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 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Axon wrote:

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.

So, basically, win-win?

Right. So.

....I still have no idea what's going on.

MPs have inflicted a fresh humiliating defeat on Theresa May, voting to seize control of the parliamentary timetable to allow backbenchers to hold a series of votes on alternatives to her Brexit deal.

An amendment tabled by former Tory minister Oliver Letwin passed, by 329 votes to 302 on Monday night, as MPs expressed their exasperation at the government’s failure to set out a fresh approach.

The prime minister had earlier declined to say whether she would abide by the outcome of a process of “indicative votes”.

The government issued a punchy statement after the amendment passed, warning that it “upends the balance between our democratic institutions and sets a dangerous, unpredictable precedent for the future”.

Three ministers resigned from government in order to back the Letwin amendment: the foreign affairs minister, Alistair Burt, the health minister Steve Brine and the business minister Richard Harrington. A total of 29 Tory MPs rebelled to vote for the amendment.

So Parliament has voted 329-302 that, "wouldn't it be nice if we could get a better deal?"

Agathos wrote:

So Parliament has voted 329-302 that, "wouldn't it be nice if we could get a better deal?"

I mean, that is the most British response possible ever, if followed up with a tut, eyeroll and “typical"

Sorbicol wrote:

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...

Thank you for posting this, it's what I've been thinking all along. Everyone seems to be saying "This is the worst deal ever!!!!", but I'm not sure what else they were expecting. Of course the backstop has to be binding, otherwise it's not a backstop.

Zelos wrote:
Sorbicol wrote:

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...

Thank you for posting this, it's what I've been thinking all along. Everyone seems to be saying "This is the worst deal ever!!!!", but I'm not sure what else they were expecting. Of course the backstop has to be binding, otherwise it's not a backstop.

There is also the Political Declaration which is the document that will inform the future direction of negotiations. This is the part that the more Soft Brexit oriented people hate as it assumes the Red Lines that rule out anything other than Canada style FTA.

One of the issues here is that every one of the Government's Meaningful Votes has been on the WA and PD as a package deal. May's Deal is both parts. This is why you hear a lot of guff about people would vote for May's Deal if she resigned. The PD is completely up for changes after she goes. The EU have been very explicit that only the WA part needs to go through to get the extension past April.

Zelos wrote:
Sorbicol wrote:

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...

Thank you for posting this, it's what I've been thinking all along. Everyone seems to be saying "This is the worst deal ever!!!!", but I'm not sure what else they were expecting. Of course the backstop has to be binding, otherwise it's not a backstop.

The line missed out was about the nature of the ‘future relationship’ - that’s really the critically important bit, because it’s the UK signalling to the EU what they want the terms of any future relationship to be - in or out of the single market, customs union, EEA/Norway type arrangement, Canadian free trade style agreement. At the moment Mays agreement (‘the deal’) is to be out of the single market & customs union, but with special arrangements for Northern Ireland to meet our international agreements, and the fact nobody - not Ireland, the UK or the EU - actually wants a hard border.

The withdrawal agreement is an agreement between the UK and the EU on how they will approach those future talks. If Rees Mogg and his friends think ‘well, we’ll just agree to May’s deal for now to make sure we do get some kind of Brexit, and then just changes the terms of the WA during the transition period’ the EU will put them right on that very rapidly. And quite rightly too.

On the lighter side... Colbert vs Uri Geller vs Brexit

So, todays events:

MPs voted to move to indicative votes by 331 votes to 287. That despite moves by May to "encourage" Tory MPs to reject the motion. She gave up on that, gave Tory MPs a free vote on it but made sure she and her cabinet abstained.

She then spoke to the Parliamentary 1922 committee (think of this as the Tory backbench MP's parlimentary members only club) and said that she will resign as Prime Minister before the next stage of the Brexit negotiation process, whatever that might be. This is in effect a bribe to get Tory MPs to back her deal as she'll step aside if they do.

This is entirely for the benefit of the Tory party, it has nothing to do what is best for the UK. However this already appears to have failed as many hard line Brexiteers (Harder line than Rees Mogg or Boris for example) have said they still won't vote for it, some remain Tories have said the same and so have the DUP. She will be remembered as the worst Prime Minister in British political history, and deservedly so.

Meanwhile, Bercow reiterated his stance on allowing yet another vote on her deal, saying once again that he will not allow it if it is not substantially changed from the previous 2 times it was voted on. Therefore I think it's pretty unlikely it'll come to a vote again anyway.

Bercow has selected the following 8 indicative votes for Parliament to "decide" on:

No Deal. We leave on 12th April with No Deal. (I'm surprised he allowed this but there we go)

Common Market 2.0: The motion proposes UK membership of the European Free Trade Association (Efta) and European Economic Area (EEA). It allows continued participation in the single market and a “comprehensive customs arrangement” with the EU after Brexit, which would remain in place until the agreement of a wider trade deal that guarantees frictionless movement of goods and an open border on the island of Ireland. (I'm not sure how the existing members with this arrangement would feel about the UK joining them)

EFta/EEA without a customs deal. So basically the above without the "comprehensive customs arrangement"

Customs Union. This plan requires a commitment to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal

Labour's plan. Labour has tabled a motion proposing its plan for a close economic relationship with the EU. The plan includes a comprehensive customs union with the UK having a say on future trade deals; close alignment with the single market; matching new EU rights and protections; participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and agreement on future security arrangements, including access to the European arrest warrant. (I've gotta be honest, I really don't see what the difference is between this deal and actually remaining in the EU. This really would be Brexit in name only. I also don't see the EU agreeing to it)

Revoke Article 50 in the event a WA cannot be agreed and we get to within 2 days of the exit date. (Nice idea, can't see it being voted for)

Confirmatory Public Vote on any deal agreed in parliament before we go to backto the EU. (Fingers crossed. It should also be pointed out this will only stand for this Parliament only. If, for example a GE gets called, Labour win and then take over the process they would regard that as grounds for not holding a second public vote, and just carrying on regardless).

Contingent Preferential arrangements motion that calls for the government to seek to agree preferential trade arrangements with the EU, in case the UK is unable to implement a withdrawal agreement with the bloc. (I don't get this one - if we can't agree a WA what incentive is there for the EU to give anything?)

So now we face the reality that whatever Parliament decide, it'll be negotiated by a PM the general public didn't vote for, as determined by about 120,000 Conservative Party Members in an internal Party selection process. Oh joy

Excellent round up, Sorbicol. Just waiting on the results now.

Sorbicol wrote:

(I'm not sure how the existing members with this arrangement would feel about the UK joining them)

Oh, I think we know already

I know we say it every day now, but damn this is such a mess.

So 'close' for the new referendum though. Since it is the least disliked option - just do it!

Shadout wrote:

I know we say it every day now, but damn this is such a mess.

So 'close' for the new referendum though. Since it is the least disliked option - just do it!

Bright side: I’m going to buy a new i7 processor for my computer tomorrow after Sterling goes down the plug hole.

ALL EIGHT OPTIONS FAILED?

Prederick wrote:

Y'know, I love Peep Show, but Brexit truly is the greatest British comedy of the 21st Century.

Prederick wrote:

ALL EIGHT OPTIONS FAILED?

This like the government equivalent of "I don't know, what do you want to do tonight?" on an infinite loop.

I swear to God, this is absolutely amazing. It's the driest Monty Python sketch ever. "Here are eight ways to keep us from blowing our legs off. We decided No, No, No, No, No, No, No and No."

Sorbicol wrote:

She will be remembered as the worst Prime Minister in British political history, and deservedly so.

Worse than Chamberlain?

Ayes / No
160 - 400
188 - 283
65 - 377
264 - 272
237 - 307
184 - 293
268 - 295
139 - 422

I just wrote the numbers down but wow. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics...

Is there another planned step after this?

Rahmen wrote:

Is there another planned step after this?

Leftovers in the fridge and Netflix?

Rat Boy wrote:
Rahmen wrote:

Is there another planned step after this?

Leftovers in the fridge and Netflix?

Good idea to eat what's in the fridge before the power goes out and you have to retreat to your Brexit bunker and it's stock of baked beans.

They don't want no-deal, but they don't want any existing or hypothetical deals. They don't want a failsafe, and they don't want confirmation from the voters.

The hell do they think is going to happen? A magical Brexit fairy is going to give them all biscuits and pudding and make all their dreams come true?

Prederick wrote:

ALL EIGHT OPTIONS FAILED?

Prederick wrote:

Y'know, I love Peep Show, but Brexit truly is the greatest British comedy of the 21st Century.

I am sorry, but I laughed. And not just at the Thick of It clip. All eight failed. All.

I feel like I'm watching a real time season of The Thick of It right now.

BadKen wrote:

Worse than Chamberlain?

I think Eden is widely regarded as "the worst" in Modern History - at least until David Cameron got us in to this mess.

The Earl of Liverpool (Robert Jenkinson), responsible for the Peterloo massacre and heavily involved in the massacre of Tranent probably ranks quite highly as well. Sort of a blue print for Tories who very clearly believe the peasants (i.e. anyone not them or voted for them) should bloody well do what they are told.

Yeah, but there are scholars that argue that Chamberlain's appeasement permitted Hitler to stay in power, when a more speedy alliance against Germany might have allowed the German government to put someone else in charge.

"Potentially responsible for Hitler" is pretty bad. Maybe other PMs were worse for Britain, but that's hard to beat in terms of world impact.

I'll have to read up on those other guys. I am by no means an expert in English history. Mostly ignorant would describe me better. I do know of Æthelred the Unready, though!

Yet again, our adversarial parliament fails. There were plenty of other ways they could have done the votes that might have reached a consensus - ranking by preference, STV - but instead they stick with plain yes/no on each and get nowhere.

Just watching all the debates on TV is embarrassing in the 21st century. Why do we still persist with not providing enough space for all the MPs? Why do they have to stand opposite each other and shout across the aisle?

Netflix should reboot the original UK version of House of Cards, make it about Brexit, and call it House of 52-Card Pickup.

Zelos wrote:

Yet again, our adversarial parliament fails. There were plenty of other ways they could have done the votes that might have reached a consensus - ranking by preference, STV - but instead they stick with plain yes/no on each and get nowhere.

Just watching all the debates on TV is embarrassing in the 21st century. Why do we still persist with not providing enough space for all the MPs? Why do they have to stand opposite each other and shout across the aisle?

So Monday they are supposed to run more votes this time with preferential voting. Letwin purposely did these ones with Yes/No in case anything actually could win. They are playing a lot of catch up here. It's worth checking first to get the lay of the land. The Monday votes is where they will look for compromise.

DoveBrown wrote:

So Monday they are supposed to run more votes this time with preferential voting. Letwin purposely did these ones with Yes/No in case anything actually could win. They are playing a lot of catch up here. It's worth checking first to get the lay of the land. The Monday votes is where they will look for compromise.

I think a lot of the problem is that there isn’t a compromise to be had. The only two realistic options are either a full break no deal hard Brexit, or something so soft it’s probably just not worth leaving. Leaving the EU is a binary issue - we’re either in or out - but none of the binary solutions are acceptable to a majority.

DoveBrown wrote:

So Monday they are supposed to run more votes this time with preferential voting. Letwin purposely did these ones with Yes/No in case anything actually could win. They are playing a lot of catch up here. It's worth checking first to get the lay of the land. The Monday votes is where they will look for compromise.

From what Letwin said this morning on Today, they're not going with preference voting, it's just "voting now they know what other MPs think" or something.

Sorbicol wrote:

Leaving the EU is a binary issue - we’re either in or out...

If that was defined before the referendum it would have made more sense. It wasn't, it isn't binary, and so we are in this mess. The binary option of stay-in or completely-out is attractive because it is easy to understand but it is not where the balance of opinion is in the country or in Parliament.

I don't think eight nos is as negative as it sounds. It was encouraging that some of the softer exit compromise solutions were close and seem to have a chance to being agreed. This will push ERG types to accept the Prime Minister's deal as the lesser evil and might drag that decomposing corpse over the line.

If MPs do decide one of the closer to Europe options is their choice I think the EU will be very happy to accommodate this.