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 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

So what happened? She was rather firm in the video on the last page saying she would follow what the people voted two years ago. Why is she willing to let it go now?

I would assume, if she allows it, it is for it to be voted down, so she can double down on "my way is the only way".
Surely it will be voted down. I cant see how they could reverse A50 without going through a new referendum.

The Revoke Article 50 petition is up to 3.6M signatures.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...

That absolutely won't happen. It's to shut down the petition that BadKen posted above. A somewhat dramatic over-reaction on her part really. If it gets to 18 million the pressure for at least a second referendum would become immense.

Not that it will, unfortunately.

Sorbicol wrote:

That absolutely won't happen. It's to shut down the petition that BadKen posted above. A somewhat dramatic over-reaction on her part really.

Isn't that how you all got the first referendum?

Axon wrote:

What makes you think they’ve reinterpreted Article 50?

When they ruled that an Article 50 notification of intention could be unilaterally withdraw, even though there's no language in there about it and there is other language about how to roll back an Article 50 notice.

And you’re meant to think the developed European countries with strong welfare states are in trouble and scary places. Don’t believe it. As I said, the narrative pushed in all US media is shoddy journalism at best. The reason they do it I can only guess.

Um, the UK might hard crash out of the EU. That's scary. Maybe you're thinking I mean scary as in anarchy or lawlessness, but I mean a level of political consensus breaking down that favors reactionaries.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Axon wrote:

What makes you think they’ve reinterpreted Article 50?

When they ruled that an Article 50 notification of intention could be unilaterally withdraw, even though there's no language in there about it and there is other language about how to roll back an Article 50 notice.

I see where you're confused. No, the EU27 didn't rule anything. 27 different countries cannot be allowed to interpret treaties as they see fit our the entire project would fail. The ruling came from the ECJ which is the independent oversight of the project and all member states are, by law, required to follow it's rulings. This case was opposed by UK Government and very much against the will of the EU27 and the Commission. The Commission stated at the time that it believed that no country can unilaterally revoke Article 50.

It was point of law that was argued by Scottish MPs through there court system and onto the ECJ because, as you are 100% correct to point out, the article wasn't clear if you could revoke the notice or not. And if you could, how? The ECJ decided on the basis of the current treaty's wording that you could and you could unilaterally. The EU27 and the Commission are now forced to accept the ruling even though it's against their preferred outcome because it's a rules based project.

I'm not stating something out of the ordinary by saying the EU is a rules based organisation. It simply has to be or it cannot work. Sure, the rules get bent and massaged but it only tend to be so far because challenges can come from any source. A single citizen can take a case to the ECJ that can have huge outcomes which national governments often fight against.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Axon wrote:

And you’re meant to think the developed European countries with strong welfare states are in trouble and scary places. Don’t believe it. As I said, the narrative pushed in all US media is shoddy journalism at best. The reason they do it I can only guess.

Um, the UK might hard crash out of the EU. That's scary. Maybe you're thinking I mean scary as in anarchy or lawlessness, but I mean a level of political consensus breaking down that favors reactionaries.

That is indeed a fair point. Thing is, some would argue that it's the dismantling and hallowing out of the welfare state by the Tories in the UK that has caused Brexit.

Watched that this morning and I got a little upset. John Harris does good work.

Axon wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Axon wrote:

What makes you think they’ve reinterpreted Article 50?

When they ruled that an Article 50 notification of intention could be unilaterally withdraw, even though there's no language in there about it and there is other language about how to roll back an Article 50 notice.

I see where you're confused. No, the EU27 didn't rule anything.

No, don't worry, I was aware of that. What I'm saying is that this was way more 'bent' than 'massaged'. From the coverage I remember, most of it considered a notice irrevocable.

Certainly if I ever dealt with a lawyer who drew up a contract that listed a really difficult, multilateral way to roll back a whole legal process once someone gave a particular kind of notice, and then was all like "no, there's also this other unilateral way that's the same as giving notice in the first place, I just didn't bother to list it" I'd be like "yeaahh I want my money back."

Like I said, don't get me wrong: I'm *glad* the courts went this way and provided another possible lifeline to avoid this turning into a disaster, even if it looks very results orientated.

That is indeed a fair point. Thing is, some would argue that it's the dismantling and hallowing out of the welfare state by the Tories in the UK that has caused Brexit.

Watched that this morning and I got a little upset. John Harris does good work.

Can't watch a video right now, but yeah--that would be sad. With the silver lining that at least it suggests there's something we can *do* about it. That it's like fighting fascism in the 30s, where a timely intervention in the economy can prevent a turn away from democracy. If hollowing out the welfare state led to this, maybe rebuilding it can reverse it. What scares me is if it can't, because where do you go from there?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Axon wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Axon wrote:

What makes you think they’ve reinterpreted Article 50?

When they ruled that an Article 50 notification of intention could be unilaterally withdraw, even though there's no language in there about it and there is other language about how to roll back an Article 50 notice.

I see where you're confused. No, the EU27 didn't rule anything.

No, don't worry, I was aware of that. What I'm saying is that this was way more 'bent' than 'massaged'. From the coverage I remember, most of it considered a notice irrevocable.

Certainly if I ever dealt with a lawyer who drew up a contract that listed a really difficult, multilateral way to roll back a whole legal process once someone gave a particular kind of notice, and then was all like "no, there's also this other unilateral way that's the same as giving notice in the first place, I just didn't bother to list it" I'd be like "yeaahh I want my money back."

The reality is that Art50 is surprisingly terse and it is really only in the treaty as a massive afterthought (funnily enough it is there to prevent the US's experience of revolution). There isn't much obvious intent and process encoded in that paragraph. It only gives described the bare bones of a process to signalling intent to leave. So it's hardly surprising that such a flimsy bit of treaty would need ruling on. Its not reasonable to characterise the ECJ's ruling as reinterpretation because until they were asked to look it was so ambiguous as to be open to any old interpretation

DanB wrote:

The reality is that Art50 is surprisingly terse and it is really only in the treaty as a massive afterthought (funnily enough it is there to prevent the US's experience of revolution). There isn't much obvious intent and process encoded in that paragraph. It only gives described the bare bones of a process to signalling intent to leave. So it's hardly surprising that such a flimsy bit of treaty would need ruling on. Its not reasonable to characterise the ECJ's ruling as reinterpretation because until they were asked to look it was so ambiguous as to be open to any old interpretation

Just because something is terse doesn't mean it's ambiguous. It may be bare bones but this wasn't a question of "oh, um, we've hit the midway point and we're not sure how to continue on to the end." This was a case of looking for an alternate way off the prescribed path, because the law as written leads to a stinky result. Clearly.

Like the article I linked states:

“It seemed to me very likely that a dictatorial regime would then, in high dudgeon, want to storm out. And to have a procedure for storming out seemed to be quite a sensible thing to do — to avoid the legal chaos of going with no agreement,” Kerr said.

That they wrote it with that case in mind doesn't make the law itself in need of interpretation. If anything, it suggest that the Brexit crisis is *exactly* what they had in mind. They just thought it would be a safety valve in case an "authoritarian leader took power in a member country." Not a major member of the Union going politically bonkers.

Like I said, I'm *glad* they did it to try and prevent the damage a poorly planned Brexit will inflict on everyone. But "oh my goodness we never thought this result could happen we should have had an additional section" doesn't make the existing section incomplete.

Axon wrote:

Watched that this morning and I got a little upset. John Harris does good work.

I'm catching up with those videos now. Upsetting, in a lot of ways, but interesting.

Again, cheeze_pavilion, you're using "they" to cover several institutions and individuals that are independent from each other. And "they", or the ECJ in this case, didn't do it to prevent damage. It was a point of law for them. No more, no less.

In fact, allowing member states revoke Article 50 is a serious problem for the EU going forward and nobody was happy about the ruling. The potential for it's abuse is obvious. It's probably going to require treaty change to fix it. And don't think treaty change is easy either because that can be quite the nightmare from direct experience

Either way your point that they needed the ruling to stop Brexit isn't valid. The the notice to withdraw could have been revoked at any time prior to the ruling only requiring the consent of both parties. The ruling only changed it from multilateral to unilateral. That's all. It's very obvious how this can be abused now.

In the end the ruling just created more problems and didn't solve the one you claim it did. That's why all the UK government, EU27, the Commission and the Parliament were all unhappy with the ruling. The only reason it was brought to the ECJ by a group of Scottish SNP MPs was to put pressure on Theresa May. It was not, and I'm repeating this, the stated desire of the EU27 as it only weakened their position.

Axon wrote:

Again, cheeze_pavilion, you're using "they" to cover several institutions and individuals that are independent from each other. And "they", or the ECJ in this case, didn't do it to prevent damage. It was a point of law for them. No more, no less.

Again, that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that courts are not perfectly neutral arbiters. Courts are composed of human beings. They're not always going to be perfectly objective (and as long as we're getting our technical ducks in a row, the ECJ ruling took the recommendation of the Advocate General).

Look, I don't have any direct evidence that this is how it happened. Then again, no one does. My point is that this was a very convenient ruling on a law that was very clear. That's evidence that it was not simply a point of law.

Either way your point that they needed the ruling to stop Brexit isn't valid. The the notice to withdraw could have been revoked at any time prior to the ruling only requiring the consent of both parties. The ruling only changed it from multilateral to unilateral. That's all. It's very obvious how this can be abused now.

No, my point is valid. Changing it from multilateral to unilateral means the UK can end this anytime it wants. That's a significant change that you're downplaying. A change that makes it much easier to end this.

(moved two of your paragraphs around for sake of clarity)

In fact, allowing member states revoke Article 50 is a serious problem for the EU going forward and nobody was happy about the ruling. The potential for it's abuse is obvious. It's probably going to require treaty change to fix it. And don't think treaty change is easy either because that can be quite the nightmare from direct experience

...

In the end the ruling just created more problems and didn't solve the one you claim it did. That's why all the UK government, EU27, the Commission and the Parliament were all unhappy with the ruling. The only reason it was brought to the ECJ by a group of Scottish SNP MPs was to put pressure on Theresa May. It was not, and I'm repeating this, the stated desire of the EU27 as it only weakened their position.

Oh, we're in agreement on that. Like in the article I posted, the intent behind that part of the Article was to deal with grandstanding dictators, and now they can jerk the EU around if they want, until "good faith" or whatever is defined.

Just sometimes weakening your position in one area is worth how it strengthens it in another. The UK sprang a crisis on everyone and this ruling helps avoid an immediate catastrophe. Will there be negative consequences down the road? Sure, this was not a *perfect* solution, but few solutions are. Sometimes all you have in front of you is the least worst decision.

Look, the tl;dr here is you think this ruling was just a point of law, and I think the ruling was influenced by the judges having the consequences of the ruling in their minds when they made it. The reason I think that is because the law is dead simple, almost everything I remember reading in the run up to the ruling indicated this wasn't the way people thought the court would rule, and whatever the long-term consequences, this avoids an immediate catastrophe.

I mean, here's what one of the people who worked on the case said about the ruling:

The tiny Good Law project and six brave Scottish Parliamentarians have taken on the Government, the 27 other member States and the Commission – and won. This is the biggest upset since the First Book of Samuel and arguably the most important case in modern domestic legal history.

super tl;dr: judges are humans, not lawbots.

edit: in the interests of full disclosure, the article also states:

Andy Wightman, Green MSP for Lothian tweeted : FULL CJEU #article50 ruling now published. Clear & unambiguous. Upholds our arguments. Having read submissions & heard evidence, there really was no other legal option.”

Haven't read the submissions or heard the evidence, but if someone wants to say I'm wrong you can go mine that. Knew I should have stopped digging when I found that first article! : D

Then again, now that I think about it, that would also militate against the idea that Art. 50 was ambiguous and in need of an interpretation, so this sword seems to have two edges...

pyxistyx wrote:
Axon wrote:

Watched that this morning and I got a little upset. John Harris does good work.

I'm catching up with those videos now. Upsetting, in a lot of ways, but interesting.

Aren't they. And they have resonance across the world. We've taken a wrong turn somewhere, that is no doubt. It's not like people are asking for much, just a job that feeds and clothes them.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2WuN_vUcAEK1IB.jpg:large)

You know what I notice about that picture. The Poll tax in the UK failed because middle aged, middle class white men started marching against it. That picture is interesting.

Oh and if you are a middle aged, middle class or well to do white man, remember that. A politician sees you on a rally well turned out, they worry. 20 years ago they wouldn't spit on me if I was on fire. Now, with local elections coming up for example, I have my fill of them. Not the way it should be but worth being aware of.

Canary in the coal mine is what I getting at.

Axon wrote:

You know what I notice about that picture. The Poll tax in the UK failed because middle aged, middle class white men started marching against it. That picture is interesting.

Oh and if you are a middle aged, middle class or well to do white man, remember that. A politician sees you on a rally well turned out, they worry. 20 years ago they wouldn't spit on me if I was on fire. Now, with local elections coming up for example, I have my fill of them. Not the way it should be but worth being aware of.

Canary in the coal mine is what I getting at.

Yet the vast majority of people on the People's Vote march are white, middle class and well educated. They just don't generally vote Conservative, so the Conservative party will ignore them. Jeremy Corbyn is too blinkered to understand why he needs them, and why he's never going to be Prime Minister.

The poll tax failed because everybody rioted, regardless political affiliation. It penalised everyone except the super rich who it would have disproportionately benefited. When everybody but the 1% is getting punished, even the middle classes will get off their arses and do something about it. Thing is, that included core Conservative support, hence they backtracked very rapidly.

Photos from the march are pretty impressive. Wall to wall people in Parliament Square. Also, this:

IMAGE(https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/_GHiA2iSituJPOGIswOuxA/https/d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/yu5WU0bpSiSFgH0B5IUV_GettyImages-1132156942.jpg)

The continued delusion that there is a 'good' version for Britain to exit the EU from a British perspective is just mind blowing for me. There is no better version that they can hold out for. Fine: You wanted to leave the relationship, pack up your stuff and get out.

May just confirmed that in a no-deal scenario, border checks would have to be introduced between Ireland and Northern Ireland. I mean, everyone knew that but the UK government were avoiding this reality. The DUP are not happy. Of course, the DUP have painted themselves into a corner but I wouldn't shed a tear for them. This means that her deal is now done. Has to be.

Revoke or no-deal now. Sweet Jesus, what a shower.

Edit: Of course I could be 100% wrong. Deal will probably pass after all

Axon wrote:

May just confirmed that in a no-deal scenario, border checks would have to be introduced between Ireland and Northern Ireland. I mean, everyone knew that but the UK government were avoiding this reality. The DUP are not happy. Of course, the DUP have painted themselves into a corner but I wouldn't shed a tear for them. This means that her deal is now done. Has to be.

Revoke or no-deal now. Sweet Jesus, what a shower.

Edit: Of course I could be 100% wrong. Deal will probably pass after all :)

She's just spent an hour in parliament basically saying this:

"You have to vote for my deal.

If you don't vote for my deal I'm going to ignore whatever else anyone tells me to do, either the opposition, my own party members or any parliamentary indicative vote.

If you don't vote for my deal, we'll go through a default no deal process because I won't do anything to stop it.

So vote for my deal"

Right now the only end game I can see is another general election.

But she needs Labour to vote for a GE. I hate to be this cynical but why would Labour let the Tories off the hook now?

If, and this is a big if, no-deal is really off the table then it has be revoke or second referendum. But who knows at this point.

Amendments for tonight. Letwin's is the big one. And if passed has to be (in a normal situation) the end of May.

Government is saying it will do what the Letwin amendment proposes but doesn't want the amendment to pass. When pressed for details the government spokes man won't give them. At some point this farce has to end.

Axon wrote:

At some point this farce has to end.

Do you want a new farce? Because that's how you get a new farce.

Axon wrote:

At some point this farce has to end.

I feel the need to clarify what is currently not agreed in the UK Parliament.

They are not voting on the deal for the future relationship between the UK and the EU. They are voting on the terms of the withdrawal agreement. It's currently actually quite common sense - it says that all applicable Eu law will become UK law (with a few deviations about future potential laws in the UK) and the "backstop" is merely an agreement to keep NI specifically in the single market & customs union, should we get to the end of the two year transition period without an agreement. It does also set out some of the expectations of the future relationship - in or out of the single market, that type of thing - but it doesn't set any of it in stone.

That transition period is where "the deal" will be negotiated. After all this, just imagine how much fun all that's going to be................

Solution: UK gives Northern Ireland back to Ireland. I'm sure that'll make everyone happy, right?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Solution: UK gives Northern Ireland back to Ireland. I'm sure that'll make everyone happy, right?

Nah, much better to cut if off, float it across the Irish Sea and weld it to Scotland.

I’ve posted this before but I’ve always liked this “what if” that explains why it would be fraught. And I’ve always liked Jason’s work.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Solution: UK gives Northern Ireland back to Ireland. I'm sure that'll make everyone happy, right?

there are very definitely some members of parliament who see this as the ultimate solution. Oddly enough, they are mostly Conservative.