Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/the-maybots-binary-messages-have-become-just-a-series-of-noughts?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

More genius from John Crace on the latest escapades of the uk’s Lino (“hard to nail down, but easy to walk over”)

I do wish that Simon Hoggert was still around too, to cast his gimlet eye on these surreal happenings. Nobody ever caught the absurdities of political life better imo, though Crace has been a very decent substitute.

L1011 wrote: »

Because the UK hasn't even vaguely got around to implementing the legislative changes needed to leave

prawnsambo wrote: »

The WA being approved is just the start of the process for Westminster. There's a raft of legislation needed to put it into effect as well as all the SIs that have still to be passed to try and replicate or replace the laws and treaties that membership of the EU built up.

That's what the transition period is for. There are 2 scenarios:

1) WA -> Transition Period to 2020 (extendible to 2022);
2) No deal -> Crash Out.

The legislative changes etc. can all occur during the Transition Period, as the UK must abide by all EU laws and regulations during this period. If anything, the UK needs an extension more for the no deal scenario.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/the-maybots-binary-messages-have-become-just-a-series-of-noughts?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

More genius from John Crace on the latest escapades of the uk’s Lino (“hard to nail down, but easy to walk over”)

I do wish that Simon Hoggert was still around too, to cast his gimlet eye on these surreal happenings. Nobody ever caught the absurdities of political life better imo, though Crace has been a very decent substitute.

'Leader in name only' if anyone is wondering what LINO stands for. What Lino herself stands for is anyone's guess.

I did like this bit: "you can rely on the Labour leader to choose the wrong molehill to die on"

murphaph wrote:

The Labour party have been less than useless but it's not reallly fair to say they would be voting in favour of no deal. The UK still has the power to revoke A50. There is still a choice between revocation and no deal if her deal is rejected. May would ultimately be responsible for a no deal. She was always going to be with her idiotic red lines that were never on the ballot paper. She is a stubborn stupid person with no emotional intelligence to boot.

murphaph wrote:

It's time for her to go.


It's time for the sensible Tories to vote her out in a motion of no confidence put forward by the leader of the so called opposition.


She is the problem.

She epitomises the problem but removing her won't make the problem go away.

I listened to Ivan Rogers (the former UK perm rep in Brussels) last night. He highlighted the idiocy of the red lines but he also described the astonishing level of ignorance about Europe (and N Ireland) in today's political class in the UK.

When cabinet ministers struggle to understand the concept of the Single Market or Customs Union (and are almost proud to flaunt their ignorance), you have to wonder where a sensible and informed PM can be found.

prawnsambo wrote: »

'Leader in name only' if anyone is wondering what LINO stands for. What Lino herself stands for is anyone's guess.

I did like this bit: "you can rely on the Labour leader to choose the wrong molehill to die on"

Yes i think he captures both leaders pretty well. I also liked Fintan O’Tooles take on May in last weekends IT. She started out wanting to be like her cricket idol Geoff Boycott, but ended up more a Tim Henman. A good very effective analogy imo.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not quite. Everybody seems to forget that "The treaties shall cease to apply" from brexit day onwards. Of course brexit day has become somewhat fluid, but when the treaties cease to apply, they have to be replaced or removed from UK law.

As I said above, this is only correct in the event of a no deal Brexit.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

As I said above, this is only correct in the event of a no deal Brexit.

No, it's part of Article 50:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

That's what the transition period is for. There are 2 scenarios:

1) WA -> Transition Period to 2020 (extendible to 2022);
2) No deal -> Crash Out.

The legislative changes etc. can all occur during the Transition Period, as the UK must abide by all EU laws and regulations during this period. If anything, the UK needs an extension more for the no deal scenario.

The UK needs to get both the HoC and the HoL to ratify the WA - that is now impossible to achieve before 29th March therefore the UK has requested an extension to enable this. The EU have agreed on one condition.. the HoC ratifies the WA first and then an extension can be granted

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

I think we're at cross-purposes here. Of course the WA needs to be translated into legislation via the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill/Act.

What I'm saying is incorrect is that all of the EU legislation (etc.) needs to be transposed into UK law prior to this date - that must be done before the end of the Transition Period.

Now I agree that there are many SIs which need to be passed that fall between two stools - those legal matters imposed by EU law which apply to non-EU issues as they relate to the UK. I understand most of these have been completed. These should have been done by 29 March in any event, so why aren't they on track... they apply regardless of the WA being passed or not!

But an extension to legislate is not IIRC a reason for seeking the extension in May's letter?

Yeah I think we are talking about the same thing, but it has been reported that there will need to be time to get the legislation passed for a long time before the UK leaves. That is why Theresa May delaying the votes has been so contentious. She has reduced the time the UK MPs has to scrutinize the new legislation that will be needed before they leave. There will be time to pass other legislation after they have left but this doesn't mean they can leave without passing the legislation required for the WA.

That is why negotiations concluded in November. This is because of the time needed. If as you say it is not needed then surely they would still have been negotiating until a few weeks ago on the WA.

prawnsambo wrote: »

The revoke option is available to all MPs. And it doesn't matter who the PM is. If someone brings a motion to revoke, John Bercow is almost bound to allow it through. The problem is finding someone with the intestinal fortitude to do this. I imagine that the TIG would do it in a heartbeat, but the very fact of their doing it would probably doom it to failure. It will take a high-ranking Tory or Labour MP to bring it to the house and have any hope of getting cross party support for it. A Dominic Grieve or Keir Starmer type.

There is no signal of anything close to a majority in the HoC for this course of action. They talk about unicorns, but that is one right there.

There are, currently, two options facing the HoC. How and why they got to this point is irrelevant. If they have a vote on 28th on TM's deal, the choice will either be to accept the deal or to crash out.

The HoC has had 3 years to come to a position on revoking A50, to come to a position on CU and SM and whatever else the remainers dream of. Last week they had the change to test the idea of a 2nd Ref and choose not to risk it for fear of losing. TM doesn't work on that basis, the end justifies the means.

Of course things could happen in the next few days, but at this point it is highly unlikely. The ERG can see the Crash out ideal within their grasp, Brexit Day could still be delivered by 29th March.

So I think that TM's deal with finally get through as she has systemically and brazenly in some cases, ruled out any chance of alternatives.

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's the actual reason that she gives in her letter requesting an extension.

Ok, here's the full text - can you show me where this is stated? I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right, but you've made the claim and I'm interested to see if it's correct or not.

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes I understand they will be treated as a member, but they will not be a member in that time. It is a small distinction but an important one. I am not a lawyer or constitutional expert but if everybody is reporting that an extension is required to pass the legislation required before the UK leaves the EU on March 29th, I am not going to argue on it. It has been clear for a while now that an extension will be needed if her deal is passed. The only one denying it was May and she is not the most credible source right not.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the plain English explanation in the preamble of the Withdrawal Agreement

CONSIDERING that it is in the interest of both the Union and the United Kingdom to determine a
transition or implementation period during which – notwithstanding all consequences of the United
Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union as regards the United Kingdom's participation in the
institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, in particular the end, on the date of entry into
force of this Agreement, of the mandates of all members of institutions, bodies and agencies of the
Union nominated, appointed or elected in relation to the United Kingdom's membership of the
Union – Union law , including international agreements, should be applicable to and in the United
Kingdom, and, as a general rule, with the same effect as regards the Member States, in order to
avoid disruption in the period during which the agreement(s) on the future relationship will be
negotiated,

RECOGNISING that, even if Union law will be applicable to and in the United Kingdom during the
transition period, the specificities of the United Kingdom as a State having withdrawn from the
Union mean that it will be important for the United Kingdom to be able to take steps to prepare and
establish new international arrangements of its own, including in areas of Union exclusive
competence, provided such agreements do not enter into force or apply during that period, unless so
authorised by the Union,

dresden8 wrote: »

We're all concentrating on the commons but if it does get through there any word on which way the lords will jump?

Given how the lords has been acting the last 3 years which has been one of somewhat of a brake on the madness of the HOC the lord's will be all over any revocation or deal vote. No doubt about it.