Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[uppi]

If there is an extension until just before the EU election agreed with May, but no MEP elections in the UK, revoking Art 50 just before the elections, would keep the UK as member but without UK MEP's representing the UK people in the EU parliament, which would cause that the EU parliament cannot take any decision (with the current EU rules).
A new hard Brexit PM could do this just to cause that laming of the EU parliament.

Just before the elections is not the real issue, because then the UK would be obligated to participate in it. Just after the elections is the real problem, because then the elections are over without UK participation and maybe the whole EU would have to redo it and have to legitimate parliament in the meantime - maybe even a deadlock if the EU parliament would have to approve new elections.

The idea was that Brexit could be delayed until the newly elected MEPs take their seats. The discussion is that this might be a bad idea, because it would give a potential hostile UK PM leverage for extortion. Consequently, the EU might be unwilling to extend any extension beyond the elections without a commitment to hold the elections in the UK as well.

The option to withdraw Article 50 after the elections would hurt the UK as well, because it would be caught inside of a hobbled EU - but a desperate PM might threaten to use it. It would be better to remove that option completely.

If the UK government had put even half as much thought into the Brexit process, we wouldn't be in this situation.

 

[Hrothbern]

Just before the elections is not the real issue, because then the UK would be obligated to participate in it.

yes
but I am quite sure in the wargame branching of scenarios they played as well that the UK would take the position not to be obligated by it.
or in other words, add as tick off point to get a binding signature of the UK on that.

If the UK government had put even half as much thought into the Brexit process, we wouldn't be in this situation.

yes
the no-plan Brexit

 

[zazazuzu]

The UK richly deserves a 'no-plan' Brexit.

 

[Silurian]

If the UK is still in the EU in May and takes part in the EU elections those elections will be a referendum on Brexit in all but name.
It is probable that the majority of elected MEPs would have explicitly stood on a remain ticket.

 

[Hrothbern]

If the UK is still in the EU in May and takes part in the EU elections those elections will be a referendum on Brexit in all but name.
It is probable that the majority of elected MEPs would have explicitly stood on a remain ticket.

I think so too.
But I could not think out how they would vote.
Farrage prpared his Brexit party, perhaps also for the EU elections.
But how would a Tory, or a Labour Remainer vote ?

If Green is solid Remain, I would vote Green.

 

[Silurian]

@Hrothbern
I suppose LibDem, TIG, Green and SNP etc.

 

[Hrothbern]

@Hrothbern
I suppose LibDem, TIG, Green and SNP etc.

ahh
the TIG is also there now.
For sure May and Corbyn will not be pleased with the risk that the PR of the EU election will show painfully clear where they are without the protection of the two party FPTP.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Don't forget Plaid Cymru either. I'd probably vote Green or Plaid atm.

 

[Traitorfish]

The UK richly deserves a 'no-plan' Brexit.

The British government does, sure. The British establishment more generally. But the powers-that-be in this country are well-practiced in ensuring that the consequences of their decisions fall largely on other people.

When supplies of medicine or even food stall, it won't be Her Majesty's Government going sick or hungry.

 

[zazazuzu]

The British government does, sure. The British establishment more generally. But the powers-that-be in this country are well-practiced in ensuring that the consequences of their decisions fall largely on other people.

When supplies of medicine or even food stall, it won't be Her Majesty's Government going sick or hungry.

You're absolutely right.

 

[Silurian]

Don't forget Plaid Cymru either. I'd probably vote Green or Plaid atm.

Sorry I included Plaid in the etc.

 

[Hrothbern]

Hammond indicated that the vote could very well not happen the coming week.
Getting more time before a vote to improve the odds.

A fun question:
If you cut a ring longways you get two rings... right ?
But what when you are forged together in a mobius ring ?
Will it go that easily to separate ?

Spoiler :

 

[Takhisis]

Why would a successor to may revoke article 50?
It would be some more pro brexit tory, no?
Imo this article doesnt seem based on reality. I like the comedic note that all 27 members must agree, as if in something having only days to be decided actual ability to use a veto could be negotiated against.

It's like playing a turn-based strategy game on planning mode, I suppose.

 

[Dachs]

Why would a successor to may revoke article 50?
It would be some more pro brexit tory, no?

could a hard brexit PM guarantee confidence and supply?

 

[Takhisis]

Well, if it was a demented lunatic such as Boris Johnson or Nigel Farridge (remember, Prime Ministers being sitting members of the House of Commons, or Parliament in general, is a mere convention) it miiiight just be possible, but that would really only apply if it was a PM bent on performing hard Brexit on paper and then quitting the job to let the country suffer on its own (which, thinking about it, either one of those two mad dogs could just do, partly for the lulz).

Otherwise… long-term, certainly no. The DUP are a ‘party for against’ so nothing will ever please them. And Northern Ireland being outside the EU but with a land border with free Ireland is a fact that will not go away unless you dig a mile-wide channel to separate the two and, just in case, send the fleet in.

 

[metatron]

Just before the elections is not the real issue, because then the UK would be obligated to participate in it. Just after the elections is the real problem, because then the elections are over without UK participation and maybe the whole EU would have to redo it and have to legitimate parliament in the meantime - maybe even a deadlock if the EU parliament would have to approve new elections.

The idea was that Brexit could be delayed until the newly elected MEPs take their seats. The discussion is that this might be a bad idea, because it would give a potential hostile UK PM leverage for extortion. Consequently, the EU might be unwilling to extend any extension beyond the elections without a commitment to hold the elections in the UK as well.

The option to withdraw Article 50 after the elections would hurt the UK as well, because it would be caught inside of a hobbled EU - but a desperate PM might threaten to use it. It would be better to remove that option completely.

If the UK government had put even half as much thought into the Brexit process, we wouldn't be in this situation.

I'm getting a headache.
Remind me why we want to grant the extension anyway, please.

 

[Kyriakos]

could a hard brexit PM guarantee confidence and supply?

Imo due to english sense of self-worth even a hard brexit pm will have very considerable public support.

 

[Hrothbern]

Imo due to english sense of self-worth even a hard brexit pm will have very considerable public support.

I think so too
But everything that goes "wrong" while that hard-Brexit PM is in charge.... everything where other things happen than the expectations so far set for the people by the hard-Brexit group.... everything that is disappointing... must have an explanation and/or a scape goat.
The EU ofc the first target, May ofc the second target... but when there is a hard Brexit with not much interaction left with the EU... when there is a harder Brexit than May wanted....
at some moment disappointed people will want another scape goat.... at some moment the hard-Brexit group will protect itself by blaming that (new) PM.
At some moment the people will move to the position that the hard-Brexit group is to blame

The Rees-Mogg strategy so far has been to get May in the formal position to do all the dirty work, with everything going wrong either "her" responsibility or caused by the evil EU.
Perhaps the maximal political influence of the Rees-Mogg club, protecting their Singapore brand, is never take as club the responsibility, but hostage some useful fool all the time. Be that May or someone else.

Until so much damage is done, that it cannot become much more worse anymore and then the Rees-mogg club can come to rescue of the nation, attaching their brand, their banner to the PM.

Until then the best pilots are sitting on a bench ashore (as a Dutch saying goes)

EDIT
I should add that this whole Brexit affair is the result from and the opportunity for the Brittania Unchained group that emerged in 2012.... to take over the Tory party. Cameron a useful puppy.
2012: the Eurozone crisis crippling the EU, the economical selfconfidence that the UK had to free itself from a loser, the growing selfconfidence in the US of the rightwing thinktanks during the second Obama term because of anti-Obama sentiments increasing.
The result of the referendum was a surprise, but not the slow coupe in the background, in the Tory party and in the mindset of so many UK people.
The irony that the austerity of the Tories caused unsatisfied people completely overwhelmed by nationalist sentiments played cleverly by Farrage as front man.
Even an extension will not hinder the Rees-Mogg club as long as there are no strings attached from a binding Art 50 extension treaty.
If the EU formulates its binding conditions, the Rees-Mogg club can decide what to vote on the May deal. The order of things important.
That backstop, that Union with NI, those vassals in NI.... is there anyone really believing that it is really important for Rees-Mogg ?

 

[AmazonQueen]

John Bercow has indicated he would not be inclined to accept a 3rd meaningful vote on May's deal unless it is substantially different from the motions put previously.

 

[Hrothbern]

John Bercow has indicated he would not be inclined to accept a 3rd meaningful vote on May's deal unless it is substantially different from the motions put previously.

I could not resist looking at the Daily Mail site:

Sabotage !!! Bombshell !!!
In the headlines

And in the smallprint that tradition since 1604, that you cannot repeat a defeated motion without changes.
This afternoon Mr Bercow invoked a precedent from April 1604 - used 12 times in the Commons since then - to warn the PM that she must significantly change her deal if she wants to force another vote on it before March 29.

Was it not already since King John Lackland who kept on going defeat after defeat, that that tradition to forbid repeating started ?

Theresa Lackland ?