[Discussion] Brexit means Brexit

Discuss the political fallout and other issues around Britain's exit, Brexit for short, from the EU.

For the sake of clarity, I'm including the full text of Article 50.

Article 50 wrote:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Have to agree that this isn't going to get pass parliament. The question then is what's next? No-deal or second referendum?

Slightly more readable Euler diagram of the UK and its immediate geopolitical realtionships

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Zj0axBs.jpg)

Axon wrote:

Have to agree that this isn't going to get pass parliament. The question then is what's next? No-deal or second referendum?

What question do you ask in a second referendum though? And would there even be time before Brexit happens in March?

Maybe it could be a multiple choice question:

1) May's deal
2) The imaginary amazing deal that Rees-Mogg made with the evil wizards in Brussels.
3) Call the whole thing off

The Brexiteers will kick up a massive fuss if "stay in the EU" is an option.

You know, say what you want about the state of British democracy but the House of Commons is great on days like these.

Zelos wrote:
Axon wrote:

Have to agree that this isn't going to get pass parliament. The question then is what's next? No-deal or second referendum?

What question do you ask in a second referendum though? And would there even be time before Brexit happens in March?

It's been admitted that the referendum, if it got the go ahead, would occur in May at the earliest. So and extension of article 50 would be required. I'm not even sure the EU would give them that extension and let the UK go into a no-deal scenario before another referendum.

Zelos wrote:

Maybe it could be a multiple choice question:

1) May's deal
2) The imaginary amazing deal that Rees-Mogg made with the evil wizards in Brussels.
3) Call the whole thing off

The Brexiteers will kick up a massive fuss if "stay in the EU" is an option.

And what if the UK passes a referendum to stop the article 50 and the EU says no? Is the EU27 going to encourage countries to use article 50 as a mean to cripple the institutions as a whole?

Think I've said this before, the damage is now done. We are just left wondering how badly.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr_nIf8X4AA5klK.jpg)

And what if the UK passes a referendum to stop the article 50 and the EU says no? Is the EU27 going to encourage countries to use article 50 as a mean to cripple the institutions as a whole?

There is a legal case that is being "fast-tracked" currently to establish whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its notification under Article 50 , or whether that withdrawal needs to be bi-lateral with the EU. The issue being discussed earlier today (on the radio) was whether the results of the case would be known before the UK Parliament had its "meaningful" vote, ie it would either be of critical importance, or a quirky footnote in history.

So I had been reading that pretty much the only extension for Article 50 would occur if something significant was going to occur. I think a referendum is the sort of thing that would cause it.

I'm not sure what the danger is to the EU allowing the UK to revoke Article 50 (the legal position isn't clear), but there are large swathes of Europe that would be very happy for that to happen. The amazing thing to me is how little the Brexit bull has damaged the EU's running. Sure they had to have a load of meetings with Barnier and there is lot of happening for the Republic and the UK but my impression is that other countries don't expend all that much effort on it. Even the Commission doesn't seem to be effected much by it. If anything it's kind of proved the institution works in the case. It's not like the big problem of Poland and Hungry which are in the EU, definitely not going to leave, but don't want to play by the current rules.

Well, one of our fellow goodjers has already said as much. It's part of the reason I've kept this seperate from the other European catch-all even if they do cross-over from time to time.

On Article 50, I'd be stunned if the ECJ interprets the text as to allow the UK unilaterally revoke the notification. Read the text above. It's very short and easily understood. If any entity could unilaterally revoke the process it's the EU27 and not the leaving member. I think some people are clutching at straws. No harm trying, I suppose.

On Article 50, I'd be stunned if the ECJ interprets the text as to allow the UK unilaterally revoke the notification. Read the text above. It's very short and easily understood. If any entity could unilaterally revoke the process it's the EU27 and not the leaving member. I think some people are clutching at straws. No harm trying, I suppose.

It's interesting how sometime even "short and easily understood" may not be.

I do wonder whether the issue might hinge around the word "intention". I can give my notice of my intention to go to the cinema in a week's time, and I can even agree travel and ticket-buying arrangements with my friends, but at any point before the show starts I can, in theory, change my mind unilaterally as I have only stated an intention, and not a irrevocable commitment.

I may have missed a step here where, in this case, the intention is actually an irrevocable legal commitment - if so I'd be happy for someone to educate me.

Next week, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

chiefsheep wrote:

It's interesting how sometime even "short and easily understood" may not be.

You are 100% right. I think we can all think of an example or two that proves your point

chiefsheep wrote:

I do wonder whether the issue might hinge around the word "intention". I can give my notice of my intention to go to the cinema in a week's time, and I can even agree travel and ticket-buying arrangements with my friends, but at any point before the show starts I can, in theory, change my mind unilaterally as I have only stated an intention, and not a irrevocable commitment.

I may have missed a step here where, in this case, the intention is actually an irrevocable legal commitment - if so I'd be happy for someone to educate me.

Next week, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Like I said, worth a try I suppose but even if the ECJ does find that article 50 can be revoked unilaterally can you, hand on heart, see any government doing so before March?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...

Prime Minister Theresa May battled on Thursday to save a draft divorce deal with the European Union after her Brexit secretary and other ministers quit in protest at an agreement they say will trap Britain in the bloc’s orbit for years.

Just over 12 hours after May announced that her team of top ministers had agreed to the terms of the draft agreement, Brexit minister Dominic Raab and work and pensions minister Esther McVey quit, saying they could not support it.

Their departure, and the resignations of two junior ministers, shakes May’s divided government. Raab is the second Brexit secretary to quit over May’s plans to leave the EU, the biggest shift in British policy in more than 40 years.

I thought I had a good handle on things but when Raab quit I was bemused as I thought he was the person responsible for negotiating the deal, but apparently not. So I don't really get what the point of the Brexit secretary position is.

Has anyone got a good break down of what the draft agreement actually is? The best I could find is the EU Commission's fact sheets on the main part and on the backstop.

It kind of looks like until the end of the transition period it's the EU acting like the UK is Norway. Then if no alternative FTA has been reached it's a Customs Union with NI explicitly in the Single Market and the UK following all the rules of the Single Market but not in the single market with the exception of no explicit free movement of labour but there is in the backstop document: "The Common Travel Area between Ireland and the United Kingdom and its associated rights and privileges will continue to apply in conformity with EU law, in particular on free movement of EU citizens." Does that mean that free movement of labour for all EU citizens comes in the backdoor of the Common Travel Area? This would effectively make the UK act like Norway under the Backstop.

If no deal can be reached, after two years of trying, surely there needs to be another referendum. Leaving the EU with no deal should not even be a worst case scenario.

The public voted, matter of fact, but the politicians have failed to deliver on what was touted. In that sense what was voted for is, and perhaps always was, unobtainable. Whether it be fraudulence or incompetence is up for debate. What should not be is forging onwards with whatever can be cobbled together to simply get over the line. Stop. Reevaluate.

The public should not suffer for the failings of the politicians. They, the politicians, failed by having a referendum prior to having an adequate framework in place. (Look at where are...) They then failed to find a solution to that which, seemingly, few are even remotely content to go forward with.

Unfortunately, the political system may be too convoluted for common sense. Prepare for civil unrest, I guess.

The public are not without blame. But who put forth a referendum for them to vote on. Who played with truths and possibilities for them to rally behind. If anything this may have woke the greater populace up to self examination, as oppose to blind faith. It may also have came too late.

Current scenarios as I see them (feel free to disagree)

1. May loses her vote of no confidence. All hell breaks loose and there will be a hard Brexit in days. Worst case scenario, break up of the union, rioting In the streets (eventually).

2. May wins her vote, but her deal gets voted down in parliament. This is the only scenario where I see a second referendum coming on a 1. Take the deal or 2. Remain being the options. Brexiteers will
Have apoplexy, nobody else will care.

3. May wins and the deal gets voted through. We leave next March on this terms with the details to be negotiated. The UK will indefinitely remain in the customs union before applying to rejoin the EU in a decade or so.

Lots of ifs, buts and supposes in that but more or less I don’t see much else happening unless Corbyn is deposed and Labour decide we’re not leaving.

Sorbicol wrote:

Current scenarios as I see them (feel free to disagree)

1. May loses her vote of no confidence. All hell breaks loose and there will be a hard Brexit in days. Worst case scenario, break up of the union, rioting In the streets (eventually).

TM may well be ousted but odds are a hardline brexiter can't win the ensuing leadership battle. Conservative party members want out of europe but the polling suggests there is no appetite for the hardest of brexits. Saying all that I probably shouldn't ignore the fact that Tories will put their party stability ahead of the needs of the country

Sorbicol wrote:

2. May wins her vote, but her deal gets voted down in parliament. This is the only scenario where I see a second referendum coming on a 1. Take the deal or 2. Remain being the options. Brexiteers will
Have apoplexy, nobody else will care.

I suspect this will be the worst outcome. The outcome is likely to be marginal again. If it goes for leave it will be interpreted as vindication and a licence for the hardest of brexits. If it goes for remain UK politics likely won't be move past The EU Question for another generation (or more)

Sorbicol wrote:

3. May wins and the deal gets voted through. We leave next March on this terms with the details to be negotiated. The UK will indefinitely remain in the customs union before applying to rejoin the EU in a decade or so.

I suspect something like this is where we'll end up and this is the take the most sober of pundits have had for the last 2 years. May stays in office or some otherTory leave moderate takes the helm and we apply to rejoin the EU after another decade as 'the sick man of Europe'

Now Spain is threatening to not approve the deal because of Gibraltar.
Bunch of hypocrites.

slazev wrote:

Now Spain is threatening to not approve the deal because of Gibraltar.
Bunch of hypocrites.

Spain wants a say about Gibraltar. Shocker.

Nobody expects the Spanish imposition.

I think they want any agreement about Gibraltar to be between The UK and Spain, not the UK and the EU. I’m not sure that’s the EUs position. The deal still has to get through the UK Parliament, and despite the Brexiteers coup failing at the first hurdle I still don’t think that’ll happen.

IMAGE(https://i.redd.it/14u12do9mjz11.jpg)

I’d already posted those a few pages back. They’re still hilarious.

Interesting back and forth with Fintan O'Toole and Helen Thompson. Some food for thought on English nationalism while May tries to sell her deal.

Well, chiefsheep, the odds are on you being right. This makes the actual ECJ decision all the more compelling because it will have far-reaching consequences out side of Brexit.

Just for context, the ECJ agrees with the Advocate General roughly 2 in every 3 cases.

The really fun bit here is that both the UK and the EU tried to stop this court case, each for their own reasons. I do applaud the fact that a court appears to be remaining outside of the political here and considering the issue purely on a point of law.

The non binding opinion (not yet a ruling) does open a whole new can of worms in that there is theoretically nothing to stop an EU nation giving notice to leave, and then withdrawing that notice as it wishes for whatever motivation during the notice period. I can see the EU looking to "tidy up" the wording some time in the future.

Either way I am glad that the question will be settled one way or another which avoids people making "ah, but it wouldn't matter because....." arguments based on option and not fact. For me the key point here is that people get to make informed decisions, and the more clear and accurate information that is available the better.

It's going to be an exciting and impassioned week or so in politics here in the UK ahead of the vote on 11 December. In what must be nearing peak irony, we now have hard line Brexiteers intending to vote down the proposed deal, risking the UK not leaving at all, and Remainers intending to vote down the deal, risking a full on Hard Brexit.

What I am pretty sure of is that no-one, however they voted two years ago, voted for this.

Watching the Conservative party implode would be great fun if they weren't also in charge of this sh*tshow.

Well, what do I know? ECJ rules that the UK can indeed unilaterally revoke article 50. Make one prediction in this whole saga and end up with egg on my face.

However there is a get-out clause. The revocation is only acceptable to the court following “a democratic process”. Basically this mean either a General Election or Referendum. This is mechanism guards against “bad faith” actors in general and requires the UK to have either type of election. Which might/probably require an extension. The extension still remains something requiring all EU27 approval.

I’d wager May is going to be defeated badly tomorrow but my confidence in predicting is shaken. Back to my usual “who knows” for this process

Axon wrote:

Well, what do I know? ECJ rules that the UK can indeed unilaterally revoke article 50.

However there is a get-out clause. The revocation is only acceptable to the court following “a democratic process”. Basically this mean either a General Election or Referendum. This is mechanism guards against “bad faith” actors in general and requires the UK to have either type of election.

I increasingly think there’ll be a second referendum, then article 50 will be revoked. May has no hope of getting her deal through parliament, and as I said before despite all the rhetoric, a second referendum is the ultimate ‘get out of jail free’ card politically speaking - the will of the people and all that. At least we can change our minds.

God knows what way the vote will go but realistically the only meaningful votes left would be - no deal, or remain.

Still given the political ‘leadership’ this country currently enjoys there’s a long way to go before we get there.

Looks like May is calling off the vote. At what point does this farce end? Have to agree, Sorbical, no-deal or remain are the only options on the table.

Well, the UK could have some massive market shock between now and March 29th and vote for May’s deal in that environment. What a mess.