next election. Ignoring the result buys time at best, the result needs to be acted on.

The only way to stop the train now is another referendum. It's telling that even the opponents of Brexit in parliament recognise this and there is no one serious calling for the result to be ignored.

Oh, I agree. the referendum result creates a political mandate that cannot be ignored.

But, two points: First, there's a difference between simply ignoring a mandate on the one hand, and considering it but finding it insufficient, or limited, or superseded by events, on the other. I've already pointed out that, before the election, HMG's position - stated in parliament - was that if a vote to leave wasn't sufficiently decisive, or didn't enjoy nationwide support, Parliament could decide that a bare majority wasn't sufficient support for such a fundamental constitutional change. (After the vote, of course, they took a completely different view.)

But, secondly, this isn't a simple binary. Saying that you mustn't ignore a referendum tells you little about what you must do. A government could, for example, decide that while there was a majority for Brexit, there was no majority for a hard Brexit, or a crash-out Brexit, and therefore it only had a mandate to proceed with a negotiated soft Brexit. Taking that view would be controversial, but it certainly wouldn't be "ignoring" the referendum.

With an advisory referendum, parliament has to legislate in light of the referendum result. And legislation involves taking decisions. So Parliament's role is to evaluate the result, and allow that evaluation to shape the legislation which Parliament enacts. Parliament remains responsible, and accountable, for the content and effect of the legislation.

And that's very different from a binding referendum, in which Parliament legislates before the referendum is held, and the referendum is basically about whether the voters want Parliament's legislation to take effect or not. The people evaluate what Parliament has done and take a decision about it, rather than the other way around.

That's the theory, at any rate. In practice it hasn't worked at all well this time around. Various people have issued papal-type decrees in which they purport to infallibly pronounce what the Will of the People is, and denounce as traitors or anti-democrats those who question their divine right to do so. The person who happens to be Prime Minister when implementation time comes around gets first crack at implementing her decree, although as she didn't announce it until nearly a year after the referendum the people couldn't possibly be taken to have voted for it, and as she wasn't PM at the time they can't even be taken to have delegated this power to her. Anyone who suggests consulting the people again is denounces as an antidemocrat, because apparently the whole point of an advisory referendum is to deprive the people of any right to make and exercise judgements about what the politicians do after the referendum. Or something equally incoherent.

So I think the British need to think a bit longer and harder about the whole place of referendums in their constitutional system, because they haven't really worked it out yet. And in particular they need to think about what is the point of having a concept of an advisory referendum if the advice is (a) absolutely binding on Parliament, but (b) cannot be reconsidered or revoked by the people. That just looks like a recipe for disaster, and why would anyone want to build recipes for disaster into their constitution?

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They campaign as Solidarity-PBP I thought? Only PBP in the north? Either way they're a bunch of goms and this proves it really.

@Bambi, they were even split on this motion!

Absolutely ridiculous.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1121/1012488-brexit-dail/

Peregrinus

Firblog wrote: »

Forgive me if this has been asked previously; if a 2nd referendum were to take place and the result was 'remain', can that actually happen? Is it not the case that - having triggered the exit process - Britain HAS to exit the EU? Legally can they unring the Brexit bell?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EU, along with the leaders of multiple member states have said on numerous occasions that Brexit can be reversed. Brexit isn't good for anyone save for Putin and the moneymen behind Farage & co. I believe that member states would only be too happy for this fell project to be binned for good. It's bad for Europeans, bad for the British and bad for EU members though the UK most of all and Ireland second.

Lord Kerr, the British architect of Article 50 thinks that not only can its triggering be withdrawn but that it can be done so unilaterally. A European Court will be deciding this on the 27th November.

Well, just to be left-field for a moment:

Article 50 itself says nothing about whether notice of withdrawal can be revoked, either unilaterally by the member state giving notice, or by that member state but with the agreement of some, or all, of the other member states.

The case before the CJEU (to be heard, I think, on 27 November) asks the court whether the UK has the right unilaterally to withdraw its notice. People involved in the case say that they hope to get a ruling from the court before Christmas.

A possible outcome is that the Court may rule not only that the Treaty does not allow notice to be withdrawn unilaterally, but that it does not allow notice to be withdrawn at all, regardless of the views of other member states. If the Court were to rule in those terms, then the only way the UK could withdraw its notice is if there were to be an amending treaty giving them that right, drafted, negotiated, signed and ratified by the EU-28 (inc. the UK) in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

BonnieSituation

Bambi wrote: »

No Sodilarity is the beard for the Socialist party, PBP is the Socialist Workers Partys beard. It's hard to keep up I know.

They campaign as Solidarity-PBP I thought? Only PBP in the north? Either way they're a bunch of goms and this proves it really.

Dyr

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Solidarity aka PBP were pro-Brexit in the north don't forget.

No Sodilarity is the beard for the Socialist party, PBP is the Socialist Workers Partys beard. It's hard to keep up I know.

BonnieSituation

Strazdas wrote: »

Pretty sure some of them are anti-EU in fact (not sure what their specific objection is).

Solidarity aka PBP were pro-Brexit in the north don't forget.

Strazdas

Water John wrote: »

It's strange how there seems to be no objection to the Deal being put to the HoC twice, knowing it will lose the first time and great objection and how it undermines democracy to have a 2nd Referendum.

Rank hypocrisy of course. Parliament can change its mind as often as it likes, but for some unknown reason "the people" are refused permission to do so.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

Did they have any rationale for doing this? Or was it just so they could be contrarian.

Pretty sure some of them are anti-EU in fact (not sure what their specific objection is).

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1065369738853916672

These TDs voted against Ireland's national interest tonight.

Did they have any rationale for doing this? Or was it just so they could be contrarian.