Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[Kyriakos]

The link you referenced contains:

Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor @Rob_Merrick 5 days ago

and refers to Labour members, not Labour voters.



I am not sure why the EU would need to postpone its elections.

Iirc the eu elections are in may. Not seing how you could agree on options for a ref , campaign and organize it before may.

 

[brennan]

The link you referenced contains:

Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor @Rob_Merrick 5 days ago

and refers to Labour members, not Labour voters.

Amended voters to members, thanks.

I guess i've not looked at the news for a few days...

 

[EnglishEdward]

Iirc the eu elections are in may. Not seing how you could agree on options for a ref , campaign and organize it before may.

So what. The way I see it. Unless the UK clearly rescinds its invocation of Article 50 before 29 March 2019, the EU27 holds the EU MEP elections without the UK.

 

[Hrothbern]

EU Parliament elections are every 5 year. 2019-2014-2009-2004-etc
AFAIK: When Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007 they got right away their seats in the EU parliament. The number of EU parliament seats was increased to accomodate.

When the UK would rejoin and this procedure has not changed since then, The UK will have to hold elections for the EU parliament after the formal rejoining.

 

[brennan]

While a second ref sort of makes sense, it also doesnt,

To be blunt, remaining is the only option that makes sense at all and Brexit is total madness.

 

[uppi]

Except that the Government is explicitly required to return to Parliament if the vote on her deal fails. The PM would dearly love to make it only "my deal or no deal", but if that really were the case, the vote would wouldn't have been called off last month with no notice.

Yes she can, she just has to manage to run down the clock. This is why the vote was delayed - to remove all other options. Yeah, she has to return to Parliament, but what can they do? They cannot magically conjure a new deal out of thin air. They can instruct her to renegotiate, but then she'll just come back 2 weeks later and say (truthfully) that the EU refused. They can instruct her to beg the EU for an extension, and then she'll also come back and say that the EU refused (probably also truthfully, since she won't be willing to bring anything to the table to convince the EU otherwise). She can do this until end of March, and then it will be a straight up vote: her deal or no deal.

There are only two ways for Parliament to prevent this: First, vote for remain straight away. I don't think they will do this. The second one would be to topple government right now (preferably yesterday), form a new government, beg the EU for an extension and get one on the condition to have a new referendum with two options: the deal or remain. Besides that I also don't think they have the guts for that, time is really running out for that.

I don't see any other option. If you do, please tell.

 

[Hrothbern]

Within the Tories there is also the idea to revoke Art 50.
Call vor a referendum.
If Remain. Done and dusted.
If Leave re-trigger Art 50

EDIT
As last escape just before March 29

 

[uppi]

Within the Tories there is also the idea to revoke Art 50.
Call vor a referendum.
If Remain. Done and dusted.
If Leave re-trigger Art 50

EDIT
As last escape just before March 29

I would file that under vote remain (for now).

 

[really]

Within the Tories there is also the idea to revoke Art 50.
Call vor a referendum.
If Remain. Done and dusted.
If Leave re-trigger Art 50

EDIT
As last escape just before March 29

Did the legal judgement on A50 just before Christmas not say that it could be withdrawn (i cant remember the wording) if genuine and not for abusive reasons?
Withdrawing A50 with the intention of having another referendum immediately would not be considered a genuine commitment to remaining, just a very conditional one.

 

[uppi]

Did the legal judgement on A50 just before Christmas not say that it could be withdrawn (i cant remember the wording) if genuine and not for abusive reasons?
Withdrawing A50 with the intention of having another referendum immediately would not be considered a genuine commitment to remaining, just a very conditional one.

I thought that as well, but as far as I can tell, it did not make the validity of the withdrawal of A50 dependent on any intention behind it (which would be hard to judge, anyway). It did require the withdrawal to be unconditional, so any future referendum could have no legal impact on the withdrawal of A50. As I understand it, there is nothing in this ruling that would legally prevent a second trigger of A50. This would result in another 2 year period and the whole thing would start from the beginning. At least in theory. In practice, such games would not exactly motivate the EU to make any concessions and would damage the UK economy even more.

 

[Hrothbern]

Did the legal judgement on A50 just before Christmas not say that it could be withdrawn (i cant remember the wording) if genuine and not for abusive reasons?
Withdrawing A50 with the intention of having another referendum immediately would not be considered a genuine commitment to remaining, just a very conditional one.

I thought that as well, but as far as I can tell, it did not make the validity of the withdrawal of A50 dependent on any intention behind it (which would be hard to judge, anyway). It did require the withdrawal to be unconditional, so any future referendum could have no legal impact on the withdrawal of A50. As I understand it, there is nothing in this ruling that would legally prevent a second trigger of A50. This would result in another 2 year period and the whole thing would start from the beginning. At least in theory. In practice, such games would not exactly motivate the EU to make any concessions and would damage the UK economy even more.

The text of the advice to the court at Dec 4:
A statement from the ECJ said: "In answer to the question from the Scottish court, the Advocate General proposes that the Court of Justice should, in its future judgment, declare that Article 50 TEU allows the unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, until such time as the Withdrawal Agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the member state's constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice."


The final ruling of the ECJ from Dec 10:
A judgment by the EU's highest court today added fire to the Brexit debate by ruling that the UK has the option of revoking its decision to leave the EU - so long as the decision is 'unequivocal and unconditional'.
In today’s judgment, the full court states that the option for revocation exists for as long as a withdrawal agreement between the EU and a member state has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the notification period is still ongoing.
The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements, the court states. Such an 'unequivocal and unconditional' decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council.
On the substance of the question, the court rules that article 50 of the Treaty of European Union does not explicitly address the subject of revocation. However article 50 pursues two objectives: first, that of enshrining the sovereign right of a member state to withdraw from the EU and, secondly, that of establishing a procedure to enable such a withdrawal to take place in an orderly fashion. According to the court, the sovereign nature of the right of withdrawal supports the conclusion that the member state concerned has a right to revoke the notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU for as long as a withdrawal agreement has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period, and any possible extension, has not expired.

Whereas the advice uses the word abusive, the final ruling does not use that word anymore.
It uses unequivocal (ofc) and unconditional (as Uppi said)
The final ruling also emphasises the sovereignty of the member state and the fundamental purpose of Art 50: to enable an orderly withdrawal.

A cliff edge no-deal is most clearly NOT an orderly withdrawal. And that gives I think the UK lots of arguments for using the right to revoke only to buy time to get to a better domestic and sovereign judgement whether to withdraw or how to withdraw (that referendum or more time for Westminster up to an election).

The advantage of using Art 50 ++ to buy time while Remaining, instead of asking the EU to postpone the withdrawal date, is that it is the most sovereign way for the UK to buy time, without any involvement of the EU.

And although I also think that the EU will not be pleased with the UK not accepting the May deal (or on the long way to get there, any other deal the EU proposed/worked out)... not coming to any decision... the endless drama...
The EU would I think rather stay out of the domestic political and societal process in the UK.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that revoking art50 so as to have a ref which may still retrn a new leave vote is rather entirely abusive. That the ecj phrased it differently now just shows that they also make it up as they go along. Either way, it would be dumb to revoke art50, have british mps (faridge again? ) and restart the clock with a new leave vote.

That said, imo it is highly unlikely for any british gov to revoke art50. And there seems to be no time for a second ref with remain as option. You should realize that the british do not see themselves as clowns. Tbh, despite various faults, they do have a functional pride too, not just negatively manifested.

 

[Silurian]

For Art 50 to be withdrawn would require legislation to amend the exit date, 2300 on 29.02/2019, as set out in the EU withdrawal Act 2018.

I can not see May splitting the Conservative party to get that passed with Labour support.
I can not see Labour giving up the chance for an election due to the split in the Conservatives and withdrawal of DUP support.

 

[innonimatu]

Yes she can, she just has to manage to run down the clock. This is why the vote was delayed - to remove all other options. Yeah, she has to return to Parliament, but what can they do? They cannot magically conjure a new deal out of thin air. They can instruct her to renegotiate, but then she'll just come back 2 weeks later and say (truthfully) that the EU refused. They can instruct her to beg the EU for an extension, and then she'll also come back and say that the EU refused (probably also truthfully, since she won't be willing to bring anything to the table to convince the EU otherwise). She can do this until end of March, and then it will be a straight up vote: her deal or no deal.

There are only two ways for Parliament to prevent this: First, vote for remain straight away. I don't think they will do this. The second one would be to topple government right now (preferably yesterday), form a new government, beg the EU for an extension and get one on the condition to have a new referendum with two options: the deal or remain. Besides that I also don't think they have the guts for that, time is really running out for that.

I don't see any other option. If you do, please tell.

This is absurd, everyone with a bit of sense can see that "remaining" now (parliament withdrawing article 50) would not end the drama, only have it continue. There would be no guarantees that the move would even be accepted. And it would improve the UK's position by zero, because the UK's internal divisions would continue festering. An extremely large portion of the british electorate would feel betrayed and become even more radically anti-EU. And both major parties would remain split over it, possibly collapsing altogether. This problem will not go away through a postponement.The real cause of the problem is the remainer's refusal to accept that they lost the referendum and the government they had the obligation of pursuing a "clean exit" as the default option.

There's a far worse problem with a referendum that the time issue, it is what to ask? That's an intractable problem, and the reason why the referendum idea was not taken up seriously.

A new election with the problem unsolved is, as with the referendum, impossible not because of time but because the organized parties cannot propose coherent proposals for it! Both are split over the brexit issue. What will they campaign on?

Now it is either May's (the EU's, really) deal or no deal. And the sensible option is, has always been, no deal. That should have been the default policy ever after the referendum. A deal would be something to be done in case it was mutually advantageous, not something to be done because the UK was (supposed to be ) afraid of going it alone! It is utter incompetence of the government that they have not been preparing the no deal scenario.

The advice (well said) of the court was that withdrawing article 50 was conditional on it being a definitive solution, which is impossible. No solution inn which the UK remains under the power of the EU is a solution. This drama will only end, for all sides involved, with a clean exit and and/or a proper trade deal. The way forward is to withdraw and the negotiate a proper deal, not a temporary one, and certainly not the capitulation that May picked up. There will be no political peace in the relation between the UK and the other countries, or inside the UK, without that.

 

[Takhisis]

everyone with a bit of sense can see that "remaining" now (parliament withdrawing article 50) would not end the drama, only have it continue.

But the same is true of ‘leaving’.

 

[innonimatu]

No, leaving resolves the division for now because the UK can't just withdraw leave after March 29. It will be out of the decision power of the UK's government, parliamentarians or citizens. If they want to argue again over membership in the EU they can do so without the urgency that is always on now, consuming everything.

 

[Kyriakos]

And it is worth reminding how this situation exists due to the oh so autonomous ecj. Without its changing views you would have had no absurd notion of "remain as if two years didnt happen, mkay?".
Also, this ecj decision seems to have killed a corbyn non blairite gov before it even happened. Now all sorts of blairite mp clowns hide behind the remain cry.

 

[Hrothbern]

On that choice between Westminster and a new referendum, on that deepening of divisions in society that could occur, from that big YouGov poll:

Sample Size: 25537 UK Adults
Fieldwork: 21st December 2018 - 4th January 2019
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...yky/PeoplesVoteResults_190104_LargePoll_w.pdf

Do you think the final decision about Brexit should be made by MPs voting in Parliament or the public voting in a new referendum?
MPs voting in Parliament.......................... 36%
The public voting in a new referendum..... 41%
Don’t know................................................ 22%

If parliament votes to accept the Brexit deal without a public vote, do you think it will…?
Begin to resolve divisions in society......... 22%
Deepen divisions in society...................... 47%
Don’t know................................................ 32%

If parliament decided to hold a public vote on whether to stay in the EU or leave the EU, do you think it will…?
Begin to resolve divisions in society......... 26%
Deepen divisions in society...................... 45%
Don’t know................................................ 29%

I think that is a hung situation among the UK people.

If you look into the details of the questions, the two on the deepening divisions, the last two questions shown in the report...
Remainers (and Labour) say mainly that a Westminster MP voting would lead to a deepening division, Leavers (and Tories) say mainly that a new referendum would lead to a deepening division.
And fitting that: 2016 Remainers (and Labour) prefer mainly a new referendum and 2016 Leavers (and Tories)prefer mainly a Westminster MP voting.

If you look in the details of the questions around Remain or Leave, compared to the earlier referendum, you see that 2016 Leavers are in general less likely to turn out and score higher at "don't know".
With that effect Remain has slightly higher % than Leave.
But if that disconnect of 2016 Leavers would not be there and the disconnected 2016 Leavers would turn out and again vote Leave... a new referendum would again be closer to 50/50.
The disconnect could be a sign that the UK people are slowly shifting position, but when Farrage et al re-ignite the sentiments and the connect...

 

[Senethro]

Leave would mean another ten years of negotiating over basic crap that we already have now. Combined with the economic shock it would remove the political oxygen to get anything non-brexit done for at least one further electoral cycle.

No-Deal is a beginning, not a resolution.

 

[Cheetah]

It'll be the climax, I'd say. After some months or years you should at least be sure that your flights will be there, and that importation of food and medicines is established in a working fashion.