Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

lobbylad wrote: »

Also, all the talk seems to be that NI will either:

Stay in the UK
Depart the UK and join the ROI

Why is there no option for NI to exist as an independent nation but remain within the EU (or rejoin if it has to leave first)?

That may even be a useful step on the route to NI/ROI reunification (I'm ignoring the financial capability of NI to exist as an independent nation)

Possibly because of the fact that they have a potential get out clause re. The GFA.

listermint wrote: »

I dont think he wants it stopped to be honest, there is far far far too much money at stake. Figures you and i cant even comprehend to be made off the back of a no deal.

Its a millionaires playground to become a billionaire.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe johnson has an ounce of good in him or cares what people think of his legacy. He moves from one day to the next, leaving the waste behind him.

The latest theory doing the rounds among British commentators is that Johnson and Cummings genuinely want No Deal to happen and that the EU will be forced to do a load of side deals with the UK once No Deal is in effect (November 1st onward).

They seem to think it will give the UK some sort of leverage with the EU, if we are to believe the theory.

Strazdas wrote: »

The latest theory doing the rounds among British commentators is that Johnson and Cummings genuinely want No Deal to happen and that the EU will be forced to do a load of side deals with the UK once No Deal is in effect (November 1st onward).

They seem to think it will give the UK some sort of leverage with the EU, if we are to believe the theory.

I honestly believe they are gearing up for an election and working hard to steal the Brexit Party's clothes. As long as they look as hard line as they possibly can (not talking to the EU, talk of proroguing parliament, no deal, etc.) and then being 'forced' into an election by a 'remainer' parliament so as to appear as the saviours of brexit and win a majority based on Tory voters and the leave constituency. Corbyn will also be sidelined by leave voters for fence-sitting.

After they win (assuming they do), they can do what they want.

The only wrinkle is that they will have to ask for an extension to hold the election. But that would pass Macron's test at least.

brickster69 wrote: »

The GFA is not legally binding because it say's that neither party can take the other to court if they break it.

The only legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism are those that cede territories from one to another. No modern day treaty between nations does not have a right for one party to be able to leave.

Do you ever read your guff?

brickster69 wrote: »

Except that it has not been ratified. So in effect it is just a draft agreement.

For sure, but negotiations were concluded and the agreement signed off on. A change of government in the UK has no effect on the status of the agreement (using that analogy, the EU could claim that with a new EU Commission, the agreement has no legal status and they're scrapping it).

Cox is still AG. Managed with some grovelling to hang onto his job.

Strazdas wrote: »

Not everyone in Britain is convinced by this theory (even though it seems plausible). You might be underestimating how deluded / dangerous Johnson and Cummings are.....what if they genuinely believe in No Deal and see any form of WA with a backstop as a huge negative?

They've a tiny majority. It's unsustainable as a government. Another by-election could sink them. It's actually possible that they mightn't even survive a Queen's speech at the opening of parliament on September 3rd. That actually has to go to a vote and could precipitate an election. They'd be mad to think they could survive long enough to get to brexit day. It's possible, but the best approach (imo) is to pre-empt things and call an election. Or better still, be forced into one.

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but negotiations were concluded and the agreement signed off on. A change of government in the UK has no effect on the status of the agreement (using that analogy, the EU could claim that with a new EU Commission, the agreement has no legal status and they're scrapping it).

This is the whole point of things. The WA had to be agreed by 4 parties as you know in order for it to be an agreement.

One of parties those rejected it.Not once but three times. So it is not an agreement because it has not been agreed.

If the EU parliament rejected it, are you saying the EU would / could not open up the agreement to make it acceptable for the EU Parliament to approve?

brickster69 wrote: »

This is the whole point of things. The WA had to be agreed by 4 parties as you know in order for it to be an agreement.

One of parties those rejected it.

No they haven't. Not formally.

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but negotiations were concluded and the agreement signed off on.

But it was not formally signed. The PM could not sign it without permission from Parliament. It is still in draft form.

brickster69 wrote: »

The GFA is not legally binding because it say's that neither party can take the other to court if they break it.

The only legally binding treaties without a unilateral exit mechanism are those that cede territories from one to another. No modern day treaty between nations does not have a right for one party to be able to leave.

More lies: the EU treaties up until article 50 was inserted (at UK insistence and wording) into the Lisbon treaty had no unilateral exit mechanism. They are neither the GFA nor a treaty ceding territory.

fash wrote: »

More lies: the EU treaties up until article 50 was inserted (at UK insistence and wording) into the Lisbon treaty had no unilateral exit mechanism. They are neither the GFA nor a treaty ceding territory.

Well I think it was always possible for sovereign countries to leave the EU. Lisbon merely formulated a mechanism for them to do so and put a time limit on negotiations.

fash wrote: »

More lies: the EU treaties up until article 50 was inserted (at UK insistence and wording) into the Lisbon treaty had no unilateral exit mechanism. They are neither the GFA nor a treaty ceding territory.

How did Greenland leave then ?

brickster69 wrote: »

But it was not formally signed. The PM could not sign it without permission from Parliament. It is still in draft form.

But with no onus or requirement on the EU to reopen negotiations. The WA talks ended in November 2018. The EU are entitled to say it's this WA or nothing. Arguments and red lines at the UK end are not their problem.....the WA kept changing throughout the 18 month negotiation because of Britain's self imposed red lines.

brickster69 wrote: »

But it was not formally signed. The PM could not sign it without permission from Parliament. It is still in draft form.

There is a difference between a draft agreement, a signed agreement, and a ratified agreement. You appear to be confusing them all. Allow me.

The withdrawal agreement ceased to be a 'draft' when the EU and Theresa May signed it (technically, even before that: the very moment the last of the 2 parties at the table, signified 100% agreement about the then-latest draft; whereby the commonly-approved draft is then be 'cleaned' and signed).

Theresa May signed the WA, can't remember if it was with Barnier when it was concluded, or at the next European Council meeting. End November 2018, at any rate.

But as you correctly note, under UK constitutional principles it had to be ratified by the HoC to become binding on the UK (because binding the UK is a sovereignty matter, and in the UK, sovereignty vests in the HoC).

It was not ratified, due to internal UK politics. Nothing to do with the EU27. The UK governement has not changed since 2017, neither have the material facts underlying the WA (ie respective UK & EU red lines framing the 2017-18 negotiations and conclusions), so the EU27 is perfectly justified to 'camp' on the WA as is, in both law and equity.

If your/the UK position is that the backstop is now a red line, then that is a new UK red line asking a concession from EU and, in negotiations, it's not up to the party with the strongest hand (the EU, by an intergalactic mile in the Brexit context) to accomodate and make concessions to the empty-handed party (the UK): if the UK sets a new red line, it's for the UK to also propose what they offer as a counterpart. As they refuse to do so, they should actually consider themselves lucky that the EU has kept the WA on the table until Halloween.

I frequently manage and negotiate settlements of IP conflicts, and let me tell you that, in analogous circumstances (I'm "the EU", the infringer with a business-closing level of clear-cut liability is "the UK"), I'd have tore them a new one, and rode it for all it's worth, the morning after they came out with the "WA dead, not talking to ya til you drop backstop" line (otherwise known in context as: so we're done with the pre-action protocol, file/seal/serve particulars of claim suit and prelim injunction, see you in court, by the way I'm suing each of your directors personally too).