Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Anteayer · 26-03-2019 02:19PM

mariaalice wrote: »

Does anyone know why the Queen as head of state could not in step at this stage?

She is the head of state above parliament.

She's got very, very little power to do anything beyond what her government tells her to do. Constitutionally she's just a figurehead.

Also the current Queen has been extremely politically neutral and in all her years hasn't every tested the limits of that. I mean if she were to intervene by making a speech calling for unity and pragmatism, it might be subject to people giving out about her interfering in politics but in reality I don't think anyone could or would be able to sanction her for so doing. In fact they'd likely all end up in worshiping her majesty mode and say nothing.

I'd have my doubts that she'll do anything. I mean she's been reduced to having to express her political views through choices of hat!

Spook_ie · 26-03-2019 02:22PM

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-and-dublin-in-intense-talks-on-no-deal-plan-for-irish-border-uk-brexit/

Interesting paragraph buried in the article

But officials indicated that arrangements for the Irish border are still not finalized. This is a fraught issue for the EU because if a hard border can be avoided in a no-deal scenario, it calls into question the need for the controversial Northern Ireland backstop — a key part of the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with London that many Brexiteers say is preventing them from voting for the deal.

seamus · 26-03-2019 02:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Seeing as no-one answered last time. :pac: How hard would/will it be for the EU to update Article 50? Would it just be a referendum for us and everyone else's parliament ratifying? We can't have rubbish like this hanging over the EU again.

Referendums are no longer required for all treaty amendments, depending on the nature of the change and the mechanisms involved, it can be amended by national parliaments.

So amending article 50 to make it more robust is likely something that can be done without a convoluted process.

An Ciarraioch · 26-03-2019 02:23PM

Anteayer wrote: »

She's got very, very little power to do anything beyond what her government tells her to do. Constitutionally she's just a figurehead.

Also the current Queen has been extremely politically neutral and in all her years hasn't every tested the limits of that. I mean if she were to intervene by making a speech calling for unity and pragmatism, it might be subject to people giving out about her interfering in politics but in reality I don't think anyone could or would be able to sanction her for so doing. In fact they'd likely all end up in worshiping her majesty mode and say nothing.

I'd have my doubts that she'll do anything. I mean she's been reduced to having to express her political views through choices of hat!

Ironically, Michael D has more executive power, theoretically at least, as constitutionally he has the power to tell the Dáil to reach an agreement, rather than dissolving it.

Eod100 · 26-03-2019 02:24PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is this clear? Or any clearer than it was a week ago. I'm not aware that TM has as yet clarified what she would do if her deal ultimately fails.

She said it was a choice of her deal, no Brexit or slow Brexit yesterday. I think the default if MV3 doesn't pass this week, Brexit date is 12th April. But she said yesterday that won't opt for No Deal unless a majority of the HOC backs it. So looks like it would be go back to the EU and look for an extension again? So possibly EU elections and deadline of the end of the year?

FrancieBrady · 26-03-2019 02:25PM

Anteayer wrote: »

Also the current Queen has been extremely politically neutral and in all her years hasn't every tested the limits of that. I mean if she were to intervene by making a speech calling for unity and pragmatism, it might be subject to people giving out about her interfering in politics but in reality I don't think anyone could or would be able to sanction her for so doing. In fact they'd likely all end up in worshiping her majesty mode and say nothing.

But, but, but, could she not just do it this one time?

MrMusician18 · 26-03-2019 02:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Seeing as no-one answered last time. :pac: How hard would/will it be for the EU to update Article 50? Would it just be a referendum for us and everyone else's parliament ratifying? We can't have rubbish like this hanging over the EU again.

It would require treaty change, and treaty change is always hard, as everyone will want to renegotiate the items they currently have issue with.

Wide ranging reform treaty would almost certainly require a referendum here as the test for a reference is transfer of competency/sovereignty. Even a limited change to art. 50 alone would probably require a referendum, as any change would impinge national rights, particularly of the departing nation.

Sam Russell · 26-03-2019 02:27PM

storker wrote: »

Understandable, I think. At least if they go, then at the last 2+ years has resulted in the departure of the perennial awkward squad. If they revoke article 50 then after all the political panto and nearly three years of pointlessness, they're still in the tent urinating on the sleeping bags, and what's to stop them triggering the whole mess again at some point in the future?

Well, if the revoke Art 50, then they can only start the process again by going through their own constitutional requirements.

Now, because last time they held a referendum that although as advisory, the UK Gov determined that it was mandatory. I think the ECJ would adjudge that the UK then would have to precede another Art 50 notification by a national referendum followed by a vote through parliament. Now Brexit ref2 would be fought on a different rule book to the last one, if at all.

Given that, who would want to go through all that again. If Art 50 is revoked, then Brexit is dead for at least a generation.

Anteayer · 26-03-2019 02:30PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Ironically, Michael D has more executive power, theoretically at least, as constitutionally he has the power to tell the Dáil to reach an agreement, rather than dissolving it.

He has a few more powers and also the Irish presidency has pushed out the envelope a bit and is a fairly active office, usually held by someone who has serious political ability and often a deep thinker.

I think in a similar mess here, the president might intervene certianly by appealing for sense to prevail anyway.

The Queen probably won't based on her own history of how she's done things in office and also on the far narrower role that she actually has. The monarch interfering in politics would also have major issues harking back to the English Civil War. I'd say she'll just let them figure it out and probably try to make a nice speech at Xmas.

I mean had she really wanted to call for calm she could have laid it on thick in her Christmas message, but she didn't. So I suspect that's probably the limit or her involvement.

Laois_Man · 26-03-2019 02:30PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

if a hard border can be avoided in a no-deal scenario

Could Stormont, if it was restarted, have the power to okay the necessary checks to occur at Northern Ireland's ports an airports - effectively enforcing a hard border down the Irish sea?

Probably not - That's the only way it could be avoided that I can see.

Everyone has been banking on the no-deal scenario not coming to pass and I still think it won't

seamus · 26-03-2019 02:31PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, if the revoke Art 50, then they can only start the process again by going through their own constitutional requirements.

It's also worth remembering that the EU court ruled that unilateral revocation of A50 was only permitted if it was done in good faith.

In the event that they pulled A50 just to buy themselves more time, that could be deemed invalid by a European court and the UK unceremoniously kicked out of the EU.

The revocation would need to be done because the UK had changed its mind, not to abuse the process.

Eod100 · 26-03-2019 02:31PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, if the revoke Art 50, then they can only start the process again by going through their own constitutional requirements.

Now, because last time they held a referendum that although as advisory, the UK Gov determined that it was mandatory. I think the ECJ would adjudge that the UK then would have to precede another Art 50 notification by a national referendum followed by a vote through parliament. Now Brexit ref2 would be fought on a different rule book to the last one, if at all.

Given that, who would want to go through all that again. If Art 50 is revoked, then Brexit is dead for at least a generation.

I think ECJ AG said they could revoke unilaterally, but doesn't seem to be binding on court. Whether that means UK could do that without another ref is another question though.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1204/1014981-brexit-article-50/

Joe_ Public · 26-03-2019 02:35PM

One thing i have read in the event of the pm not fulfilling her assurance on the no deal front is parliament again taking control with a “humble address” move which labour used last year on the backstop issue. It’s not a binding thing afaik, but places a lot of pressure on the executive not to comply with it. Maybe others are more knowledgeable on the details?

An Ciarraioch · 26-03-2019 02:35PM

Back to the DUP - seems they'd be prepared to delay Brexit for 12 months, rather than approve the Withdrawal Agreement, so it would appear a No Deal Brexit is swiftly receding:

https://news.sky.com/story/dup-prefer-long-brexit-delay-to-pms-deal-sky-sources-11675614

Spook_ie · 26-03-2019 02:38PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

Could Stormont, if it was restarted, have the power to okay the necessary checks to occur at Northern Ireland's ports an airports - effectively enforcing a hard border down the Irish sea?

Probably not - That's the only way it could be avoided that I can see.

Everyone has been banking on the no-deal scenario not coming to pass and I still think it won't

Border control at airports and on the Celtic Sea, check if goods originated in NI/GB or here = no hard border in Ireland.

Loafing Oaf · 26-03-2019 02:38PM

Eod100 wrote: »

She said it was a choice of her deal, no Brexit or slow Brexit yesterday. I think the default if MV3 doesn't pass this week, Brexit date is 12th April. But she said yesterday that won't opt for No Deal unless a majority of the HOC backs it. So looks like it would be go back to the EU and look for an extension again? So possibly EU elections and deadline of the end of the year?

"But the bottom line remains: if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal, we would have to seek a longer extension."

I suppose that is pointing pretty clearly towards a no/slow brexit. But does it leave the door open to 'no deal' happening by default, even if HoC does not proactively vote for it?

Eod100 · 26-03-2019 02:39PM

So Ireland expected to take a hit of €50 billion if there's a deal, €100 billion if there's none. What sort of financial aid could we expect from the EU?

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0326/1038584-esri-brexit/

Leroy42 · 26-03-2019 02:40PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Back to the DUP - seems they'd be prepared to delay Brexit for 12 months, rather than approve the Withdrawal Agreement, so it would appear a No Deal Brexit is swiftly receding:

https://news.sky.com/story/dup-prefer-long-brexit-delay-to-pms-deal-sky-sources-11675614

How would that work? I thought there were only two options. Vote to accept WA and thus delay until 22 May to allow for legislation to proceed, or crash out by 12 April.

Have they (EU) also offered a longer extension based on running in the EU elections?

Anteayer · 26-03-2019 02:40PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Back to the DUP - seems they'd be prepared to delay Brexit for 12 months, rather than approve the Withdrawal Agreement, so it would appear a No Deal Brexit is swiftly receding:

https://news.sky.com/story/dup-prefer-long-brexit-delay-to-pms-deal-sky-sources-11675614

The DUP basically facilitated this total fiasco. This wasn't voted for by most people in Northern Ireland and its profoundly damaging to the region and to peace and stability.

They're against the withdrawal agreement but they're also against the only thing that would resolve that - the boring, peaceful, prosperous status quo that NI already has!

I hope pragmatic NI unionist voters remover this at the next election.

awec · 26-03-2019 02:41PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Back to the DUP - seems they'd be prepared to delay Brexit for 12 months, rather than approve the Withdrawal Agreement, so it would appear a No Deal Brexit is swiftly receding:

https://news.sky.com/story/dup-prefer-long-brexit-delay-to-pms-deal-sky-sources-11675614

DUP are hitting the panic button after last night's vote.

Eod100 · 26-03-2019 02:42PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I suppose that is pointing pretty clearly towards a no/slow brexit. But does it leave the door open to 'no deal' happening by default, even if HoC does not proactively vote for it?

Unless May doesn't seek another extension or does and EU doesn't grant it, I don't think so. But there's so many permutations who knows, maybe intentional/accidental no deal Brexit could still happen?

If the UK thinks EU have been the baddies in all this, wait til they try to trade with USA or China after Brexit.

Sam Russell · 26-03-2019 02:42PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anteayer wrote: »

She's got very, very little power to do anything beyond what her government tells her to do. Constitutionally she's just a figurehead.

Also the current Queen has been extremely politically neutral and in all her years hasn't every tested the limits of that. I mean if she were to intervene by making a speech calling for unity and pragmatism, it might be subject to people giving out about her interfering in politics but in reality I don't think anyone could or would be able to sanction her for so doing. In fact they'd likely all end up in worshiping her majesty mode and say nothing.

I'd have my doubts that she'll do anything. I mean she's been reduced to having to express her political views through choices of hat!

But, but, but, could she not just do it this one time?

During the Garvaghy Road protests, she could have made it clear that people (subjects) claiming to walk 'the Queen's Highway' where other 'subjects' did not want them to, were not doing it in her name, and would they please stop claiming that they were.

She did not do that then, so why should she do anything about Brexit now?

FrancieBrady · 26-03-2019 02:42PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

How would that work? I thought there were only two options. Vote to accept WA and thus delay until 22 May to allow for legislation to proceed, or crash out by 12 April.

Have they (EU) also offered a longer extension based on running in the EU elections?

They have offered it on the basis that the UK make proposals that can realistically resolve the issue, have they not?

Anteayer · 26-03-2019 02:44PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

During the Garvaghy Road protests, she could have made it clear that people (subjects) claiming to walk 'the Queen's Highway' where other 'subjects' did not want them to, were not doing it in her name, and would they please stop claiming that they were.

She did not do that then, so why should she do anything about Brexit now?

She won't do anything.

You can forget the idea that the queen will go all Elizabeth I and sweep into parliament and give them all a jolly good telling off.

It's as likely to happen as SF swearing allegiance to her and taking their seats in Westminster.

Both are total fantasy situations that won't happen.

An Ciarraioch · 26-03-2019 02:45PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

How would that work? I thought there were only two options. Vote to accept WA and thus delay until 22 May to allow for legislation to proceed, or crash out by 12 April.

Have they (EU) also offered a longer extension based on running in the EU elections?

They're assuming that the EU would be prepared to talk to a new PM, and yes, if the UK declares on April 11th that it will participate in the European elections, that buys more time.

Quin_Dub · 26-03-2019 02:47PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Back to the DUP - seems they'd be prepared to delay Brexit for 12 months, rather than approve the Withdrawal Agreement, so it would appear a No Deal Brexit is swiftly receding:

https://news.sky.com/story/dup-prefer-long-brexit-delay-to-pms-deal-sky-sources-11675614

For what though?

The EU have been absolutely clear that any extension has to be framed around a coherent plan that has majority support.

Have the DUP offered up a single suggestion other than saying NO ?

54and56 · 26-03-2019 02:51PM

It seems clear to me from listening to JRM's 20 minute podcast released today that yesterday at Chequers was a lightbulb moment for him where he finally realised that No Deal Brexit won't ever happen (he says the PM is against it, the cabinet are against it and the HoC are against it) and given the direction of travel with the actual delay to April 12th and potential for a much longer delay he has now concluded that TM's deal is better than any other viable option and that whilst TM's deal is hugely flawed it will deliver the central objective of the UK exiting the EU and no longer being subject to the ECJ etc.

He actually goes as far as to say that he has "recently" realised that leaving the EU may be as much of a process as joining it i.e. it's not a single light bulb type event but you start with what you can achieve in negotiations and then over a number of years you diverge further and further apart until you reach the point you are happy to say Brexit is complete.

It sounds very much like he's climbing down his ladder and waving goodbye to his DUP buddies and concerns over the Union as it applies to NI along the way as they no longer provide him with political cover.

Is JRM the first and most important ERG/Hard Brexit domino to fall? Could this gesture by him be the grand exercise in compromise which would enable him to secure a majority of Tory MP's and replace TM once the WA is finally passed?

ToBeFrank123 · 26-03-2019 02:53PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

For what though?

The EU have been absolutely clear that any extension has to be framed around a coherent plan that has majority support.

Have the DUP offered up a single suggestion other than saying NO ?

Like several political parties in NI, the DUP are almost exclusively a reactionary party.

They wait for someone to come up with a suggestion and 9 times out of 10 say No to it. It will be the same for the next few weeks, year or years when it comes to Brexit.

So don't expect anything new or innovative from them as that would leave them open to the same kind of criticism they have become experts at throwing at others.

BobbyBobberson · 26-03-2019 02:54PM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

He actually goes as fdar as to say that he has "recently" realised that leaving the EU may be as much of a process as joining it i.e. you start with what yu can achieve and then over a number of years you diverge further and further apart until you reach the point you are happy to say Brexit is complete.

Is JRM the first and most important ERG/Hard Brexit domino to fall? Could this gesture by him be the grand exercise in compromise which would enable him to secure a majority of Tory MP's and replace TM once the WA is finally passed?

Daniel Hannan (I know I know) made a similar point before and pointed to Ireland leaving the UK as an example. He made reference to ports being under UK jurisdiction initially and says UK leaving EU should be similar.

For your second point, one journo tweeted earlier that JRM says he is about the 35-40th hardest Brexiteer and many would not fold.

FrancieBrady · 26-03-2019 02:57PM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It seems clear to me from listening to JRM's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=594&v=BkqghfxYx2U[/URL] released today that yesterday at Chequers was a lightbulb moment for him where he finally realised that No Deal Brexit won't ever happen (he says the PM is against it, the cabinet are against it and the HoC are against it) and given the direction of travel with the actual delay to April 12th and potential for a much longer delay he has now concluded that TM's deal is better than any other viable option and that whilst TM's deal is hugely flawed it will deliver the central objective of the UK exiting the EU and no longer being subject to the ECJ etc.

He actually goes as fdar as to say that he has "recently" realised that leaving the EU may be as much of a process as joining it i.e. you start with what yu can achieve and then over a number of years you diverge further and further apart until you reach the point you are happy to say Brexit is complete.

It sounds very much like he's climbing down his ladder and waving goodbye to his DUP buddies and concerns over the Union as it applies to NI along the way as they no longer provide him with political cover.

Is JRM the first and most important ERG/Hard Brexit domino to fall? Could this gesture by him be the grand exercise in compromise which would enable him to secure a majority of Tory MP's and replace TM once the WA is finally passed?

The DUP are about to achieve something massive. To demonstrate to all their faithful what most of us knew, that the rest of the UK really don't care about northern Ireland Unionists place in the Union, ahead of their own selfish interests.

Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments