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

igCorcaigh

So, today is good, isn't it?

Brexit can now be cancelled, or at least there is a path to it. The ECJ and Grieve may just have saved the UK...

Professor Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

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

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

Take a gold star out of the can.

LeinsterDub

ambro25 wrote: »

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.

I may as well as well be reading a paper on string theory. I've no legal background. Nor does it seem do you.

A Dub in Glasgo

igCorcaigh wrote: »

So, today is good, isn't it?

Brexit can now be cancelled, or at least there is a path to it. The ECJ [ ] may just have saved the UK...

These folk deserve all the credit

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1069870883362222080

MrMusician18

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 UK did that as a negotiation tactic then it would be clear the letter that revoked the original art. 50 process wasn't valid. This could then be challenged in the ECJ.

Would you not get a situation then where you would find that the UK would find itself outside the Union instantly after the European Court made it's ruling.

Water John

Tom Newton Dunn is right. This was TM's harder Brexit coming up against Parliament that wants a softer Brexit and this day, a long time coming, when they clashed.

Spanish Eyes

It is all so tedious.

When most people know now.

briany

Water John wrote: »

Tom Newton Dunn is right. This was TM's harder Brexit coming up against Parliament that wants a softer Brexit and this day, a long time coming, when they clashed.

Didn't Theresa May campaign for Remain, and hasn't she been accused at various points of trying to thwart Brexit by stealth? Wouldn't she be happier with a soft Brexit or, indeed, no Brexit at all?

igCorcaigh

briany wrote: »

Didn't Theresa May campaign for Remain, and hasn't she been accused at various points of trying to thwart Brexit by stealth? Wouldn't she be happier with a soft Brexit or, indeed, no Brexit at all?

She's either stupid, or very very clever.

Water John

She bet on going with a Hard Brexit to reign in the Brexiteers who she saw as her biggest threat to her Prime Ministership. It was a good bet from a Tory POV but the wrong option if one was looking at Parliament and Parliament is primary.

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1070012341335572481

10000maniacs

briany wrote: »

Didn't Theresa May campaign for Remain, and hasn't she been accused at various points of trying to thwart Brexit by stealth? Wouldn't she be happier with a soft Brexit or, indeed, no Brexit at all?

Thwart Brexit by stealth? She would need to be a lot smarter to engineer something like that. I mean she would have had to machinate those three votes in Parliament today for starters. No, it was nothing but a bad day for the government, and when the Brexit vote is defeated on Tuesday, what will Corbyn put on the table knowing a general election is not an option because the DUP will save May in a no confidence vote? A permanent customs union? Not a chance. The EU won't go for that.
The only real options left are a reversal of Article 50 or a peoples vote.

Hermy

igCorcaigh wrote: »

So, today is good, isn't it?

Brexit can now be cancelled, or at least there is a path to it. The ECJ and Grieve may just have saved the UK...

I saw this mentioned in the news earlier and I don't get it.

Why would Brexit be cancelled all of a sudden?
Where's the mandate for that?

tuxy

Hermy wrote: »

I saw this mentioned in the news earlier and I don't get it.

Why would Brexit be cancelled all of a sudden?
Where's the mandate for that?

It was not known if article 50 could be revoked. We now know that it can.
It would take another referendum for it to happen though.

Econ__

briany wrote: »

Didn't Theresa May campaign for Remain, and hasn't she been accused at various points of trying to thwart Brexit by stealth? Wouldn't she be happier with a soft Brexit or, indeed, no Brexit at all?

Although she voted remain, I believe she's a bit of a Little Englander and wants to end free movement. She has no issues with the UK joining a Customs Union as you can still end free movement. She wasn't able to make this official policy though because the hardline Brexiteers would have paralysed her government. Instead she used the backstop late on to introduce a CU for the whole UK through the backdoor.

Welcome to the Conservative party over the last 30 years. Their leaders have been regularly forced to perform intellectual gymnastics in order to appease the hardline eurosceptics. Those 'bastards' (as John Major referred to them) have caused untold amounts of damage. A referendum (which there was no real longing for in the country) was called to satisfy them - and then you had the knock on effect of heavyweight MPs like Gove and Johnson backing the Leave campaign for the sole reason that they thought they could be 'noble losers', win the backing of the eurosceptics and be in a nice position to become future leader of the party.

Folkstonian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1070012341335572481

Predictable antagonistic drivel from the SNP as per usual.

Scotland is in an economic and political union with England because it made formal requests to be so in the early 18th century.

Scotland’s future relationship with England will be (or has been) decided by its people with a clear and unambiguous vote on the matter.

Remarkable parallels exist between Scotland’s relationship vis a vis England, and Britain’s relationship vis a vis Europe.

Both are there by their own volition, both are free to leave to the detriment of their economic growth and future prosperity should they wish to do so.

How incredibly tiresome it is to hear SNP MPs wallow in self pity and bemoan their station week after week as if they remain a far flung colony taken in the age of empire building. Scotland was the empire.

From a personal perspective, with my family home being 35 miles from France and 350 miles from Scotland, a close and productive future relationship with the former is a far more pressing concern.

If (hopefully when) Brexit is reversed, it will be because the British people desired it, not because the SNP were the saviour of England.

It would be a delicious outcome if Britain remained in the EU and resolved to block any future attempts from an independent Scotland to achieve fast tracked access. Petty.. maybe. But sure this is the thread for it!

igCorcaigh

tuxy wrote: »

It was not known if article 50 could be revoked. We now know that it can.
It would take another referendum for it to happen though.

Yes, and after today's vote on Grieve, the HoC can take control from May's government after the deal is struck down.

[Deleted User]

Looks like this is all going to end up in Remain. Grieve's move will likely mean the deal gets voted down, and when faced with Remain or No Deal, the House will go with Remain.

No Deal isn't a possibility anymore. They can't just mistakenly end up there.

Zubeneschamali

igCorcaigh wrote: »

She's either stupid, or very very clever.

Look at her record as Home Secretary: stupid and evil.

Zubeneschamali

Hermy wrote: »

Why would Brexit be cancelled all of a sudden?
Where's the mandate for that?

May has been driving the Brexit bus towards the cliff, preferring to stay in the drivers seat than admit it's madness and let someone else drive. But now the cliff is getting very close.

MPs have spent the last 2 years cheering and singing and fighting at the back of the bus, but now that they see the drop, they don't like the look of it.

So now some are looking for the Brexit Emergency Exit.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks like this is all going to end up in Remain. Grieve's move will likely mean the deal gets voted down, and when faced with Remain or No Deal, the House will go with Remain.

No Deal isn't a possibility anymore. They can't just mistakenly end up there.

They could, though. The Commons has taken back the right to tell the government what to do, but they can't exercise that right in a meaningful way unless there is a majority behind some positive course of action. It's not enough that there's a majority against no deal; no deal will ensue unless (A) there is a positive majority for some other course of action, and (B) that course of action is either "remain" or "make a deal on terms acceptable to the EU". As yet, we don't see a majority for either of those.

We've been here before. Gina Miller fought a case to the Supreme Court to establish, in the teeth of government and Brexiter opposition, that Article 50 notice could not be served without the approval of Parliament, but Parliament completely failed to use the power thus handed to them to control the serving of Article 50 notice in any meaningful or effective way. The government was still allowed to service Article 50 notice when they had no clue as to what end-state they wanted to achieve, and no plan for acheiving it.

There's a great gap between Parliament havin the formal power to avert a no-deal Brexit and Parliament acting effectively to exercise that power.

listermint

Hermy wrote: »

I saw this mentioned in the news earlier and I don't get it.

Why would Brexit be cancelled all of a sudden?
Where's the mandate for that?

The mandate is simple the brexit that was on the table is not deliverable .

What is deliverable has no mandate.

Can't make it any simpler.

There is no mandate for brexit at all costs. None. Never was

RobMc59

The failings of the UK parliament and methods of government have been exposed as seriously flawed-could something like this ever happen in Ireland?

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

The failings of the UK parliament and methods of government have been exposed as seriously flawed-could something like this ever happen in Ireland?

We have a constitution.

The UK should look into one.

Calina

listermint wrote: »

We have a constitution.

The UK should look into one.

First past the post has to go.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

The failings of the UK parliament and methods of government have been exposed as seriously flawed-could something like this ever happen in Ireland?

This particular train-wreck is unlikely to unfold in Ireland. Here's why:

As we all know, the Irish Constitution was amended in 1972 to provide for Ireland to accede to (what was then) the EC Treaty, and it has been amended several times since them to provide for accession to new EU Treaties. Each amendment, of course, requires a referendum.

Strictly speaking, the amendments merely allow Ireland to accede to the Treaties; they don't require Ireland to do so. So in theory an Irish government could say, yeah, we have the power to maintain Ireland as a member of the EU, but we aren't compelled to do so, and we've decided that it's a bad idea, so we're pulling out. No need for any referendum.

But, in practice, that's unthinkable. There would have to be a referendum to provide political and constitutional cover for Ireland to leave the EU.

But here's the thing; in Ireland we don't have referendums about undefined policy ideas (Shall we leave the EU? Shall we have gay marriage? Shall we have divorce?). We have referendums to insert specific wording into the Constitution dealing with whatever it is.

And here's the other thing; constitutionally, the process is (1) the Oireachtas passes an amendment to the Constitution, and (2) the people then ratify that in a referendum. So a proposal doesn't even get put to the poeple in a referendum until it has already been considered and approved by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas decides what exact words it wishes to put in to, or take out from, the Constitution and only when they have approved a change do the people get a say.

So there is no possibility of asking the people to approve a vague concept which the Oireachtas hasn't approved even in principle, and the Oireachtas only then trying (and possibly failing) to reach some kind of agreement about what that means, and how it should be implemented, even though they don't agree with it. Which is where the UK is right now.

murphaph

It's not just the archaic and broken (FPTP, devolution-sort-of, no written constitution etc. etc.) political system that brought the UK to this point. A very large chunk of the populace simply thinks the UK is better than the silly continentals. That level of arrogance doesn't exist in Ireland. If anything we're too self doubting. You probably need a colonial history or similar to be able to foster that sort of arrogance and we don't have it, so it's hard to imagine it ever developing in our electorate.

Captain Obvious

Why are Tories still calling this the biggest ever mandate? Surely it must be among the smallest with a 4 point gap.

DOCARCH

AG's legal advice to cabinet to be published at 11.30.

WoollyRedHat

I envisage after 9 months to 1 year of a no deal scenario, the UK would be banging on the door of the EU to let them in to some extent The wolves await them when no deal happens due to the pandoniun and the short to medium term affects to businesses will be fairly brutal.n
New trade deals will take a lot of time. The average British person will suffer. The Conservatives will fall in such a scenario, and there could be public unrest if the worst comes to pass in the fallout . Weasels like JRM will flee/ disappear from the spotlight.

If it's after March 31st, the chance to remain evaporates once A51 is enacted and following any plea for mercy that is to be considered by the EU, it will give the UK a CU arrangement at best. After March 31st, presuming A51 is enacted, looking into the future if the UK decided they want to fully rejoin the EU, they would lose the pound to do so.