Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1180569395048992768

There won't be any negotiation at the EU council.

They want to be in a position to rubber stamp a deal.

A gap as wide as the Grand Canyon, unless the UK gives ground on customs - of course, always better to have meetings than not, but unlikely to achieve anything at present.

Here is the interview with Michel Barnier

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/05/barnier-joins-brexit-blame-game

Sometimes cryptic, but an interesting tweeter, this is an interesting piece of information on the CTA and the memorandum of understanding that the UK recently signed in relation thereto

fash wrote: »

https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/status/1180552966190895109

Sometimes cryptic, but an interesting tweeter, this is an interesting piece of information on the CTA and the memorandum of understanding that the UK recently signed in relation thereto

I said this months a go that this would be Britain's last card. People did not believe me then but I still expect a threat to come in this direction.

I don't think the CTA matters all that much nowadays anyway. May as well join schengen.

prawnsambo wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

Very doubtful. Hungary has to live with another very pissed off 26 EU member states if it does that, member states that are already potentially set to impose sanctions on Hungary over its violations of the rule of law provisions of the EU treaties.

And what would they have to gain? The square root of feck all. They don't even get to benefit from the UK being at the table with them to push whatever case they may have.

A Hungarian minister was on newsnight last week. The presenter was pushing him to say something pro UK but he held the line that the EU negotiated on behalf of the 27 and he wouldn't be commenting outside of what the official line was. They know which side their bread is buttered even if the country itself is deeply eurosceptic.

Anyone have snippets from Brexit hard man Steve Barclay's article here?:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/05/government-wont-back-brexit/


This appears to contradict the Telegraph headline btw. Barclay saying they will leave with no deal. Leading article says they will stay but disrupt.


Chaos with Ed Miliband

Hurrache wrote: »

The UK behind the curve again. The EU have already looked into what damage they could do from the inside if they were given an extension and the conclusion was nothing once they're gone before the budget vote.

Whatever about the practicalities, the very idea that this may even be considered a plan by a country such as the UK about to enter international negotiations for trade agreements.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1180587230382833664?s=19

Obviously don't realise either that the Romanian and Hungarian commissioners were rejected, so the same would happen to Farage.

sondagefaux wrote: »

The European Council can impose whatever conditions it wants to grant an extension.

It could decide that an extension would only be granted on condition that Johnson change his name by deed poll to Doris if it wanted to and there's nothing in EU law to prevent it doing so.

Look up the Principle of Non-Intervention.

You can not make demands which go against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state to be used as negotiating tactics, making a demand such as a requirement to have a GE which is a purely domestic matter goes against the principles of the UN Charter (which is enshrined in the TEU) or the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

From the UN General Assembly's Friendly Relations Declaration:-

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

It is also against Customary International Law which the European Union is bound by as confirmed by the ECJ in the Western Sahara Campaign UK vs Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Case C‑266/16 case, note what the International Court of Justice stated in the Nicaragua vs The USA [1968] ICJ 1 case:-

The principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference . . . . As to the content of the principle in customary law, the Court defines the constitutive elements which appear relevant in this case: a prohibited intervention must be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely (for example the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and formulation of foreign policy). Intervention is wrongful when it uses, in regard to such choices, methods of coercion, particularly force, either in the direct form of military action or in the indirect form of support for subversive activities in another State

Interfering with purely domestic sovereign matters is a no no for the EU, this is well established and most recently touched upon in the Article 50 Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Case C-621/18 case.

GM228 wrote: »

You can not make demands which go against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state to be used as negotiating tactics, making such a demand such as a requirement to have a GE which is a purely domestic matter that goes against the principles of the UN Charter (which is enshrined in the TEU) or the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is also against Customary International Law which the European Union is bound by as confirmed by the ECJ in the Western Sahara Campaign UK vs Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Case C‑266/16 case.

Interfering with purely domestic sovereign matters is a no no for the EU, this is well established and most recently in the Article 50 ECJ case.

They can suggest the kinds of reasons that would be looked on as making an extension necessary and desirable. In fact I think it's even been suggested that avoiding a no deal brexit would be considered a good reason to extend.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Daily Express has helpfully put up an image of who the biggest loser will be in the EU for it's readers in it's latest pro Brexit article

Why are mainland France and Corsica shown in two distinct colours and why is Malta not colourized?

With suggestions like, making Farage their EU Commissioner, they are really into Trump territory.