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 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Sorbicol wrote:

[Nobody - no matter what their opinion on the matter - voted for a "No Deal" Brexit.

I'll have to disagree here. I think it's pretty clear that "stuck in limbo trying to leave" is a worse state than No Deal, and a lot of people recognize that. "Stuck in limbo trying to leave" also means the government is not doing what the people of Britain voted to do, and I think quite a few people are tired of that as well. At the end of the day, if a deal can't be reached, then it can't - life goes on, and new negotiations will occur and eventually settle the problems create by the No Deal exit.

Boris will never take this country out on a No Deal basis unless he actively rigs the democratic and parliamentary process to make it happen, because the overwhelming majority of MPs in this country do not want a No Deal Brexit. He's going to find that next to impossible.

Here's the thing though: all he has to do to achieve a No Deal exit is ... nothing. The decision was made years ago, and the date is set. Previous administrations had to take active steps to prevent it. It's clear that nothing other than No Deal is going to work, because the EU is done negotiating on the exit.

Parliament has a choice. They can decisively reject a democratic decision because it had an unhappy ending caused by their own incompetence. Or they can just bite the bullet, leave, and deal with the aftermath. I think the default is going to be the latter because the former is going to be ugly.

There is absolutely no evidence that the 52% who voted Leave voted for a No-Deal. It is arguable whether the 52% even voted to leave the Single Market. There also it's a huge amount of evidence that "stuck in a limbo trying to leave" is better than "no deal". The factories and businesses dependent on the EU market are still open and functioning, investment is not happening which is damaging but not fatal.

Saying crap like "the government is not doing what the people of Britain voted to do" seems to show a fundamental ignorance about how the referendum was run with actual lies and no policy from the Leave campaign.

It never ceases to amaze me that the 17 million or so people who voted leave think the 16 million who actively voted to stay are going to sit by and say ‘OK, fine’. It’s not fine. At all. And staying in limbo not leaving is infinitely preferable to No Deal when you never wanted to leave in the first place.

Boris can’t sit and do nothing because Parliament, as it has consistently and repeatedly made clear, doesn’t want a No Deal. They sure prevaricate a lot on that I agree because they are trying to honour the result, but it’s very very clear Boris either needs to find a consensus, or go to a general election. Either by choice or because he loses a VoNC.

I think there was some percentage of Empire nostalgists who wanted an F-you exit. But the idea that there is a golden past you can retreat to, where things were better than they are now, is pure fantasy.

Parliament has voted down a no-deal exit because it looks like it will have devastating consequences with real world pain, as opposed to the hardliners that view it as an ideological purity test.

Sorbicol wrote:

Nobody - no matter what their opinion on the matter - voted for a "No Deal" Brexit.

Not to mention scrapping the Good Friday Agreement.

Al wrote:
Sorbicol wrote:

Nobody - no matter what their opinion on the matter - voted for a "No Deal" Brexit.

Not to mention scrapping the Good Friday Agreement.

Northern Ireland wasn't even considered. Which I'm sure Aetius hasn't either.

I'll let James O'Brien answer you Aetius because as somebody who lived through the Troubles and has a son with type 1 diabetes you're cavalier attitude to no-deal leaves me a little annoyed. In fact if democracy was your real concern shouldn't people be allowed to vote on the result of the negotiations? Or is that too much democracy for you?

The problem with the "it was a democratic vote" lobby. Is that whole point of rhetoric comes only from people who either fundamentally do not understand the constitution of the UK or it comes from the right-wing who have a vested interest in pushing a fundamentally warped (and basically propaganda style) reading of the UK's constitution.

The UK is a representative democracy with executive power vested in parliament (via a kind of royal grace). Executive and legislative power has never been been vested in the populace, who are subjects of the queen. It has always been parliament's prerogative to pass (or block) whatever legislation they see fit, and arguably parliament has a specific duty to govern the country in a way that doesn't do harm (I'm sure there's a whole lot of contentious legal/constitutional philosophy about that last claim).

Personally I think if the populace ask for something that can not be done then leadership should stand up and speak that truth. But sadly we seem not to live in that world. Instead we have a constitutional crisis precipitated by a government which is in no place to deliver whatever it is that the most virulent right-wing media is screaming for, a parliament happy to block (and well within its rights) any legislation it feels will harm the country and an ill-educated populace who have been basically lied to about what it means to have a referendum and parliament's constitutional role. And alongside that the Tory party (and parliament) which have been consistently outmanoeuvred by the right wing press, we've gone from "of course we'll stay in the single market" to "only the hardest possible brexit is acceptable" in the course of 2 years.

Now, I'm not delighted by brexit especially under the auspices of a Tory government but I'm no wholly against. Good leadership should have been able to say that leaving the EU is a generation long project and that it would need to be done in stages for the good of the economy and populace. And good leadership should have been able to state what was realistically possible at any given stage. Instead we have a government that that was manipulated in to "doing it as fast and as catastrophically possible". There was certainly nothing about the referendum that suggested if need to be done as quickly as possible.

Sorbicol wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me that the 17 million or so people who voted leave think the 16 million who actively voted to stay are going to sit by and say ‘OK, fine’.

This is literally the definition of democratic rule. Would you be so considerate of the losing side if the vote was reversed?

Al wrote:

Not to mention scrapping the Good Friday Agreement.

Axon wrote:

Northern Ireland wasn't even considered. Which I'm sure Aetius hasn't either.

The Good Friday agreement has nothing to do with the EU. If it's scrapped, it'll be because Ireland and the UK choose to close the border and scrap the agreement, which is entirely unnecessary. All they have to do is leave it alone. In fact, leaving the border open would provide a nice safety valve to keep businesses that rely on access to the EU functioning, as goods can cross that border (without a trade agreement! the horror!). It's only the intransigence and pigheadedness of Irish, UK, and EU politicians that are making it a problem by trying to use it as leverage.

DanB wrote:

The problem with the "it was a democratic vote" lobby. Is that whole point of rhetoric comes only from people who either fundamentally do not understand the constitution of the UK or it comes from the right-wing who have a vested interest in pushing a fundamentally warped (and basically propaganda style) reading of the UK's constitution.

The UK is a representative democracy with executive power vested in parliament (via a kind of royal grace). Executive and legislative power has never been been vested in the populace, who are subjects of the queen. It has always been parliament's prerogative to pass (or block) whatever legislation they see fit, and arguably parliament has a specific duty to govern the country in a way that doesn't do harm (I'm sure there's a whole lot of contentious legal/constitutional philosophy about that last claim).

Your elected government activated Article 50 after the referendum, so are you saying that they did not have the power to do so? Or that the decision to activate Article 50 should be illegally ignored?

... And alongside that the Tory party (and parliament) which have been consistently outmanoeuvred by the right wing press, we've gone from "of course we'll stay in the single market" to "only the hardest possible brexit is acceptable" in the course of 2 years.

... Instead we have a government that that was manipulated in to "doing it as fast and as catastrophically possible". There was certainly nothing about the referendum that suggested if need to be done as quickly as possible.

Article 50 is explicitly, crystal clear that two years after notification, if there's no withdrawal agreement the treaties cease to be in effect. It's right there in the header of this thread.

Now, one might question the wisdom of notification in 2017, but that's history now - and even that was delayed for almost a year after the referendum. No one was doing things as fast as possible, and once notification was made, everyone knew there were two years to come up with an agreement. There's even been an extension as specified by Article 50. It's pretty clear at this point that there is not going to be a deal, and there's been a lot of time for that to happen.

This whole thing is about the egos and power of EU and UK politicians. The EU doesn't want the UK to leave and get a good deal, because it would make them look weak and potentially trigger more leaves. The UK government wants to have their cake and eat it too, which the EU isn't going to let happen. And thus, here we are, and none of those factors are going to change any time soon. The only way out is through.

Aetius wrote:

The Good Friday agreement has nothing to do with the EU. If it's scrapped, it'll be because Ireland and the UK choose to close the border and scrap the agreement, which is entirely unnecessary. All they have to do is leave it alone. In fact, leaving the border open would provide a nice safety valve to keep businesses that rely on access to the EU functioning, as goods can cross that border (without a trade agreement! the horror!). It's only the intransigence and pigheadedness of Irish, UK, and EU politicians that are making it a problem by trying to use it as leverage.

I'm no expert, and I don't have a dog in this fight, but my understanding is it's less pigheadedness and more that if there's no deal there's two mutually exclusive states that come into effect:

- The Good Friday agreement forbids customs and immigration checks on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland
- By leaving the EU, the UK automatically withdraws from all of the trade agreements that allow them to do things like let people cross without passports and import stuff from the EU, and therefore requires them to establish a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

I suppose the UK could throw up a hard border between Northern Ireland and Britain (the "Backstop proposal") but the DUP has rejected that on behalf of the UK.

I guess if you don't believe in the idea of trade agreements in general you don't have an issue with ignoring that part of it, but in that case you're having an entirely different discussion that I'm not sure I'm following.

Is my understanding of the situation wrong?

Aetius wrote:
Sorbicol wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me that the 17 million or so people who voted leave think the 16 million who actively voted to stay are going to sit by and say ‘OK, fine’.

This is literally the definition of democratic rule. Would you be so considerate of the losing side if the vote was reversed?

I wouldn’t, but the politicians surely would try to cater to a 49% voter block.

As for UK border. I guess UK could very well choose not to control the border, but Ireland would have to as part of EU.
Hard to imagine an anti immigration party not wanting to control the border however.

Aetius wrote:
DanB wrote:

The problem with the "it was a democratic vote" lobby. Is that whole point of rhetoric comes only from people who either fundamentally do not understand the constitution of the UK or it comes from the right-wing who have a vested interest in pushing a fundamentally warped (and basically propaganda style) reading of the UK's constitution.

The UK is a representative democracy with executive power vested in parliament (via a kind of royal grace). Executive and legislative power has never been been vested in the populace, who are subjects of the queen. It has always been parliament's prerogative to pass (or block) whatever legislation they see fit, and arguably parliament has a specific duty to govern the country in a way that doesn't do harm (I'm sure there's a whole lot of contentious legal/constitutional philosophy about that last claim).

Your elected government activated Article 50 after the referendum, so are you saying that they did not have the power to do so? Or that the decision to activate Article 50 should be illegally ignored?

To my understanding powers of foreign policy are solely vested in the executive in the UK. So no, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying your assertion that Parliament is (legally) bound to execute the contents of a referendum is ignorant garbage. And arguably just parroting a kind of propaganda put about by UKIP, The Brexit Party and The Daily Mail.

Aetius wrote:

Article 50 is explicitly, crystal clear that two years after notification, if there's no withdrawal agreement the treaties cease to be in effect. It's right there in the header of this thread.

And we also have a high court ruling that Parliament must have meaningful input in to the terms of the withdrawal. So arguably it is not constitutional for the sitting government to just wait out the extension period. This and the whole GFA stuff are two of the main axes along which this is a constitutional crisis in the UK.

And if No Deal really looks like it is on the cards then Johnson runs a real risk of his government failing a vote of no confidence and triggering a GE and having to ask the EU for an extension to run that election.

Aetius wrote:

No one was doing things as fast as possible, and once notification was made, everyone knew there were two years to come up with an agreement.

If leaving the EU is a 20-40 year project in itself then I think it's reasonable to argue that triggering Art50 6 months after the referendum with no preparation at all is much too hasty. Any sitting government triggering Art50 without plausible plans for the final settlement with the EU, plans for ports/customs, replacing the GFA, replacing the EMA, etc, etc, etc, is triggering that too soon.

Gremlin wrote:
Aetius wrote:

The Good Friday agreement has nothing to do with the EU. If it's scrapped, it'll be because Ireland and the UK choose to close the border and scrap the agreement, which is entirely unnecessary. All they have to do is leave it alone. In fact, leaving the border open would provide a nice safety valve to keep businesses that rely on access to the EU functioning, as goods can cross that border (without a trade agreement! the horror!). It's only the intransigence and pigheadedness of Irish, UK, and EU politicians that are making it a problem by trying to use it as leverage.

I'm no expert, and I don't have a dog in this fight, but my understanding is it's less pigheadedness and more that if there's no deal there's two mutually exclusive states that come into effect:

- The Good Friday agreement forbids customs and immigration checks on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland
- By leaving the EU, the UK automatically withdraws from all of the trade agreements that allow them to do things like let people cross without passports and import stuff from the EU, and therefore requires them to establish a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

I suppose the UK could throw up a hard border between Northern Ireland and Britain (the "Backstop proposal") but the DUP has rejected that on behalf of the UK.

I guess if you don't believe in the idea of trade agreements in general you don't have an issue with ignoring that part of it, but in that case you're having an entirely different discussion that I'm not sure I'm following.

Is my understanding of the situation wrong?

That’s the problem in a nutshell. The two situations cannot exist at the same time. This is why the EU offered the unique situation for Northern Ireland at the start in which it could be both in the EU and the non-EU UK at the same time.

This essentially meant that Northern Ireland would remain a EU member state and any checks would be done with goods leaving for the UK at the ports and other exit points. It’s really the only way Brexit can work.

And Aetius, I’d have to question your understanding of the situation when you claim the Good Friday Agreement has nothing to do with the EU. Putting aside how many times the EU is mentioned in the actual document as the framework on how to achieve the unique status of Northern Ireland and it’s citizens in 1998, we are dealing with two member states of the EU. I’m literally unable to process what you’re point is here.

And the issue about the British border in Ireland is not exclusively about trade but I’m not surprised you don’t understand the situation when you make such claims above with such confidence. I happy to discuss the difficulties but I’m quite unsure you want do to that. Let me find some clips that explain the myriad of problems scrapping the Good Friday agreement raises.

Also, your world view that Ireland should opt-out of the entire rules based system on trade and expose itself to the whims of much larger nation states is profoundly simplistic in its understanding of global trade. Either way, Ireland isn’t going to abandon the rules based system and under both EU and WTO rules neither state can do what you suggest so it’s not happening.

But, hey, I’m not going to convince you but let’s see if I can dredge up some explainers for people who might be interested to learn some more about this issue.

DanB wrote:

I'm saying your assertion that Parliament is (legally) bound to execute the contents of a referendum is ignorant garbage. And arguably just parroting a kind of propaganda put about by UKIP, The Brexit Party and The Daily Mail.

The referendum wesn't legally binding, but clearly Parliament felt bound by the referendum results, which is how Article 50 was triggered ... and they are legally bound by that decision. You simply cannot argue that this decision was made in error, not made by Parliament, or is not representative of the British people (more than once!).

And we also have a high court ruling that Parliament must have meaningful input in to the terms of the withdrawal. So arguably it is not constitutional for the sitting government to just wait out the extension period. This and the whole GFA stuff are two of the main axes along which this is a constitutional crisis in the UK.

Parliament has had lots of meaningful input at this point. In fact, it's pretty easy to make the argument that they've essentially decided on No Deal, even though they've tried to rule it out, because they refuse to pass anything else. Johnson is simply assuming - and planning for - that they will continue to do nothing.

And if No Deal really looks like it is on the cards then Johnson runs a real risk of his government failing a vote of no confidence and triggering a GE and having to ask the EU for an extension to run that election.

If he wants (or is willing to tolerate) a No Deal Brexit, why would he ask for an extension?

If leaving the EU is a 20-40 year project in itself then I think it's reasonable to argue that triggering Art50 6 months after the referendum with no preparation at all is much too hasty. Any sitting government triggering Art50 without plausible plans for the final settlement with the EU, plans for ports/customs, replacing the GFA, replacing the EMA, etc, etc, etc, is triggering that too soon.

And that's definitely a valid argument to make ... in 2016.

Aetius wrote:
DanB wrote:

I'm saying your assertion that Parliament is (legally) bound to execute the contents of a referendum is ignorant garbage. And arguably just parroting a kind of propaganda put about by UKIP, The Brexit Party and The Daily Mail.

The referendum wesn't legally binding, but clearly Parliament felt bound by the referendum results, which is how Article 50 was triggered ... and they are legally bound by that decision. You simply cannot argue that this decision was made in error, not made by Parliament, or is not representative of the British people (more than once!).

This is once again where you don't seem to understand that the way the UK constitution works is that Parliment is soverign. Parliment isn't legally bound by anything, not even earlier Parliment decisions. That Parliment allowed HM Government to trigger Article 50 to begin negotiations does not in any way bind Parliment to abide by the results of that negotiation. That Parliment cannot agree about the what it wants is not an arguement that it consents to No-Deal Brexit or that it is bound by that Article 50 triggering to accept a No-Deal.

, or is not representative of the British people (more than once!).

If you’re going to claim this then you have to accept no-deal is not the democratic decision of the populace either. Since 2016 we’ve had 3 elections and no-deal wasn’t even within a asses roar of a majority.

See, I can boil down complicated issues into simplistic sound bites that fail to fully explain the issue too.

Representative of the British people? How about we have an election where we ask:

Do you want the current administration to stay?
-OR-
Do you want something new?

Check the box by your favorite answer. No blank will be provided to clarify it. Is it all or nothing? Is it all or some? What does the second choice mean? No one effing knows, because no one has thought that far ahead.

LouZiffer wrote:

Representative of the British people? How about we have an election where we ask:

Do you want the current administration to stay?
-OR-
Do you want something new?

Check the box by your favorite answer. No blank will be provided to clarify it. Is it all or nothing? Is it all or some? What does the second choice mean? No one effing knows, because no one has thought that far ahead.

Some folks here should probably try to remember the person spouting this "representative" drivel is an American Libertarian with everything that implies.

*mod*

Cool it on the ad hominem comments please.

Here's the guy who is now telling us that the only way out is to crash out without a deal telling us that there was no way to countenance a government leaving the single market.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1156241...

Having walked themselves to the end of the plank despite the warnings of those they denigrate as remoaners, they now look down at the cartoon sharks circling and decide they *must* leap in.

LouZiffer wrote:

Representative of the British people? How about we have an election where we ask:

Do you want the current administration to stay?
-OR-
Do you want something new?

Check the box by your favorite answer. No blank will be provided to clarify it. Is it all or nothing? Is it all or some? What does the second choice mean? No one effing knows, because no one has thought that far ahead.

I feel compelled to note that a Vote of No Confidence in Parliament is exactly this.

Aetius wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Representative of the British people? How about we have an election where we ask:

Do you want the current administration to stay?
-OR-
Do you want something new?

Check the box by your favorite answer. No blank will be provided to clarify it. Is it all or nothing? Is it all or some? What does the second choice mean? No one effing knows, because no one has thought that far ahead.

I feel compelled to note that a Vote of No Confidence in Parliament is exactly this.

Hey, I don't mind your underlining my point.

Aetius wrote:

I feel compelled to note that a Vote of No Confidence in Parliament is exactly this.

No it isn’t. A VoNC is a parliamentary verdict on the ability of the current administration to actually govern. If it passes then Parliament has confidence, if it doesn’t then either the party nominally in charge has 14 days to form a new government that regains that confidence (after another vote) or move to a general election.

In a general election the parties will present manifestos to detail exactly what it is the voters are voting for. Labour’s will be ‘we’ll renegotiate the WA and provide a confirmatory referendum on it’, Lib Dem’s will be ‘Second referendum or rescind (in the highly unlikely event they get a majority) the Tories will be....... actually, god knows. It’s why we’re still in this mess.

Clarification is the entire point.

I do think, from an outsider's perspective, that a large part of the reason why the UK's politics are so contentious right now is that they made it more difficult to force early elections. Early elections, from my American perspective, seemed to be one of the benefits of the parliamentary system. But, then, I think a general problem in western democracies right now is that there are a bunch of factors that add up to widespread feelings of disenfranchisement across the board.

Gremlin wrote:

I do think, from an outsider's perspective, that a large part of the reason why the UK's politics are so contentious right now is that they made it more difficult to force early elections. Early elections, from my American perspective, seemed to be one of the benefits of the parliamentary system. But, then, I think a general problem in western democracies right now is that there are a bunch of factors that add up to widespread feelings of disenfranchisement across the board.

To be honest early elections are hard to force in any democracy that employs a non proportional electoral system. It's something the UK and the US have struggled with a lot lately it all becomes about the most extreme position to get yourself elected.

We Brits aren't really inclined to massive civil unrest (although we are prone to the occasional relatively localised riot on occasion) unless things are really out of kilter to a standardised norm or manifestly unfair, like the poll tax riots of the 1990s. Of course at the moment we don't really have a standardised norm, we have two diametrically opposed positions, one of which is unified (Remain) and the other which is getting more and more extreme because they can't form a consensus on what leave means.

Jonathan Powell, on why the Irish backstop matters.

I felt it was a good summarization to get the point across to those who don't quite grasp the issue.

Nothing about this is going to end well. Boris seems intent on Brexiting on the 31st regardless of the circumstances

If that happens and we're in the middle of a GE thanks to a VoNC getting passed, I can see it all ending in a legal quagmire.

Don't suppose there's any chance someone would offer to be my Irish relative is there?

Sorbicol wrote:

Nothing about this is going to end well. Boris seems intent on Brexiting on the 31st regardless of the circumstances

If that happens and we're in the middle of a GE thanks to a VoNC getting passed, I can see it all ending in a legal quagmire.

Don't suppose there's any chance someone would offer to be my Irish relative is there?

For completely different reasons, I have recently thought about moving to Ireland.

More than happy to answer questions guys but a good resource is here. But, I'm sure everything will be fine. Although I have stockpiled my sons insulin over the last 9 months...

It’s OK, Nicola Sturgeon seems to be quite happy for English people to settle in Scotland. If push comes to shove that’ll be a lot easier.