Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

1…244245247249250…320

Comments

  • #7382
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,385 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time

    It’s a bizarre notion that it may be as easy as saying ‘no thanks, we’ve changed our minds’ in Parliament.

    It's explicitly worded so something like that can't be done.


  • #7383
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,970 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time.

    EU could possibly refuse to allow A50 be revoked if it appeared that was the strategy/approach.

    There is something in 'there' (Advocate General recommendation to the Court of Justice) saying yes, A50 can be revoked, as long as it does not involve an abusive practice.


  • #7384
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    How does the Gove bill stack up against brexit being enshrined in law?


  • #7385
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    EU could possibly refuse to allow A50 be revoked if it appeared that was the strategy/approach.

    There is something in 'there' (Advocate General recommendation to the Court of Justice) saying yes, A50 can be revoked, as long as it does not involve an abusive practice.

    From the Advocate General:

    “good faith and sincere cooperation must also be observed” in any withdrawal of the exit notice.


  • #7386
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,062 ✭✭✭✭briany


    SimonTemplar wrote: »
    What do you see as the path to a 2nd ref. Is it:
    - TM's deal not passing HoC vote, then
    - MPs voting to hold second ref as the next step forward

    I certainly wouldn't claim to know what'll happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if enough Brexiteer MPs made a subtle pivot on the issue of a 2nd referendum, now that parliamentary sovereignty is looking less and less likely to get get them over the line. Remain MPs would be happy enough with that, too as they think there's a good chance of winning such a vote.


  • Advertisement
  • #7387
    mickmac76
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 400 ✭✭mickmac76


    Given the news today that the British government can withdraw the article 50 notice could the following situation happen. The UK government is unhappy with the negotiated deal so with only a few days to a no deal brexit the government revokes article 50 and publicly states that this is a negotiations tactic. A few days after the expiry of the original drop out date they once again serve notice to the European Parliament that they are withdrawing from the EU and reinstate article 50. The negotiations begin again and even if the EU refuse to engage in any more pointless negotiations the clock starts ticking for another two years of count down. That would give the UK two years to actually plan some sort of brexit. If necessary the process could be repeated as many times as needed until the UK feel they are ready for a no deal brexit.

    The above would seem legal even if disastrous from a political viewpoint. The EU would be paralyzed until something is sorted out. In the meantime you will have people like BoJo grandstanding in Parliament going on about the UK should stand up to the bullies in the EU and leave without a deal but they wouldn't actually do anything. I feel that this would be worse for the EU than anything else. At the moment they can wait for the UK to crash and burn in a no deal brexit. This would be difficult for other countries that occasionally threaten to withdraw from the EU as Brussels could point to the UK as an example of the faith of blundering out of the EU. But if the above happened the EU could end up looking helpless and weak to people with a limited understanding of politics and they could cooperate less with the EU and over time that would leave the EU unable to lead or agree on lots of issues.


  • #7388
    Econ__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Econ__


    Nody wrote: »
    No, your assumption only works if you assume EU AND May will agree to an extension on the 15th of March out of the blue. No extension = Crash out no matter what the parliament votes for and that extension can ONLY be requested by May and only if EU approves it because the deal needs at least 3 months to go through all 30ish parliaments in EU for approval (and that's assuming they approve it). EU has not been talking about the deal require signature in November/December for the fun of it; no signature by UK = full swing on hard crash set up inc. all plans swinging into motion accordingly in EU with all the implications this will have in the countries voting for an extension because UK can't organize a basic vote in parliament. That's from a basis of basically zero good will as it stands today and after significant expenses have been taken by said countries come March 15th; I'd not be surprised if it would get voted down simply out of frustration...

    The EU might not grant an extension in the event that the UK passes a deal that the EU negotiated, in order to allow the UK time to go through the required legislative processes?

    That suggestion is for the birds. Again, a theoretical footnote.


  • #7389
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    mickmac76 wrote: »
    Given the news today that the British government can withdraw the article 50 notice could the following situation happen. The UK government is unhappy with the negotiated deal so with only a few days to a no deal brexit the government revokes article 50 and publicly states that this is a negotiations tactic. A few days after the expiry of the original drop out date they once again serve notice to the European Parliament that they are withdrawing from the EU and reinstate article 50. The negotiations begin again and even if the EU refuse to engage in any more pointless negotiations the clock starts ticking for another two years of count down. That would give the UK two years to actually plan some sort of brexit. If necessary the process could be repeated as many times as needed until the UK feel they are ready for a no deal brexit.

    The above would seem legal even if disastrous from a political viewpoint. The EU would be paralyzed until something is sorted out. In the meantime you will have people like BoJo grandstanding in Parliament going on about the UK should stand up to the bullies in the EU and leave without a deal but they wouldn't actually do anything. I feel that this would be worse for the EU than anything else. At the moment they can wait for the UK to crash and burn in a no deal brexit. This would be difficult for other countries that occasionally threaten to withdraw from the EU as Brussels could point to the UK as an example of the faith of blundering out of the EU. But if the above happened the EU could end up looking helpless and weak to people with a limited understanding of politics and they could cooperate less with the EU and over time that would leave the EU unable to lead or agree on lots of issues.

    So the UK lies to the EU and behaves in a craven manner on the basis that they will get a better deal as a result?


  • #7390
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time

    It’s a bizarre notion that it may be as easy as saying ‘no thanks, we’ve changed our minds’ in Parliament.

    Obviously we have to wait for the judgement but today's opinion says you would be wrong to presume it.

    It would be the behaviour of a deeply untrustworthy country. Would you truly be proud of a country like that?


  • #7391
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,572 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Calina wrote: »
    Obviously we have to wait for the judgement but today's opinion says you would be wrong to presume it.

    It would be the behaviour of a deeply untrustworthy country. Would you truly be proud of a country like that?
    And the EU could just say that they got their agreement and refuse to negotiate any further. It's not like there's somewhere else to go.


  • Advertisement
  • #7392
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,989 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    I don't see how withdrawing article 50 and then triggering it again will somehow lead to a different deal they have right now. Will anything change in the circumstances that will mean they will have a better hand during the negotiations? Seems more likely that you will harden the resolve of the EU to prepare for a hard Brexit to happen as the UK cannot be a reliable negotiating partner in that case.

    There has been some good speeches just recently on the deal, especially from Anna Soubry. There are fewer members in the chamber right now so the madhouse atmosphere has passed at least.


  • #7393
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Econ__ wrote: »
    The EU might not grant an extension in the event that the UK passes a deal that the EU negotiated, in order to allow the UK time to go through the required legislative processes?

    That suggestion is for the birds. Again, a theoretical footnote.

    The EU will only offer an extension if it look like meaningful progress is being made. They'll not grant an extension for the UK to continue their circle jerk


  • #7394
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,275 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Well, if Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn there would presumably be nothing stopping the british government doing so, waiting a week, and invoking it once more thereby giving themselves an extra two years of preparation and negotiation time

    It’s a bizarre notion that it may be as easy as saying ‘no thanks, we’ve changed our minds’ in Parliament.
    The legal opinion said that it cannot be withdrawn in bad faith. If it is withdrawn and they activate it a week later there's no way the EU will be restarting the 24 month deadline

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #7395
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    I like The Guardian's line: "May staggers on after three defeats in a single day."

    Sums her premiership up beautifully.


  • #7396
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,986 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The legal opinion said that it cannot be withdrawn in bad faith. If it is withdrawn and they activate it a week later there's no way the EU will be restarting the 24 month deadline
    Why?

    There's nothing in Art.50 or anywhere else that says the EU can 'reject' a 2nd notice. And the prior revocation of the 1st notice, based on the EU's political appraisal of the component of good faith preceding that revocation, cannot be recalled after-the-fact.

    So yes, you'd be back to square one, with a new 24 months period.

    Hereinabove, one of my several beefs with today's opinion from the AG.


  • #7397
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Why?

    There's nothing in Art.50 or anywhere else that says the EU can 'reject' a 2nd notice. And the prior revocation of the notice, based on the EU's political appraisal of the component of good faith, cannot be recalled. So yes, you're back to square one, with a new 24 months period.

    Hereinabove, one of my several beefs with today's opinion from the AG.

    I'll hold the AG's considered opinion above yours if you don't mind


  • #7398
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Why?

    There's nothing in Art.50 or anywhere else that says the EU can 'reject' a 2nd notice. And the prior revocation of the notice, based on the EU's political appraisal of the component of good faith, cannot be recalled. So yes, you're back to square one, with a new 24 months period.

    Hereinabove, one of my several beefs with today's opinion from the AG.

    That's hardly a great starting point from which to improve a deal that you already agreed.


  • #7399
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,014 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    And to think they did this themselves. Marvellous just watching them tear each other apart.

    Yeah...wonderful


  • #7400
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,986 ✭✭✭ambro25


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    I'll hold the AG's considered advice above yours if you don't mind
    I don't mind...but have you read his opinion?

    I have, but I must have missed the bit about how he proposes to handle just such an abuse of power after-the-fact: he's only opined on potential procedure before-the-fact.

    Article 50 only relates to 'a' notice, doesn't matter if it's the 1st, or a 2nd after the 1st was revoked through promising the EU the moon on a stick.

    So, er...you can take the non-existent word of the AG about this if you wish ;)
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    That's hardly a great starting point from which to improve a deal that you already agreed.
    It sure isn't. But then, we live in Brexity times, and there's certainly already been stranger yet.


  • #7401
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,014 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    SimonTemplar wrote: »
    Sorry, things move so fast I've been kept out of the loop on this. Why did the government attempt to keep the legal advise secret. It is supposed to contain some damning criticism of Brexit or TM's deal?

    Allegedly for negotiating purposes...it may also set a precedent for the future. But I suppose we won't really know until we see the content tomorrow.


  • Advertisement
  • #7402
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,062 ✭✭✭✭briany


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Why?

    There's nothing in Art.50 or anywhere else that says the EU can 'reject' a 2nd notice. And the prior revocation of the 1st notice, based on the EU's political appraisal of the component of good faith preceding that revocation, cannot be recalled after-the-fact.

    So yes, you'd be back to square one, with a new 24 months period.

    Hereinabove, one of my several beefs with today's opinion from the AG.

    It sounds like the political equivalent of tying a string to a 50p coin so as to have as many games of Street Fighter as you like (or at least a second go).

    Maybe the British could do it, but it'd be a cynical move and an opening gambit guaranteed to taint the atmosphere of future negotiations. Besides that, would the UK be any further toward internal agreement after another 2 years? Would they be another further along in trying to extract compromises from the EU? Neither would I have too much confidence in.


  • #7403
    Nate--IRL--
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭Nate--IRL--


    Nigel Dodds up now.

    https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/835418bd-4e17-4878-8144-50e89a9b3f50

    Nate


  • #7404
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    ambro25 wrote: »
    It sure isn't. But then, we live in Brexity times, and there's certainly already been stranger yet.

    It's like the worst soap opera ever. I think if Britain were to withdraw Article 50 and then behave in bad faith, the EU may well decide to wash their hands of Britain on the basis that they will never be able to trust them. It would then be an enforced hard deal sooner or later.


  • #7405
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,180 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The EU could simply say New Article 50 = new deal and restart the haggling from scratch taking into account that they reneged on the previous deal.

    Remember the EU delegated negotiations, while May is doing them by proxy on the UK side.


  • #7406
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,986 ✭✭✭ambro25


    briany wrote: »
    It sounds like the political equivalent of tying a string to a 50p coin so as to have as many games of Street Fighter as you like (or at least a second go).

    Maybe the British could do it, but it'd be a cynical move and an opening gambit guaranteed to taint the atmosphere of future negotiations. Besides that, would the UK be any further toward internal agreement after another 2 years? Would they be another further along in trying to extract compromises from the EU? Neither would I have too much confidence in.
    The likelihood of the UK doing that is admittedly very remote. 'Within a week' is not the least believable, either. But quid of fast-changing HoC arithmetic?

    That likelihood is most strongly influenced by domestic politics in the UK and, on that particular front, they are still as collectively snookered about Brexit today, as over the past 2 years.

    As we've all observed, just about anything is possible over there these days: even for the British government to be held in contempt of Parliament for the very first time in history, I am led to believe.


  • #7407
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    ambro25 wrote: »
    I don't mind...but have you read his opinion?

    I have, but I must have missed the bit about how he proposes to handle just such an abuse of power after-the-fact: he's only opined on potential procedure before-the-fact.

    Article 50 only relates to 'a' notice, doesn't matter if it's the 1st, or a 2nd after the 1st was revoked through promising the EU the moon on a stick.

    So, er...you can take the non-existent word of the AG about this if you wish ;)
    It sure isn't. But then, we live in Brexity times, and there's certainly already been stranger yet.

    And what make you more qualified than the AG?


  • #7408
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,041 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Left here for posterity (nearly 2 and a half years ago now!)

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100184439&postcount=2988


  • #7409
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,841 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The issue is now gathering pace, even more than I predicted, at the time of the HoC vote. So much will happen before Christmas, even hard to predict all options that arise, Whoever heard of 'humble address' a few weeks ago.


  • #7410
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,986 ✭✭✭ambro25


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    And what make you more qualified than the AG?
    I don't claim to be. Moreover, his is an opinion, not a judgement.

    What I related in my earlier posts are easily-verifiable legal facts. The AG opinion and Article 50 TEU are both a 10 seconds-Google away, feel free to read them. For the opinion, see paragraph 155 in particular.


  • Advertisement
  • #7411
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,062 ✭✭✭✭briany


    ambro25 wrote: »
    The likelihood of the UK doing that is admittedly very remote. 'Within a week' is not the least believable, either. But quid of fast-changing HoC arithmetic?

    That likelihood is most strongly influenced by domestic politics in the UK and, on that particular front, they are still as collectively snookered about Brexit today, as over the past 2 years.

    As we've all observed, just about anything is possible over there these days: even for the British government to be held in contempt of Parliament for the very first time in history, I am led to believe.

    If the British were to be so crazy as to pull that move, Michel Barnier should just play "I got you Babe" by Sonny & Cher at the negotiation table on day 1. See if they get the reference.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement