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

First Up

seamus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Lisbon only needed a referendum here because it affected our consititution. Same would apply to any other EU treaty matters.

Sure, that's really the question though. Crotty established that any treaty which involved handing over sovereign power to another body would require a constitutional declaration, and therefore a referendum.
This meant in turn, that effectively any EU treaty to which Ireland was a signatory, would always require a referendum. Even if it was just an extension of a previous treaty, when taken as a whole it was a transfer of powers, and therefore subject to referendum.

Lisbon was really the first treaty where a mechanism was introduced where an amendment wasn't necessarily a whole brand new international treaty, requiring referendum. And thus in the case of Ireland it's up to the SC (or Council of State, I guess) to decide if the amendment is of a nature that it requires a referendum.

You might recall a small bit of kerfuffle in 2012 about the ESM - European Stability Mechanism - which the anti-austerity crowd claimed was going to plunge everyone into poverty. This was a Lisbon amendment that was approved without referendum.

Its a case by case issue. The AG advises the government on the constitutional implications of any proposed legislation, not just EU related.

the SC would only get involved if that decision was challenged.

Shelga

Rather than put other counties off leaving, couldn’t right-wing media in those countries spin this as the UK not being “allowed” to leave, and use it to stir up further resentment of the EU?

10000maniacs

Sam Russell wrote: »

The future for Guinness looks black I'm afraid.

All Guinness is now brewed in Dublin (except for Nigerian Guinness, and possibly other small breweries), so there will be no shortage in the foreseeable future.

The nitrogen used for draught Guinness might be a problem, but no doubt there will be a solution.

They have their own Adsorption nitrogen generator.

seamus

First Up wrote: »

Lisbon only needed a referendum here because it affected our consititution. Same would apply to any other EU treaty matters.

Sure, that's really the question though. Crotty established that any treaty which involved handing over sovereign power to another body would require a constitutional declaration, and therefore a referendum.
This meant in turn, that effectively any EU treaty to which Ireland was a signatory, would always require a referendum. Even if it was just an extension of a previous treaty, when taken as a whole it was a transfer of powers, and therefore subject to referendum.

Lisbon was really the first treaty where a mechanism was introduced where an amendment wasn't necessarily a whole brand new international treaty, requiring referendum. And thus in the case of Ireland it's up to the SC (or Council of State, I guess) to decide if the amendment is of a nature that it requires a referendum.

You might recall a small bit of kerfuffle in 2012 about the ESM - European Stability Mechanism - which the anti-austerity crowd claimed was going to plunge everyone into poverty. This was a Lisbon amendment that was approved without referendum.

prawnsambo

seamus wrote: »

Whether such an amendment would require a referendum would be a matter for our SC. Since it's not handing over any power to the EU, it may not.

If the amendment were to (say) require ratification of an A50 revocation, that could be interpreted as giving the EU more power. Especially since there's a court judgment that's just said that revocation is entirely in the power of the government concerned.

First Up

seamus wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Can the Lisbon Treaty be updated that easily?

Water John wrote: »

Lisbon can be updated by Parliaments in most countries, Ref here.

There was a lot of misinformation at the time of the referendum that Lisbon was "self-amending" and that we were handing over the power to the EU and would never get it back again.

In some respects, the EU can make changes without requiring a referendum, mainly because it allows for amendments to be made in different ways.

In the broadest sense, amendments which increase EU competencies are basically the same as a new treaty. Amendments which don't increase EU competencies (which an A50 amendment would be), have a fast-track process.

Whether such an amendment would require a referendum would be a matter for our SC. Since it's not handing over any power to the EU, it may not.

Lisbon only needed a referendum here because it affected our consititution. Same would apply to any other EU treaty matters. The Dail can pass any legistlation that doesn't impact on the constitution.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Can the Lisbon Treaty be updated that easily?

Water John wrote: »

Lisbon can be updated by Parliaments in most countries, Ref here.

There was a lot of misinformation at the time of the referendum that Lisbon was "self-amending" and that we were handing over the power to the EU and would never get it back again.

In some respects, the EU can make changes without requiring a referendum, mainly because it allows for amendments to be made in different ways.

In the broadest sense, amendments which increase EU competencies are basically the same as a new treaty. Amendments which don't increase EU competencies (which an A50 amendment would be), have a fast-track process.

Whether such an amendment would require a referendum would be a matter for our SC. Since it's not handing over any power to the EU, it may not.

ambro25

Hurrache wrote: »

Not sure if it's the wording, but politics in Catalonia has always been nationalistic.

Wording: I was on about Vox.

ambro25

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well I'm just looking at this in terms of the sh1tshow going on across the water. I don't actually believe that Westminster is dominated by 'nationalists' (inverted commas, because nationalism and brexit aren't necessarily the same thing). In fact I'd be fairly confident that there is a majority in the HoC who would be in favour of remaining. JRM's failure to deliver 48 letters shows how small a rump his group are and outside the Corbynistas, a lot of Labour MPs would be of a similar outlook.

I agree with you insofar as the U.K. is concerned. Less so insofar as Hungary, Poland and Italy are concerned.

Don’t get me wrong: as I said, this is AGood Thing (TM) for Remain in the U.K.

I’m just not so sure, longer term and on a broader scope, that it’s such a good thing for the EU: for the notionally-withdrawing MS, that judgement takes much of the risk out of triggering Article 50, by providing a “get out of jail free” card.

A government with the relatively secure backing of a hard right and/or left majority over a given, sufficiently-long legislature (>2 years from triggering the provision) could use that.

Time will tell, as always.

robinph

ambro25 wrote: »

Fair comment Seamus.

I’m just very mindful of the seemingly-inexorable rise of nationalist politics across ever more of the EU27, lastly in Catalonia.

This is just about a carte blanche for Hungary, Poland, etc to play silly political buggers and sap communal strength from the EU project through still more distraction, with Putin, Bannon et al still pushing hard at the a55.

First order of business for the EU in April whichever way things go for the UK, assuming that A50 isn't extended, should be to add a whole lot more clarity to how the process of withdrawing from the EU should be handled so that nobody gets any ideas of screwing about for a laugh. The rulings that have been made on how article 50 is handled now will be irrelevant for the future as I'd expect that to all get ripped up and they write something new very quickly with far less room for arguing over.

Hurrache

ambro25 wrote: »

I’m just very mindful of the seemingly-inexorable rise of nationalist politics across ever more of the EU27, lastly in Catalonia.

Not sure if it's the wording, but politics in Catalonia has always been nationalistic.

[Deleted User]

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well I'm just looking at this in terms of the sh1tshow going on across the water. I don't actually believe that Westminster is dominated by 'nationalists' (inverted commas, because nationalism and brexit aren't necessarily the same thing). In fact I'd be fairly confident that there is a majority in the HoC who would be in favour of remaining. JRM's failure to deliver 48 letters shows how small a rump his group are and outside the Corbynistas, a lot of Labour MPs would be of a similar outlook.

I don't think the 48 letters is a great indicator of levels of support for various things. There are a multitude of reasons to not submit one.

prawnsambo

ambro25 wrote: »

Quid of a Parliament dominated by nationalists?

Whence my reference to a ‘democratic deficit’ (in an ideological sense rather than a literal/procedural sense)

You have to remember that this test is uniformly applicable to all EU28 MS, not just the U.K., and that constitutional requirements vary across MSes.

I’m hoping to be proven wrong about all this in due course. I was certainly proven wrong by the AG and the CJEU. But don’t kid yourself, that realpolitik wheels are not spinning into overdrive both east and west of Western Europe, on the back of this judgement.

Well I'm just looking at this in terms of the sh1tshow going on across the water. I don't actually believe that Westminster is dominated by 'nationalists' (inverted commas, because nationalism and brexit aren't necessarily the same thing). In fact I'd be fairly confident that there is a majority in the HoC who would be in favour of remaining. JRM's failure to deliver 48 letters shows how small a rump his group are and outside the Corbynistas, a lot of Labour MPs would be of a similar outlook.

Water John

Lisbon can be updated by Parliaments in most countries, Ref here.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

Ah, I disagree. Long-term it's probably a good result, even if short-term it's going to be pretty rocky. We're now closer than we've been in the last two years to a full cancellation of Brexit, and I expect the EU-27 will be so eager to never see a sh1tshow like this again that they'll move to amend A50 as soon as they can.

So long-term the UK may stay on board and the stability of the EU will be better guaranteed.

Can the Lisbon Treaty be updated that easily?

SimonTemplar

Now with this A50 ruling, in the event of a general election, Labour could potentially make this their core election pledge - "vote us in power and we'll cancel brexit". Basically turn a GE into a 2nd ref. Corbyn may not like that but at least it gives him the best chance of being in power.

ambro25

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well there are. Firstly (as I pointed out after the AG's opinion was published) the WA must not be concluded or the two year time limit expired. And secondly, the revocation must be based on a democratic decision. So either a plebiscite or a majority vote in parliament. The latter should be sufficient given that plebiscites in the UK always require parliamentary approval.

Quid of a Parliament dominated by nationalists?

Whence my reference to a ‘democratic deficit’ (in an ideological sense rather than a literal/procedural sense)

You have to remember that this test is uniformly applicable to all EU28 MS, not just the U.K., and that constitutional requirements vary across MSes.

I’m hoping to be proven wrong about all this in due course. I was certainly proven wrong by the AG and the CJEU. But don’t kid yourself, that realpolitik wheels are not spinning into overdrive both east and west of Western Europe, on the back of this judgement.

ambro25

seamus wrote: »

Ah, I disagree. Long-term it's probably a good result, even if short-term it's going to be pretty rocky. We're now closer than we've been in the last two years to a full cancellation of Brexit, and I expect the EU-27 will be so eager to never see a sh1tshow like this again that they'll move to amend A50 as soon as they can.

So long-term the UK may stay on board and the stability of the EU will be better guaranteed.

Fair comment Seamus.

I’m just very mindful of the seemingly-inexorable rise of nationalist politics across ever more of the EU27, lastly in Catalonia.

This is just about a carte blanche for Hungary, Poland, etc to play silly political buggers and sap communal strength from the EU project through still more distraction, with Putin, Bannon et al still pushing hard at the a55.

prawnsambo

ambro25 wrote: »

It doesn’t look like it.

The CJEU have basically given the nod to the AG’s opinion (revocation possible unilaterally, if domestic constitutional procedure followed), but completely dodged the issue of accountability of the “ex” withdrawing Member State to the EU27, by stripping the AG’s ‘good faith’ test from the issue.

There are no conditions to the revocation (edit:bar meeting domestic constitutional requirements), which is confirmed as reverting the revoking Member State to the status quo.

Good result for Remain, bad result for U.K. government, bad result for EU Commission.

I’d still argue, more of a bad result than a good one for the EU, as Article 50 could now be used in bad faith/as a destabilising mechanism, by Member States with a democratic deficit.

Well there are. Firstly (as I pointed out after the AG's opinion was published) the WA must not be concluded or the two year time limit expired. And secondly, the revocation must be based on a democratic decision. So either a plebiscite or a majority vote in parliament. The latter should be sufficient given that plebiscites in the UK always require parliamentary approval.

seamus

ambro25 wrote: »

I’d still argue, more of a bad result than a good one for the EU, as Article 50 could now be used in bad faith/as a destabilising mechanism, by Member States with a democratic deficit.

Ah, I disagree. Long-term it's probably a good result, even if short-term it's going to be pretty rocky. We're now closer than we've been in the last two years to a full cancellation of Brexit, and I expect the EU-27 will be so eager to never see a sh1tshow like this again that they'll move to amend A50 as soon as they can.

So long-term the UK may stay on board and the stability of the EU will be better guaranteed.

ambro25

DOCARCH wrote: »

ECJ has (just) ruled UK can exist A50 process without recourse to EU (as long as 'in good faith').

It doesn’t look like it.

The CJEU have basically given the nod to the AG’s opinion (revocation possible unilaterally, if domestic constitutional procedure followed), but completely dodged the issue of accountability of the “ex” withdrawing Member State to the EU27, by stripping the AG’s ‘good faith’ test from the issue.

There are no conditions to the revocation (edit:bar meeting domestic constitutional requirements), which is confirmed as reverting the revoking Member State to the status quo.

Good result for Remain, bad result for U.K. government, bad result for EU Commission.

I’d still argue, more of a bad result than a good one for the EU, as Article 50 could now be used in bad faith/as a destabilising mechanism, by Member States with a democratic deficit.

DOCARCH

VinLieger wrote: »

By all accounts there is and always has been a majority of MP's in favour of remain, the only problem is such a vote in parliament would more than definitely split the Tory party and leave the Labour party completely fractured and close to a split too. Neither parties leadership want such a vote as they know the consequences could be disastrous for their parties, once again they are both putting party before country.

Second referendum, sooner or later, is probably the only logical way to go! That, or drop out with no deal.

Parliament/politics in the UK is completely paralyzed!!!

VinLieger

DOCARCH wrote: »

I think the only way this could work is if there was a second referendum with majority supporting remaining in the EU....'the will of the people' (and all that)....or at least if there was a majority vote in HoC to remain in the EU.

By all accounts there is and always has been a majority of MP's in favour of remain, the only problem is such a vote in parliament would more than definitely split the Tory party and leave the Labour party completely fractured and close to a split too. Neither parties leadership want such a vote as they know the consequences could be disastrous for their parties, once again they are both putting party before country.

seamus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Even without this ruling, I think some sort of process, ratified by the EU27 will be needed to make the process less messy in future.

I imagine simply adding a "how to cancel your withdrawal" section to article 50 would be enough to ensure a proper process.

It was said way back at that start though that the article itself was included somewhat hastily and without sufficient scrutiny; it was put there to appease some euroskeptics, nobody ever thought any country would actually use it. As a result, there was plenty of confusion about what the UK could and couldn't do.

So they'll probably fully revise it and make a clearer process out of it now, regardless of what the UK decides to do next.

DOCARCH

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The problem with that is that most of the 27 believe the UK couldn't lie straight in the bed under the current and prospective alternate regimes.

I think the only way this could work is if there was a second referendum with majority supporting remaining in the EU....'the will of the people' (and all that)....or at least if there was a majority vote in HoC to remain in the EU.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Even without this ruling, I think some sort of process, ratified by the EU27 will be needed to make the process less messy in future.

From the EU point of view, the process works fine. Although possibly they might want to tweak the Treaties to reverse the effect of the latest court ruling, and say that revocation of A50 notice requires consent.

EdgeCase

The markets have given the UK huge leeway in the assumption that things, in what has been historically a very stable and sensible country, couldn't possibly continue to be this crazy. That's turning out to be a false assumption and I'm seeing signs of market commentators' patience running out.

ancapailldorcha

brickster69 wrote: »

Does that mean all the other countries could now invoke article 50 and then revoke it after two years ?

Even without this ruling, I think some sort of process, ratified by the EU27 will be needed to make the process less messy in future.

brickster69

Does that mean all the other countries could now invoke article 50 and then revoke it after two years ?

ancapailldorcha

seamus wrote: »

Just when it seemed like this whole thing couldn't get any crazier.

If I were British, I think I would be pushing for Parliament to vote down the deal and immediately begin moving to cancel the withdrawal. It's right there for the taking, there is literally no good reason to keep moving forward with the Brexit process. Put an end to 2.5 years of insanity, fix the massive deficit of indenpedent information and internal cohesion that caused this whole thing in the first place.

Currency markets aren't finding it good news though. Looks like the expectation is that there is no major party who is willing to cancel it, so they're still expecting the worst.

Of course there's not. For ordinary people anyway. For hedge fund managers, the upper classes who are happy to take a hit and the non-domiciled oligarchs there is be it bets they've made on the outcome of a no deal or the fact that nobody in Brussels listens to them. And so we continue.