Of course Owen's suggestion is better than May's deal. But, then , so is leaving on WTO which also happens to have the additional and not inconsiderable merit of actually adhering to the result of the referendum.
Owen's suggestion is also much closer to respecting the result of the referendum than May's deal (on sovereignty, which is more important than immigration on its own).
And the problem with "crashing out" (which is what it would be) on WTO rules is that there are far too many MPs opposed to it. Sure, they may not be able to stop it, but if they think they cannot stop it by any other means than cancelling brexit, then brexit might be cancelled altogether. Owen's suggestion might just be the only way to save brexit, Steve.
You clearly prefer Owen's plan to either May's deal or cancelling brexit. You think it is less desirable than leaving with no deal, but if people reject Owen's plan in favour of no deal, you'll probably get no brexit at all. And that is not one of May's idle threats.
No deal has too many opponents, so relying it to happen by default is a very dangerous game indeed.
The fact that you pay more attention to the needs and wants of the forces in the political class on this issue, instead of paying more attention to the needs and want of the forces massing organically in the wider electorate speaks volumes. It is precisely that misallocation of attention that led to Brexit and Trump in the first place.
Now that really is a dangerous game
Last edited by Little John on 03 Dec 2018, 16:04, edited 2 times in total.
The fact that you pay more attention to the needs and wants of the forces in the political class on this issue...
I am NOT doing that. All I am doing is trying to predict the likely outcomes from the current situation, and suggest what might lead to what. I am telling you that if people reject Owen's last-ditch suggestion for avoiding a no-deal without cancelling brexit because they'd prefer no deal, the result may be the cancellation of brexit instead.
After everything that has led us to this point, the central fact that some people appear to have significantly missed, including even yourself it would appear UE, is that whilst there are indeed risks attached to a no deal Brexit, one should be little surprised that exhorting people who have already lost nearly everything that if they do not do as they are told they could lose it all is not going to cut it anymore.
Such people are quite prepared, I can assure you, to play chicken with not only our economy.
One alternative under discussion is the Norway option. Jean-Claude Piris is worth reading on the subject. His conclusion is that Efta is legally possible but not politically, and especially not as an interim option. He gives a detailed summary of the many subtle, and not so subtle, issues that are involved. We would like to highlight two big issues. We fail to see how the Norway option can get rid of the backstop. The EU will still require an Irish backstop in case the Norway option cannot be agreed on time.
Secondly, the EU is very unlikely to agree both an Efta/EEA deal as well as a customs union. In fact, the EEA treaty states explicitly that there shall be no customs union. That treaty would need to be changed, and that treaty change would have to be ratified by all EU member states plus the four EEA member countries. The political price the EU would extract from the UK could bordering on extortion.
Given this analysis, one cannot but confirm preceding opinions[9]according to which an EEA option would legally be possible in theory, but not politically realistic in the case of the UK after Brexit.
As for a revamped EEA seen as « an interim step » of a few years10 for the UK before becoming a third State vis-à -vis the EU, it would politically be even less realistic. Why would EEA members take the risk to open a difficult negotiation with the EU which could lead them to lose their current advantages?
The EEA/Norway option is worse then May's deal - at least with May's deal we have some freedom over domestic laws relating to the services economy (not goods) which is the majority of our economy, it ends free movement (the main reason I voted Leave) and we are still stuck with the Irish backstop.
My preference is still a no-mitigated no-deal Brexit but given the risks of the alternatives (an even softer Brexit/2nd referendum) I will take May's deal.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Little John wrote:After everything that has led us to this point, the central fact that some people appear to have significantly missed, including even yourself it would appear UE, is that whilst there are indeed risks attached to a no deal Brexit, one should be little surprised that exhorting people who have already lost nearly everything that if they do not do as they are told they could lose it all is not going to cut it anymore.
Such people are quite prepared, I can assure you, to play chicken with not only our economy.
And their number is growing.
You sound like a broken record with your thinly veiled threats of insurrection. It won't happen on the huge scale you are imply. If it does? Well, there will be people ready to fight back, you didn't think the rest of us would be terrorised did you?
I don't get the deal with the legal advice. Parliament are only being given a summary rather than the full text. If the summary purposefully omits materially important points, that's tantamount to misleading parliament. If it's a fair and accurate summary - then why not publish the full text?
Cameron was not supposed to be so stupid as to give the people a real vote on something that actually mattered. That's not supposed to happen. Ever. But, he did.
The people, when given the vote, were not supposed to be so rebellious as to actually vote to Leave the EU despite the entire political class of both the UK and all across the Western world ranged against them - aided and abetted by a compliant MSM. But, they were.
Given all of the above, over the last two years, the people were supposed to have been worn down by the continuation of project fear that began during the referendum itself to the point where, by now, they should have been fully malleable and ready to be shepherded into a "people's vote" such that they could be given the opportunity to rectify their mistake. But, their views on the EU remain pretty much unchanged.
None of the above was supposed to happen.
But it has.
So, now, panic is beginning to set in and risks are being taken.
But you have left Corbyn out of your description. Corbyn was even less supposed to happen.
There is a group of people who control the economic-political system post-WW2. They meet in Davos every year; we know who they are. They fix the important things. They make sure things like Brexit and Trump don't happen. And they make doubly sure things like Corbyn don't happen.
May was parachuted in, and the brexiteers excluded, because "the group" wanted to retain control of brexit, if it happens.
Their problem now is that whatever happens, they lose control, because the strings controlling the puppets have been crossed by "audience interference". Which means the audience have a very rare opportunity to influence proceedings, in a process which will necessarily be somewhat chaotic and unpredictable.
clv101 wrote:I don't get the deal with the legal advice. Parliament are only being given a summary rather than the full text. If the summary purposefully omits materially important points, that's tantamount to misleading parliament. If it's a fair and accurate summary - then why not publish the full text?
Government's position seems indefensible, again.
Robomay is behaving like a computer chess program that continues playing logically the best move, long after a human player would have resigned.
We feel that we can provide a service to readers by not reporting the distracting noise in the final week of Theresa May's increasingly hopeless attempt to get the withdrawal treaty passed by parliament. Forget the British government's internal legal advice - it is irrelevant. The main legal issue to watch out for is today's opinion by the advocate general of the European Court of Justice on Brexit revocation. It could influence the debate if the results were surprising - i.e. to allow revocation to happen unilaterally or not at all. Otherwise, the drama that is now playing out in the UK is likely to take its full course.
We thought it might be useful to lift some of the fog in the current Brexit debate by reversing the timeline - working backwards from a decision to revoke Brexit, assuming for now that this is legally possible. A prime minister would have to write to the European Council to request it. Domestically, that cannot legally be done with a change in the Brexit laws, like the repeal of the European Communities Act and the EU withdrawal act. We are informed that these legal requirements are not difficult, but crucially they require the government to initiate the process.
That information alone tells us that the parliament cannot force the entire process of Brexit revocation on a reluctant government. Another reason why that process is unlikely to succeed is the requirement of unanimous approval in the European Council to extend the Brexit deadline. A Brexit revocation is politically unlikely to happen before March, simply because there is not enough time to hold a referendum. We believe that process would take a year from start to finish because it is going to be difficult even to agree a set of questions and procedures, and we are certain that whatever choice gains majority support in the Commons will ultimately be challenged in the courts. We think it would be very unlikely for the EU to agree unanimously to an extension of Art. 50 if the British government were not wholeheartedly behind Brexit revocation at that point.
We conclude, therefore, that a successful Brexit revocation requires the active support of the British government. We see no chance that the present administration would want to do this - not just because of Theresa May's repeated assertions, but also because of the majority position in the cabinet. We see no other Conservative government taking that road, which would possibly end up destroying the Tory party. The most probable Brexit revocation scenario would thus be through new elections.
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives only two choices. The opposition needs to win a motion of no-confidence. Labour says it will table a motion right after next week's vote, but it also does not expect to win it. Alternatively, May could initiate the process herself by seeking a two-thirds majority among all MPs, as she did last year.
Furthermore, Labour would have to decide whether to campaign in favour of a second referendum. If it does, and goes on to win an election, a second referendum will happen. In any other constellation it won't - Labour victory without second referendum pledge, Tory victory, or hung parliament with a Tory prime minister.
Our conclusion from this backwards timeline is that the path towards Brexit revocation lies in new elections, a change in Labour's official position on the second referendum, and a Labour-led government - irrespective of whether it has an outright majority or not.
Back in the real world, and going forward, we see two scenarios. The first is defeat of the withdrawal treaty; a failed confidence motion; a subsequent failed but time-consuming attempt by the parliament to assert itself as a backseat driver; a small renegotiation of the political declaration at the forthcoming EU summit; and a renewed vote in January when the choices will have narrowed down to deal-vs-no-deal.
The alternative scenario would be a defeat of the treaty, leading to new elections through one of the routes above.
Andrew Duff writes in his latest column - to be published by the ECP today - that there are no sensible ways to reverse Brexit.
"It is highly improbable that the House of Commons left to its own devices can prevent Art. 50 from taking its course. Only the prime minister can ask the European Council to extend the Article 50 deadline beyond 29 March, and unless she is specifically mandated by parliament to promote an alternative plan, she will not do so. The EU heads of government are adamant that they will not agree to an extension merely to indulge party political chaos at Westminster."
He concludes May should target pro-European MPs to support her deal, rather than pursue a futile quest for the favour of a partisan majority. She could promise Remainers a much stronger parliamentary role in the future stages of the process, for example a say over the extension of the transition period.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Little John wrote:Good luck with starting a civil war with people who have nothing left to lose
I assume you mean the people who are on zero hours contracts or in very low paid work who use foodbanks or the disabled who have lost their DLA and are now declared fit for work. If so, why hasn't it happened before? This government introduced austerity measures that have had a disproportionately large impact on those "who have nothing left to lose". By that measure most of the UK should have been a smoking ruin long ago.
If brexit is fudged or cancelled there will be protests, more violence against foreigners & muslims and lots of grumbling about how politicians can't be trusted. Rioting and insurrection are generally carried out by young people but most young voters wanted to remain. I just don't see organised groups of middle aged white men taking to the streets and smashing stuff up in any large number.
Caveat - If in 6 months time I'm fighting marauders off from my allotment using the femur bone of my neighbour as a club following a breakdown in society I'll think back to this thread and say LJ was right after all.
