Not now. The stakes are far higher than normal. What happens in the coming weeks in the UK is career-defining for all the politicians involved.vtsnowedin wrote:Regardless of what they do in March, or whenever the deadline is, will there not be an election at sometime after that where the UK voters get to punish or reward MPs based on how they voted on the issue?
That election is the one all the clever politicians are focused on.
Brexit process
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13499
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
Exactly my point but my question is when in the course of UK politics will the election that settles the question happen? I ,having a US point of view, have only a rudimentary understanding of how your election system works.UndercoverElephant wrote:Not now. The stakes are far higher than normal. What happens in the coming weeks in the UK is career-defining for all the politicians involved.vtsnowedin wrote:Regardless of what they do in March, or whenever the deadline is, will there not be an election at sometime after that where the UK voters get to punish or reward MPs based on how they voted on the issue?
That election is the one all the clever politicians are focused on.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13499
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Exactly my point but my question is when in the course of UK politics will the election that settles the question happen? I ,having a US point of view, have only a rudimentary understanding of how your election system works.[/quote]vtsnowedin wrote:
Not now. The stakes are far higher than normal. What happens in the coming weeks in the UK is career-defining for all the politicians involved.
The UK has no written constitution. It's not just the election system, but the entire constitution that is currently in turmoil. Last night the government was found to be in Contempt of Parliament. This has never happened before, in the entire history of Parliamentary sovereignty since the civil war ended in 1688. The British constitution has been defined, legally, by what happens at moments like this.
Nobody knows what is going to happen if this deal gets voted down by a considerable margin. It would take me fifteen minutes of typing to explain it to you. There may well be an election called next week. But even if there isn't, some major shit is about to go down. MAJOR.
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
Being at least a bit of the arrogant Yankee I am often accused of being, I have a couple of suggestions about what you should do. But I'll keep quiet as nothing I think about it trumps your personal having to deal with the consequences.
I wish you all the best of luck with the outcome whatever it may be.
I wish you all the best of luck with the outcome whatever it may be.
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
Eurointelligence briefing x2...
There can be no deal as long as delusions of easy alternatives persist
We noted a seasoned political reporter of the BBC talking utter nonsense last night about the political options available after next week's vote in the House of Commons. He suggested there was kind of a readily available menu choice between new elections, second referendum, a second vote, or a new deal. He ended with the usual assertion of the intellectually lazy UK journalists, namely that no-deal is unlikely because there is no parliamentary majority in favour of it.Â
We would like to draw readers' attention to a new ComRes poll out yesterday showing that the British are simultaneously against staying in the EU, against the withdrawal treaty, against a no-deal Brexit, and in favour of renegotiating. Now what can possibly go wrong!
The unfolding events suggest to us that a second referendum remains unlikely - unless the prime minister supports it. We noted a Guardian story that Len McCluskey, the leader of the Unite trade union and one of the main backers of Jeremy Corbyn, has privately told a group of Labour MPs not to back a second referendum, on the grounds that voters could see it as a betrayal. The Labour Party is split on this issue, but it would require a high degree of party unity for an effective second-referendum-coalition to emerge.Â
We continue to see an uncomfortably large probability of a no-deal Brexit. It is what happens if nothing else happens. And it would be consistent with the above poll.
We are also concerned about some counter-productive news now coming out of Brussels. One was the suggestion, contained in a Reuters story, that May could go back to negotiate some cosmetic changes to the withdrawal treaty. Cosmetic changes will not shift majorities in the UK parliament. We note a tendency among some EU officials, especially those who allow themselves to be quoted anonymously, to belittle elected national representatives.Â
We also thought the apparent EU offer, as reported in the Times this morning, of a three-month extension not to he helpful either, as it might encourage Remainers to vote against the deal in the hope that something better might come up later. The pathway for a potential compromise is very narrow - much narrower than in usual EU-level negotiations, including most recently on eurozone reforms. We believe that more than just cosmetic changes are needed to save the deal.
One possible way forward would be to add clauses to the backstop that protect both sides against an abuse of the procedure by the other side. Ironically, we think the EU is more at risk of abusive action by the UK than the other way round. But given the mutual mistrust, it would be a good idea for both sides to think about how such abuse can be prevented. We think, for example, that the provisions for binding arbitration are problematic as it is not a legal procedure. If one side had legitimate reasons to believe that the other side is dragging its feet in the negotiations over a trade deal, then that party should have access to some form of legal redress.
Briefing 2...
Brexit legal advice creates room for compromise
The most interest bit in the legal advice by Geoffrey Cox, UK attorney general, is the assertion that the withdrawal agreement potentially violates EU law. This is an important piece of legal opinion because it might provide a narrow pathway to re-open the political process, not immediately but after the UK parliament rejects the current version of the deal.
To understand the background one needs to know that the EU's legal interpretation of Art. 50 has been that it can be used only to set bilateral terms with an exiting country for a limited time. Art. 50 cannot be used to negotiate a permanent relationship, for which other legal procedures apply under EU law. The distinction matters because a permanent trade agreement or an association deal between the EU and the UK would require ratification in national and some regional parliaments, whereas Art. 50 requires no more than a qualified majority in the Council and a simple majority in the European Parliament.
The question raised by Cox is whether the all-UK backstop, as set out in the withdrawal agreement, is legal under EU law. If there is no subsequent trade deal, the UK might be stuck permanently in a customs union and, if so, this would be a customs union without the requisite legal foundations. The whole idea of a backstop is to come into force if nothing else does. It is potentially permanent by definition.
Cox notes first that the relevant protocol in the agreement says the backstop shall apply "unless and until" it is superseded by other provisions. This turn of phrase means that it could last forever.
Cox notes that from the EU's perspective the legal foundations do not constitute a comfortable resting place, as he puts it, because it is far from clear that Art. 50 can provide a sufficient legal basis for the current version of the backstop. He did not mention the possibility in the letter, but we think it is not inconceivable that the European Court of Justice might at some stage be asked to provide clarification of this important point. Cox assumes that the EU could have used a proportionality argument in defence of a Northern Ireland-specific backstop - a special, exceptional situation that warrants specific measures. But an all-UK backstop, politically expedient as it may be, is harder to defend legally.
This is what Cox wrote:
"...the legal basis for the UK-wide customs union comes under pressure in the context of a whole-UK customs union, in particular, if it appears to be open-ended. The EU had previously argued in the negotiations that Article 50 could not afford a legal basis for such an arrangement — or at least not once the point is reached at which it becomes clear that it is not a bridge to a more permanent arrangement. There are numerous references in the Protocol to its temporary nature but there is no indication of how long such temporary arrangements could last. There may be, therefore, some doubt as to whether the proposed Protocol is consistent with EU law, and that uncertainty will increase the longer it subsists."
One political way out would be for the UK government or the European Commission, or both, to ask the ECJ for a legal clarification. The points raised by Cox are of a category where legal and political confusion feed on each other. We assume, like Theresa May herself, that the backstop is bound to be temporary because no side has an interest in procrastination, let alone in creating a situation where one side deliberately frustrates the negotiations. A permanent customs union is not in the interest of the EU either because it would give the UK frictionless trade without membership of the single market and without freedom of movement.
This is why we thought President Emmanuel Macron's intervention after the deal was so devastatingly counter-productive when he threatened to use the potential permanence of the backstop as a tool to extract political concessions, in this case on fishing. In doing so, he gave ammo to those in the UK who argue that the backstop provision are potentially permanent.
One possible way out would be to introduce a goodwill clause, similar to the advocate general's opinion on Brexit revocation. In the absence of goodwill, the backstop protocol is indeed both politically irresponsible and legally questionable. A solution could be for the ECJ to accept the protocol in principle but to add that unilateral exit by the UK is possible in case trade negotiations are no longer pursued in goodwill, maybe setting out specifics of what may trigger such action. This would raise other legal issues, but it could settle a potential legal loophole, and more importantly the single most legitimate concern about this withdrawal agreement from the UK perspective.
There can be no deal as long as delusions of easy alternatives persist
We noted a seasoned political reporter of the BBC talking utter nonsense last night about the political options available after next week's vote in the House of Commons. He suggested there was kind of a readily available menu choice between new elections, second referendum, a second vote, or a new deal. He ended with the usual assertion of the intellectually lazy UK journalists, namely that no-deal is unlikely because there is no parliamentary majority in favour of it.Â
We would like to draw readers' attention to a new ComRes poll out yesterday showing that the British are simultaneously against staying in the EU, against the withdrawal treaty, against a no-deal Brexit, and in favour of renegotiating. Now what can possibly go wrong!
The unfolding events suggest to us that a second referendum remains unlikely - unless the prime minister supports it. We noted a Guardian story that Len McCluskey, the leader of the Unite trade union and one of the main backers of Jeremy Corbyn, has privately told a group of Labour MPs not to back a second referendum, on the grounds that voters could see it as a betrayal. The Labour Party is split on this issue, but it would require a high degree of party unity for an effective second-referendum-coalition to emerge.Â
We continue to see an uncomfortably large probability of a no-deal Brexit. It is what happens if nothing else happens. And it would be consistent with the above poll.
We are also concerned about some counter-productive news now coming out of Brussels. One was the suggestion, contained in a Reuters story, that May could go back to negotiate some cosmetic changes to the withdrawal treaty. Cosmetic changes will not shift majorities in the UK parliament. We note a tendency among some EU officials, especially those who allow themselves to be quoted anonymously, to belittle elected national representatives.Â
We also thought the apparent EU offer, as reported in the Times this morning, of a three-month extension not to he helpful either, as it might encourage Remainers to vote against the deal in the hope that something better might come up later. The pathway for a potential compromise is very narrow - much narrower than in usual EU-level negotiations, including most recently on eurozone reforms. We believe that more than just cosmetic changes are needed to save the deal.
One possible way forward would be to add clauses to the backstop that protect both sides against an abuse of the procedure by the other side. Ironically, we think the EU is more at risk of abusive action by the UK than the other way round. But given the mutual mistrust, it would be a good idea for both sides to think about how such abuse can be prevented. We think, for example, that the provisions for binding arbitration are problematic as it is not a legal procedure. If one side had legitimate reasons to believe that the other side is dragging its feet in the negotiations over a trade deal, then that party should have access to some form of legal redress.
Briefing 2...
Brexit legal advice creates room for compromise
The most interest bit in the legal advice by Geoffrey Cox, UK attorney general, is the assertion that the withdrawal agreement potentially violates EU law. This is an important piece of legal opinion because it might provide a narrow pathway to re-open the political process, not immediately but after the UK parliament rejects the current version of the deal.
To understand the background one needs to know that the EU's legal interpretation of Art. 50 has been that it can be used only to set bilateral terms with an exiting country for a limited time. Art. 50 cannot be used to negotiate a permanent relationship, for which other legal procedures apply under EU law. The distinction matters because a permanent trade agreement or an association deal between the EU and the UK would require ratification in national and some regional parliaments, whereas Art. 50 requires no more than a qualified majority in the Council and a simple majority in the European Parliament.
The question raised by Cox is whether the all-UK backstop, as set out in the withdrawal agreement, is legal under EU law. If there is no subsequent trade deal, the UK might be stuck permanently in a customs union and, if so, this would be a customs union without the requisite legal foundations. The whole idea of a backstop is to come into force if nothing else does. It is potentially permanent by definition.
Cox notes first that the relevant protocol in the agreement says the backstop shall apply "unless and until" it is superseded by other provisions. This turn of phrase means that it could last forever.
Cox notes that from the EU's perspective the legal foundations do not constitute a comfortable resting place, as he puts it, because it is far from clear that Art. 50 can provide a sufficient legal basis for the current version of the backstop. He did not mention the possibility in the letter, but we think it is not inconceivable that the European Court of Justice might at some stage be asked to provide clarification of this important point. Cox assumes that the EU could have used a proportionality argument in defence of a Northern Ireland-specific backstop - a special, exceptional situation that warrants specific measures. But an all-UK backstop, politically expedient as it may be, is harder to defend legally.
This is what Cox wrote:
"...the legal basis for the UK-wide customs union comes under pressure in the context of a whole-UK customs union, in particular, if it appears to be open-ended. The EU had previously argued in the negotiations that Article 50 could not afford a legal basis for such an arrangement — or at least not once the point is reached at which it becomes clear that it is not a bridge to a more permanent arrangement. There are numerous references in the Protocol to its temporary nature but there is no indication of how long such temporary arrangements could last. There may be, therefore, some doubt as to whether the proposed Protocol is consistent with EU law, and that uncertainty will increase the longer it subsists."
One political way out would be for the UK government or the European Commission, or both, to ask the ECJ for a legal clarification. The points raised by Cox are of a category where legal and political confusion feed on each other. We assume, like Theresa May herself, that the backstop is bound to be temporary because no side has an interest in procrastination, let alone in creating a situation where one side deliberately frustrates the negotiations. A permanent customs union is not in the interest of the EU either because it would give the UK frictionless trade without membership of the single market and without freedom of movement.
This is why we thought President Emmanuel Macron's intervention after the deal was so devastatingly counter-productive when he threatened to use the potential permanence of the backstop as a tool to extract political concessions, in this case on fishing. In doing so, he gave ammo to those in the UK who argue that the backstop provision are potentially permanent.
One possible way out would be to introduce a goodwill clause, similar to the advocate general's opinion on Brexit revocation. In the absence of goodwill, the backstop protocol is indeed both politically irresponsible and legally questionable. A solution could be for the ECJ to accept the protocol in principle but to add that unilateral exit by the UK is possible in case trade negotiations are no longer pursued in goodwill, maybe setting out specifics of what may trigger such action. This would raise other legal issues, but it could settle a potential legal loophole, and more importantly the single most legitimate concern about this withdrawal agreement from the UK perspective.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13499
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Absolutely. Not just him either, also the Spanish over Gibraltar. Both of them made it crystal clear that they were going to use the situation to attempt to screw the UK, and in doing so they killed off any hope of the deal being accepted.This is why we thought President Emmanuel Macron's intervention after the deal was so devastatingly counter-productive when he threatened to use the potential permanence of the backstop as a tool to extract political concessions, in this case on fishing. In doing so, he gave ammo to those in the UK who argue that the backstop provision are potentially permanent.
Good will? There isn't any f*cking good will. The French think they have a God-given right to take our fish, and the Spanish think Gibraltar is theirs. Those countries have never forgiven the British for defeating them at Trafalgar and Waterloo.One possible way out would be to introduce a goodwill clause, similar to the advocate general's opinion on Brexit revocation. In the absence of goodwill, the backstop protocol is indeed both politically irresponsible and legally questionable. A solution could be for the ECJ to accept the protocol in principle but to add that unilateral exit by the UK is possible in case trade negotiations are no longer pursued in goodwill, maybe setting out specifics of what may trigger such action. This would raise other legal issues, but it could settle a potential legal loophole, and more importantly the single most legitimate concern about this withdrawal agreement from the UK perspective.
I don't understand these Eurointelligence people. They think this deal can be saved. It cannot. The only way it can get through parliament is if the EU grants the UK a unilateral exit mechanism from the backstop. If this is not forthcoming, then we are heading either for a no deal brexit or a revocation of A50. And judging by some of what I have heard this morning about the no deal, it's the revocation that is coming.
-
Little John
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13499
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Right now I honestly don't know which is worse - a no deal or a revocation. All I know is neither of them are as bad as the deal on offer.Little John wrote:UE, you clearly consider the consequences of no deal as being terrible. So, terrible, presumably, that the consequences of a revocation of A50 when compared alongside, would be less terrible and so, by that logic, revocation of A50 is the least worst option.
Such a view is dangerously wrong.
There was an interview today with the boss of a big haulage firm. Currently, very late in the day, there is acceleration of preparations for no deal, and his firm had been given some new instructions. When you multiplied the number of consignments per lorry, by the number of lorries, and then multiplied this by 3 because 3 documents will be required for each consignment, it turns out that his firm will, unless the rules are changed, have to fill in SEVEN MILLION documents every week. This is simply not possible. I'm sure a way could have been found to avoid it had the planning been started 2 years ago, but that is very unlikely now.
No deal, with this little planning, is going to be utter chaos if it happens. But listen....quite frankly, I don't personally care. Bring it on is what I say. I'll survive, and it would totally F--k up the tory party and deliver a Corbyn government. But for exactly that reason, this is very unlikely to be allowed to happen. There's just too many people who will look at the practical and economic consequences of a no deal and decide that they are so bad that the political consequences of revoking A50 should be taken instead.
And this ruling by the ECJ means that is very easy. The government could revoke A50 tomorrow. And yes there will be consequences. Very serious political consequences, for the tory party, for wider British politics and for the EU.
But please stop telling me I am dangerously deluded and there are going to be riots. I am not deluded, I am simply a realist who is trying to understand what is happening and what is going to happen. And there may well be riots whatever happens.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13499
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Oh...and Steve...
I have to say this again, because you don't seem to understand it. I know why you hate the EU, and I hate them for the same reasons, but there is an even bigger enemy than them. It's the group who actually runs this world - the ones who meet every year behind closed doors at Davos. They would have preferred the UK to remain in the EU, but they'll accept May's deal. They'd be pretty unhappy with a no deal brexit, but even that they can cope with.
The thing they want to stop, more than anything else, has nothing to do with the EU. What they fear is Corbyn in power. He was never supposed to get anywhere near the labour leadership, and as labour leader he was certainly never supposed to get anywhere near winning an election. But this brexit crisis is now making Prime Minister Corbyn very close to a reality.
What I do not understand about you is that you appear to be totally obsessed with the EU, and are ignoring the fact that the deeper this crisis gets, whatever its eventual outcome, the closer we are to Prime Minister Corbyn launching what will be an all-out war on the super-rich.
I have to say this again, because you don't seem to understand it. I know why you hate the EU, and I hate them for the same reasons, but there is an even bigger enemy than them. It's the group who actually runs this world - the ones who meet every year behind closed doors at Davos. They would have preferred the UK to remain in the EU, but they'll accept May's deal. They'd be pretty unhappy with a no deal brexit, but even that they can cope with.
The thing they want to stop, more than anything else, has nothing to do with the EU. What they fear is Corbyn in power. He was never supposed to get anywhere near the labour leadership, and as labour leader he was certainly never supposed to get anywhere near winning an election. But this brexit crisis is now making Prime Minister Corbyn very close to a reality.
What I do not understand about you is that you appear to be totally obsessed with the EU, and are ignoring the fact that the deeper this crisis gets, whatever its eventual outcome, the closer we are to Prime Minister Corbyn launching what will be an all-out war on the super-rich.
The main fear of Corbyn has always been the damage he'll supposedly do to the economy. But that surely can't be anything on the scale of no-deal Brexit, can it? Yet many people who hate the idea of Corbyn as PM are fine with no-deal Brexit.UndercoverElephant wrote:the closer we are to Prime Minister Corbyn launching what will be an all-out war on the super-rich.
Anyway, Brexit is certainly taking away any queasiness I might have felt about Corbyn's ability to keep the economy on an even keel. He's getting on a bit though. I'd like to see a Corbyn PM but has he the energy for it over five years?
-
Little John
The architects of the EU and the people who meet in Davos are essentially the same peopleUndercoverElephant wrote:Oh...and Steve...
I have to say this again, because you don't seem to understand it. I know why you hate the EU, and I hate them for the same reasons, but there is an even bigger enemy than them. It's the group who actually runs this world - the ones who meet every year behind closed doors at Davos. They would have preferred the UK to remain in the EU, but they'll accept May's deal. They'd be pretty unhappy with a no deal brexit, but even that they can cope with.
The thing they want to stop, more than anything else, has nothing to do with the EU. What they fear is Corbyn in power. He was never supposed to get anywhere near the labour leadership, and as labour leader he was certainly never supposed to get anywhere near winning an election. But this brexit crisis is now making Prime Minister Corbyn very close to a reality.
What I do not understand about you is that you appear to be totally obsessed with the EU, and are ignoring the fact that the deeper this crisis gets, whatever its eventual outcome, the closer we are to Prime Minister Corbyn launching what will be an all-out war on the super-rich.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13499
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Quite probably so, but my point remains: a Corbyn government in the UK is the stuff of their worst nightmares. It is that, not a no-deal brexit, which has them quaking in their boots.Little John wrote:The architects of the EU and the people who meet in Davos are essentially the same people
Barnier is clearly quite scared of no-deal though, judging by his comments today, which were designed to bully British MPs into voting for May's terrible deal. Not likely to work though.
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14814
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13499
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13499
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
The answer to your first question is no. They probably genuinely believe he'll damage the economy, but they are also exaggerating that as part of their Project Fear to discourage people from voting for him (along with all the other bullshit). No...the very fact that somebody who espouses the sorts of views he does is a huge threat to them, because he says, and will do, things that threaten to change the whole status quo. He will make people believe things are possible, which are indeed possible, but which the powers that be want everybody to believe are impossible. Like, to take just one example, seriously cracking down on offshore tax havens.RevdTess wrote:The main fear of Corbyn has always been the damage he'll supposedly do to the economy. But that surely can't be anything on the scale of no-deal Brexit, can it? Yet many people who hate the idea of Corbyn as PM are fine with no-deal Brexit.UndercoverElephant wrote:the closer we are to Prime Minister Corbyn launching what will be an all-out war on the super-rich.
Basically they just don't know what he might say or do if he gets into power, and that might include things that permanently challenge their grip on power.
He might quit after four to give Starmer a clear run at the subsequent election.He's getting on a bit though. I'd like to see a Corbyn PM but has he the energy for it over five years?