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

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Really?-I thought it was that the lease had expired-nothing as dramatic as your suggestion.

Indeed they were 'dramatic'. The Chinese made it very clear they would broach no welching on the lease terms and the British were very fearful that if the talks broke down that China would respond militarily.

I remember in response to much British navel gazing about 'how could Hong Kong survive without British administration and fingerpointing at 'incorrigible and ineducable' Chinese leaders'(recognise that tactic?) one Chinese diplomat asked, 'If British administration is so good why have so many of her colonies fought to the death for independence?'.

DOCARCH

It's just been confirmed (by ECJ) that UK can revoke Article 50 if it chooses.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Really?-I thought it was that the lease had expired-nothing as dramatic as your suggestion.

Bit more complex than that. China ceded Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon peninsula to the UK in perpetuity - but under presssure, not freely. Some decades later, it granted the UK a "sovereign lease" on adjacent territory, the "New Territories". It was the New Territories lease which expired. The New Territories represented the majority of the land area of Hong Kong, and accommodated the majority of the population of the colony, but did not include the port or the historic city centre.

In theory, the UK could have relinquished the New Territories, while holding on to Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, on the basis that they had been permanently ceded. But the Chinese did not accept the legitimacy of the permanent cession, and it was not realistic to for the UK to think of holding them without Chinese assent.

It was in this context that the UK proposed a form of joint sovereignty over the whole colony. Effectively, the UK would share their sovereignty over Hong Kong and Kowloon, in return for the Chinese sharing their sovereignty over the New Territories. But the Chinese weren't interested.

The UK also suggested something similar to Spain in relation to Gibraltar in round about 2000. But the idea was not popular in Gibraltar, and a referendum organised by the Gibraltarian government in 2002 put the kibosh on the idea.

Peregrinus

DOCARCH wrote: »

It's just been confirmed (by ECJ) that UK can revoke Article 50 if it chooses.

No. The Advocate-General of the Court has submitted an opinion to that effect. But the Advocate-General is not a judge and his opinion is not a ruling of the court; it's just something the court will consider when making its own ruling. More often than not, the court's ruling is in line with the Advocate General's opinion, but we cannot say whether it will be in this case until it is actually issued.

DOCARCH

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The Advocate-General of the Court has submitted an opinion to that effect.

Heard it on RTE a couple of minutes ago....subsequently they have clarified, as you say....

EdgeCase

It's unusual for the the Advocate General's opinion on something like that to be far off the mark.

It's a largely codified legal system, unlike the UK constitution which is more like interpreting the reading of tealeaves. The opinion would be based on a technical reading or the treaties and to some degree on precedent but there's much less room for interpretation.

It wasn't actually a very complicated question as there's nothing specific in the treaty that would make it irrevocable.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's unusual for the the Advocate General's opinion on something like that to be far off the mark.

It's a largely codified legal system, unlike the UK constitution which is more like interpreting the reading of tealeaves. The opinion would be based on a technical reading or the treaties and to some degree on precedent but there's much less room for interpretation.

It wasn't actually a very complicated question as there's nothing specific in the treaty that would make it irrevocable.

It's quite a complex question, as there's also nothing specific in the Treaty which would make it revocable. And some have pointed out that, as the Treaty explicitly makes simple deferral of an Art 50 notice dependent on the unanimous consent of member states, it would be inconsistent to allow the much more radical step of revocation of an Art 50 notice to be effected unilaterally.

As to how often the AG is "off the mark", practitioners used to say that, as a rule of thumb, the court would agree with the AG in about 80% of cases. But that was then; some years ago the court processes changed so that, instead of offering an opinion in all cases, the AG now only offers opinions in cases that raise new issues of law and, since then, the 80% estimate no longer holds good. But nobody has done a calculation to identify a new "agreement rate".

Academic opinion on whether A50 notice can be revoked is divided, some arguing that on a coherenent reading of the Treaty as a whole it makes sense to see the notice as revocable unilaterally, some that (on the same reading) it should be revocable only with either unanimous or qualified majority consent, and some that it is not revocable at all.

Peregrinus

According to the RTE report:

In answer to the question from the Scottish court, the Advocate General proposes that the Court of Justice should in its future judgment, declare that Article 50 TEU allows the unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, until such time as the Withdrawal Agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the member state's constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice."

The last bit, which I have highlighted, is key. I think it probably signals that a state can't withdraw their A50 notice as a way of buying more time, without the need to obtain the consent of other states as envisaged by the Treaty. So, if you withdraw A50 notice, it has to be because you want to remain a member of the EU; it can't be with a view to having a second, and better-prepared or better-thought-through, crack at leaving.

Leroy42

Isn't it largely academic though, the EU would fully accept if the UK withdrew A50 would they not?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't it largely academic though, the EU would fully accept if the UK withdrew A50 would they not?

If they were satisfied that there was a political consensus in the the UK to remain in membership, probably, yes.

But if they thought it was a tactic to have a second crack, or if they thought the UK remained politically divided and the UK government would continue to be sem-paralysed in relation to EU issues, they'd not be so keen. Brexit aside, the EU has other problems which need addressing, and there are various ways in which the EU needs reform. There must be a risk, to put it no higher, that a UK government would block any new treaty effecting reforms because of concerns about domestic opposition from bitter Brexiters with a strong sense of betrayal, and determined to see every development of any kind in the EU as a sinister plot to advance a program of federalism and deprive the UK of its sovereignty.

Basically, the UK changing its mind at this point and deciding to remain would quite likely be seen as something of a mixed blessing by at least some member states.

EdgeCase

The likelihood of the Tories ever allowing a second referendum is very, very low. The Brexiteers have managed to get the public to vote for it and, much like most dodgy sales tactics that sign you up to 3 year mobile phone contracts that sound too good to be true, they're now pointing to the details that nobody read or paid attention to and sticking to the notion that it's been signed up to and you're locked in forever.

I still think we are looking at them running down the clock until there's a crash out and then it really is irrevocable.

I also think the DUP just want to cause a hard border (despite what they're saying). Their flawed logic is that a lot of them think they this would end "Dublin" involvement in NI and permanently lock them into the UK. That's what's driving their harder Brexiteers, at least from what I've heard anecdotally. It's basically an attempt to burn the bridges.

The friendly and reasonable sounding talk from Arleen, who is probably a very sensible and pragmatic politician, does not seem to reflect the attitudes in the larger element of the party. I suspect she's just doing her best to keep the show on the road. Often in NI politics the leadership of parties is far more reasonable and open-minded than the grassroots.

All of these hardline people in the Tories, UKIP, DUP and even Labour's Brexiteers will simply aim to stall until after March 29th so that the position becomes genuinely irrevocable.

They don't have to do anything other than filibuster and drag their feet.

Leroy42

Its strange, because the Express article about the opinion of the AG reads like a victory for the UK.

But in reality, this was always an option. TM has not only ruled it out as an option she is willing to go with, but even the thought of asking the people their opinion has been deemed undemocratic. So whilst the option may be there I cannot see it being used for a number of reasons.

As Peregrinus points out, the EU would want pretty big assurances (which I am not sure TM can give or even be believed) that any stop to A50 is 'permanent' rather than simply a delaying tactic. But even if they accept the UK's word, and the UK then opt for Brexit again in the short term, if they felt these negotiations were tough imagine what they face with a fed up EU!
Second, the media and the public will simply not accept it. The line, that TM has embraced, that Brexit is the will of the people and must be carried through, is very strong and there seems no way back

EdgeCase

I wouldn't mind the Express. They have had headlines about Sterling surging and the Euro collapsing which have been entirely wrong 20 mins after publication.

You might as well be reading a pro-Brexit satirical comic. I don't know how anyone takes them seriously other than as a barometer of UKIP voters.

Leroy42

EdgeCase wrote: »

I wouldn't mind the Express. They have had headlines about Sterling surging and the Euro collapsing which have been entirely wrong 20 mins after publication.

You might as well be reading a pro-Brexit satirical comic. I don't know how anyone takes them seriously other than as a barometer of UKIP voters.

Of course, fully agree. I was merely using it to highlight how they are reporting on it. It shows that anything that sees the UK get 'one over' the EU is seen as a good thing, regardless of whether they actually want it or not.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its strange, because the Express article about the opinion of the AG reads like a victory for the UK.

But in reality, this was always an option. TM has not only ruled it out as an option she is willing to go with, but even the thought of asking the people their opinion has been deemed undemocratic. So whilst the option may be there I cannot see it being used for a number of reasons.

As Peregrinus points out, the EU would want pretty big assurances (which I am not sure TM can give or even be believed) that any stop to A50 is 'permanent' rather than simply a delaying tactic. But even if they accept the UK's word, and the UK then opt for Brexit again in the short term, if they felt these negotiations were tough imagine what they face with a fed up EU!
Second, the media and the public will simply not accept it. The line, that TM has embraced, that Brexit is the will of the people and must be carried through, is very strong and there seems no way back

This is great news for those who voted remain and as you rightly point out should only be used in a genuine desire to reverse the decision to leave and not used as a cynical attempt to buy time. Also,the telegraphs reporting of this important news is almost comical in its ridiculous biased tone!

ancapailldorcha

I don't know if this has been posted but Laura Kuenssberg has tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1069868636368715776

I'd say that this is great news and it is but there's still the matter of a Conservative party which is still negotiating with itself.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know if this has been posted but Laura Kuenssberg has tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1069868636368715776

I'd say that this is great news and it is but there's still the matter of a Conservative party which is still negotiating with itself.

Speaking of vehicles, the car industry is talking about Brexit to the Business Committee. Basically, Toyota are implying that a hard Brexit will probably mean they will have to move production out of Britain. In other bad news, there will a drop in production of 115,000 cars, partly due to Brexit. Still, I have faith in Jacob that No Deal is best for Britain.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Speaking of vehicles, the car industry is talking about Brexit to the Business Committee. Basically, Toyota are implying that a hard Brexit will probably mean they will have to move production out of Britain. In other bad news, there will a drop in production of 115,000 cars, partly due to Brexit. Still, I have faith in Jacob that No Deal is best for Britain.

The Toyota guy is probably some third rate failed politician, closet Remainer and Toyota were never really invested in Britain anyways.

They will simply use the spare production capacity vacated by Toyota to build cars for the US market, when they get their FTA.

And as one Economists stated last week, if a delay of a few minutes on shipments causes the whole thing to stop then the whole thing was pointless anyway (can't remember which one but a Pro Brexit one obviously). She didn't deal with the increased costs, the additional admin, loss of competitiveness etc.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

Really?-I thought it was that the lease had expired-nothing as dramatic as your suggestion.

Stop derailing the thread please.

demfad

According to the UK Governments submission to the ECJ a revocation request can happen by the Parliament simply directing the UK Government to make it happen.
(As the Supreme Court cincluded for invoking A50).

If the ECJ rules with the AG:

Then revocation of A50 is a Sovereign decision of the UK.

This is potentially a major development:

1: There is an easily accessable escape route.
2: The escape route can be accessed right up until fulltime.

If the deal is rejected in parliament then revocation with or without a referendum is more likely than before.
Crashing out without a deal is less likely than it was before.

If the ECJ ruling happens before the UK vote it could present a dilemma for Brexiteers.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Toyota guy is probably some third rate failed politician, closet Remainer and Toyota were never really invested in Britain anyways.

They will simply use the spare production capacity vacated by Toyota to build cars for the US market, when they get their FTA.

And as one Economists stated last week, if a delay of a few minutes on shipments causes the whole thing to stop then the whole thing was pointless anyway (can't remember which one but a Pro Brexit one obviously). She didn't deal with the increased costs, the additional admin, loss of competitiveness etc.

He may well be a traitorous Johnny Foreigner failing Remainer (like the Governor of the Bank of England) but anyway here's what Toyota deputy MD Tony said in the context of No Deal:

"We would have stop-start production for weeks, possibly months. The value of production is £10m a day. If we lost that sort of value it is very, very challenging for us"

He's probably lying though.

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know if this has been posted but Laura Kuenssberg has tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1069868636368715776

I'd say that this is great news and it is but there's still the matter of a Conservative party which is still negotiating with itself.

Indeed but parliament can now call May's bluff about "this deal or no deal" when obviously there is indeed the no Brexit option.

This (if confirmed by the court) will change the game. MPs can (rightly) claim to have voted against the deal in the knowledge that the CJEU says Brexit can simply be cancelled.

I tend to agree that this may not actually be the best thing for our European Union long term. It'll be a Versailles Treaty moment in Brexiteer folklore-sold out by a remainer fifth column type thing. You can be guaranteed that blaming the EU on anything and everything will go into complete overdrive.

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

If the ECJ ruling happens before the UK vote it could present a dilemma for Brexiteers.

I don't see how. These people are committed to Brexit regardless of the havoc it wreaks on the country they purport to love.

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how. These people are committed to Brexit regardless of the havoc it wreaks on the country they purport to love.

I have to agree - given that one of the points of the AG's opinion is quite obvious (i.e. Art 50 is the notification of the intention to withdraw, therefore of course it's unilaterally capable of being revoked - I, clearly, paraphrase) this is just another issue that will be distorted into a win by the staunch pro-Brexit pundits.

trellheim

"Delete all after this House and add Votes to Revoke the UK's Notice of Withdrawal under TFEU Article 50" I'd say someone will chance their arm and submit

LuckyLloyd

Certainly worth considering the strategic outlook for the European project. The EU has things to deal with in the Eurozone; Italy / Poland / Hungary need to be handled to various extents. The purpose of the WA is to give clarity to the British situation so they can move forward during trade negotiations on a solid footing. A half in / half out Britain still riven by political division might be a complication worse in the medium long term than the chaos of a disorderly No Deal exit on March 29th.

Then from the UK perspective, politicians with careers ahead of them might see the value in neutering the Brexit faction and cleaning the decks politically. I certainly believe Corbyn sees the value in that, for you can genuinely move the societal conversation forward with Brexit clarified one way or another - even if it's the economically negative way.

Ultimately, from the EU perspective I think the preferred option may be the WA rather than a last minute remain at this stage. So long as the UK cannot reach a competent and realistic consensus political position that is.

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how. These people are committed to Brexit regardless of the havoc it wreaks on the country they purport to love.

It won't change anything on the Brexiteer side, but all those Remainer MPs being faced with a choice of May's deal rock or a chaotic-Brexit hard place suddenly have a third way forward. With a unilateral revocation of A50 on the table, there's absolutely no reason for May's deal to be passed by either side, neither on a first vote nor a second.

Tell me how

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ultimately, from the EU perspective I think the preferred option may be the WA rather than a last minute remain at this stage. So long as the UK cannot reach a competent and realistic consensus political position that is.

I disagree with this point. I think a remain at this stage would really help the EU to be steadfast in the strength of the union as it looks to tackle other issues.

Yes, the UK would continue to bicker nationally and some of their EU ministers would continue to complain but at that point, the EU would simply ignore the UK for at least 12 months.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

I disagree with this point. I think a remain at this stage would really help the EU to be steadfast in the strength of the union as it looks to tackle other issues.

Yes, the UK would continue to bicker nationally and some of their EU ministers would continue to complain but at that point, the EU would simply ignore the UK for at least 12 months.

I dunno. A Remain by default or referendum win by a small margin will only kick the can down the road. The Eurosceptic genie is out of the lamp and he won't be going back in. When they were just a rump in the Tory party, a la Major's "bastards", they still caused a lot of trouble. Now that they have a mandate, built on lies but a mandate nonetheless, they will continue to paralyse Britain and by default hamper any progress in the EU. The whole farce is a boil that needs to be lanced but that won't be happening anytime soon.

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see how. These people are committed to Brexit regardless of the havoc it wreaks on the country they purport to love.

Hardcore Brexiteers will have to think about their strategy a little more carefully if the ECJ decides in favour of unilateral revocation. If voting down May's deal leads to a No Deal / No Brexit referendum, where the latter choice now has a tangible mechanism in place, then Brexiteers have potentially shot themselves in the foot.