Page 84 of 84 FirstFirst ... 75767778798081828384
Results 1,246 to 1,259 of 1259

Thread: The battle of Brexit!

  1. #1246
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,029
    So far as I can work out the a. the British Government have now lost control of any 'leave' deal and b. supposing that an extension is sought (by the vote tomorrow) the UK as a whole will have lost any control over the process. The sole option that would remain in the power of the HoC is to revoke the Article 50 declaration. So as far as 'taking power back', the stated desire of the Brexit crowd, it now appears they have significantly surrendered power over how any 'leave' may work to precisely those whom they wish to be separated from. This is due in part to the so called 'ERG' group of Tory Brexiteers, the Irish DUP and the idiocy of the (not so) loyal Opposition all of which have voted against the Government's 'deal'.

    The Motion today is; "That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement." However while the Government is allowing a 'free vote' to Tory MPs on this it is apparently whipping it's MPs to an amendment which says that leaving with a 'no deal' remains the bottom line. It thus looks like to be all things to all and in the meantime is a perfectly self contradictory position.

    There have now been two votes in Parliament on the 'deal' - neither of which have been approved - and the papers suggest the 'deal' may again be put to the House. How many times will this happen and how is it 'democratic' to allow this repeating of voting in the house while denying the 'democratic value' of second public vote on the deal?




    Live debate here.

  2. #1247
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Why in hell was article 50 invoked. They could have taken all the time they wanted and got the deal both sides could live with without any time pressure.
    Nah, they couldn't - and yes, they tried. Article 50 prescribes that negotiations on the withdrawal agreement may not start before it is invoked.

    The withdrawal agreement is - by the EU treaty - really only meant to set out a date on which treaties will cease to apply. Could be in a year, could be in five years, could only apply to certain treaties of contestion - but it'd set definitive deadlines. That time can then be used to negotiate a future relationship agreement (on customs etc) for the time afterwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    That means they've got 6 weeks to 3 months which is very short. Why are the Euros going to make any more concessions. Is it even remotely feasible they can get a better deal
    By now any extension would only serve to give the UK more time to prepare for crashing out hard.
    Last edited by kato; 13 Mar 19, at 19:20.

  3. #1248
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,029
    Sir Ivan Rogers, former British head diplomat to the EU, on Brexit:



  4. #1249
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,029
    So this week in the 'Brexit dwama' (so far)... On Monday (I think) there was an intervention/'Statement' by the Speaker of the House (of Commons) relating to procedure.



    So Erskine May is compendium of rules of procedure for Parliament named after a 19th Century Clerk of the House and constitutional theorist. So basically the a Bill which has been voted down once cannot be presented again and again in the same session of Parliament. There has to be a 'materiel difference of substance' (says Erskine May) between Bills presented once they are rejected before they can be put again. According to some newspaper stories this had been the Government's plan; they had apparently been busy courting the DUP (Irish Unionists) with offers of £10bn (amounting £1bn per vote) in the hope that if the DUP could be bought (for there is no other description) the Tory hardliners might be won over.

    This of course does not mean that the same Bill cannot be brought again: There are ways around the Speaker's ruling. First the House could prorogued, stood down as it were, a new Queens Speech given and a new 'session' started thus enabling exactly the same Bill to be presented again according to the rules. More simply the House could simply vote to ignore the procedural rule on this occasion and it looks like this is the option Mrs May will try.

    The reason why this second option seems more likely to be tried is because after last weeks votes and the vote calling on the Government to seek an extension on the leaving date there were basically two options; a short extension or a long extension. The EU apparently made clear that the reasons for either would have to be given. So if it were the Government's intention to say hold a General election or second referendum clearly such things would take longer so a longer extension - say a year or perhaps more - would make sense. However Mrs May, apparently without the knowledge of her own Ministers in the Cabinet, yesterday morning announced she would seek a short extension until June 30th.

    So here comes the next comical balls up... The PM's Office announcing this publicly is of course all well and fine but the EU need formal notification of this - as with any official request etc you need it on a piece of paper, just for the records if nothing else. So the letter apparently did not arrive in Brussels, ie the formal request was not received, until quite late yesterday - too late for the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, to notify the Chancellors/PMs of all the other 26 nations and have them consult their Governments. So Tusk when Tusk was asked what his reaction to having formally received the request was he 'winged' it without the agreement of the other leaders and their Governments.



    Nota bene "a vote in the House of Commons next week." This it would seem means any 'extension' to June 30th (which is problematical as there as European elections in late May) would be conditional of the House of Commons approving Theresa May's 'deal' next week. It may be that Mr Tusk's assumptions of this condition, due to the late arrival of the letter, will change following a meeting a the Council.

    However the British PM had apparently at PMQs (Prime Ministers Questions) set out her view pretty toughly, seemingly accusing her fellow MPs of messing up her plans;



    Mrs May seems to hints at her possible resignation in one exchange; "As Prime Minister I am not prepared to delay Brexit any further than the 30th of June".

    So as it stands and unless there are changes in some positions the PM's 'deal' must be changed or the Speaker's ruling be overridden so the exact same 'deal' can be voted on for a third time and passed next week or due the Government refusing to act on a vote last that rejected the UK leaving the EU with no deal a no deal Brexit follows on the 29th March, which by Government forecasts will decrease UK GDP 9% over 10yrs.

    The whole thing is a comedy of errors. It's unlikely the Government will win a vote to overcome the Speaker's ruling as of course the whole purpose of such a vote is would be to again resubmit a 'deal' which the House has already twice rejected by margins of 230 and 149. Nor of course do these 'ultimatums' dismay the hardline Brexiteers of the so called ERG, the types like John Redwood and Steve Bakers who while they previously argued that any deal with the EU would be 'easiest deal in history' to get now say that in order to get 'easiest deal in history' the UK has to leave with no deal.

    To be honest I am sick to death of these right wing 'populist' liars - the British Brexiteers and their lies are the same species as Trumpkin and his lies; "£750m extra per week for the NHS" was on the same level as "Mexico will pay for the wall." Neither could ever be in UK or US Government's power to deliver on without the consent of Mexico and the EU which was never going to be forthcoming. The UK has to pay £39bn to leave the EU and the true cost of Trumpkin's wall (if it's ever built) is likely to hundred of billions of $.

    Not content with the f*ck up she has already managed to oversee the venerable Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government decided to 'appeal to people' and made a statement from No 10;



    Don't know if it was televised live as I am far away but I imagine all the news stations carried it at least. So here she blames MPs again! What a great idea! They are after exactly those people who's votes she will need next week...

    The comedy film about the Death of Stalin was nothing compared to this lot.

  5. #1250
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,363
    Discussions so far seem like a big fat no on June 30th, but that was clear.

    Tabled motions are May 22nd from the pro-British side (i.e. from the EU) - the day before the European Parliament election - and May 7th from the anti-British side (led by France and Belgium). There's a small minority (led by Denmark) that supports May's proposed date, but they're pretty much without chances. All motions are conditional on May getting the withdrawal agreement passed in parliament before March 29th.

    And yes, that May 7th date has historical connotations. And yes, that's why Macron picked it. Because due to that historical connotation the day after is a bank holiday in France.

    Extension to end of year (France) or end of 2020 (EU) proposed, but conditional on the UK declaring before April 11th that they will take part in the election as a EU red line.

  6. #1251
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,029
    According to the BBC;


    "The UK's departure date had originally been set for 29 March.

    If Mrs May can get her withdrawal deal through Parliament next week, that date will be pushed back to 22 May to give time to pass the necessary legislation.

    If the prime minister can't get the deal through, the UK will have to propose a way forward by 12 April for EU leaders to consider.

    European Council President Donald Tusk said all Brexit options would remain open until then.

    "The UK government will still have a choice between a deal, no deal, a long extension or revoking Article 50," he said.

    "The 12 April is a key date in terms of the UK deciding whether to hold European Parliament elections.

    "If it has not decided to do so by then, the option of long extension will automatically become impossible."

    Mrs May ruled out revoking Article 50, which would cancel Brexit, and she also said "it would be wrong" to ask Britons to vote for candidates for the elections to the European Parliament, due to be held from 23-26 May, three years after they voted to leave the EU."
    There is an online petition going calling for the revocation of Article 50 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584; a step the British House of Commons could take without any EU say so.

    Meanwhile someone spotted this gem in today's British press;

    Name:  D2QX4paXQAE0p98.png
Views: 61
Size:  432.0 KB

    I have no clue who Ross Clark is or why he writing for the Times but this sort of comedy says alot about how the UK has allowed itself to get to the brink of self imposed disaster. I certainly agree that losing the ashes is terrible but it hardly on the same scale as the loss of jobs and lower wages that are bound to follow a 'no deal' Brexit. The ashes we know will be replayed in three or four years; re-entering the EU would entail a whole new negotiation in which Britain could not hope to get the comparatively favourable terms with the rebate etc that it currently enjoys. Leaving the single largest free market in the world to be able to sign free trade deals with Commonwealth and other countries seems a bit like shooting yourself in the foot in the belief that someone will trade you a new and better foot.

    Why there is no Mueller style inquiry into the Muscovite funding of and propaganda regarding the referendum is an open question, one could almost believe that there are deep Moscow - Tory hidden ties... Indeed I believe new light will be shed on this in the near future according to one MP. Why the ongoing Police investigation into the funding of the leave campaign is never mentioned when the current British political class invoke "the will of the people" to harm the national interest and unilaterally impose a Napoleonic 'Continental System' on themselves, is quite beyond my comprehension.

    Nor has the current Government managed what was always going to be difficult problem remotely competently; I believe they did not want Parliament to vote on Article 50 in the first place and were forced into giving Parliament a "meaningful vote" on any deal (the deal that has been twice rejected). Mrs May made the same mistake as Gordon Brown and did not go for an immediate election after becoming PM and by going later lost the majority leaving the Government in hoc to the Ulster Loyalists, who's parochial concerns and squabbles about Northern Ireland remaining in the British customs zone - which in fairness is only logical - then became central. But that necessitates a 'hard border' with the Republic of Ireland - as it would in Dover for instance and this is contrary to the Good Friday 'peace' agreement. How the DUP will fare in Northern Ireland, where a majority voted to remain in the EU, in the next election is yet to be seen. The fact that the whole Brexit issue and the Government's handling of it is dependent on them and the liars of the Brexit campaign on Tory far right is regrettable.

    There is no 'Hong Kong' option. There never was. You want free trade with someone - they get a say too. Certainly I do not think the EU has negotiated fairly, or even in truth in it's own best long term interests though there is far to go yet for even should a 'leave' deal be agreed a future trade agreement would remain to be negotiated. The fact that Mrs May's 'leave deal' contains agreements in principle on goods but not services - at which the City of London excels - makes it a bad deal if passed, not only for the UK but also for EU. Chances of this 'deal' passing at a third time of asking are though low.

    In my view the best option for the UK right now is for the House of Commons to revoke Article 50 so that a full inquiry into the Muscovite funding and lies during the referendum can be done. Have an election as the current House of Commons is, as the PM says anti everything and pro nothing. Then when some sanity is restored and a way forward is agreed Article 50 can, if it is still the "will of the people" be invoked again.

  7. #1252
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Certainly I do not think the EU has negotiated fairly, or even in truth in it's own best long term interests though there is far to go yet for even should a 'leave' deal be agreed a future trade agreement would remain to be negotiated.
    True. The negotiated deal is way too favorable for the British.

    A "best-case" deal - from the EU side - should have seen compensation for any financial - including all economic - consequences of Brexit being levied upon the United Kingdom for a duration at least equaling its stay within the EU (i.e. until 2065); fully free movement across all four freedoms with regard to the Northern Irish "border"; the UK signing over Gibraltar unconditionally and with compensation for 306 years of unlawful occupation; the UK being required to legally treat all past, present and future European citizens ad eternitas as "at least" equal to British citizens; the right of the Union to intervene by force against any anti-union activity on the islands. I think you can think of a couple more along those lines.

    And if we take the hyperbole out of the above paragraph that would have actually have been a reasonable negotiation position for Barnier in my opinion.

  8. #1253
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Nah, they couldn't - and yes, they tried. Article 50 prescribes that negotiations on the withdrawal agreement may not start before it is invoked.
    Seems obvious when i think about it. Without Article 50 what is there to be negotiated : )

    Want to leave, invoke article 50 then deal.

    Thing is this imposes a time limit which then puts the pressure on the Brits. All by design, the idea is to keep the EU together.

    Make an example out of the Brits now and anybody else will have second thoughts about leaving.

    The withdrawal agreement is - by the EU treaty - really only meant to set out a date on which treaties will cease to apply. Could be in a year, could be in five years, could only apply to certain treaties of contestion - but it'd set definitive deadlines. That time can then be used to negotiate a future relationship agreement (on customs etc) for the time afterwards.
    So they have longer than Jun 30 then to complete everything ?

    By now any extension would only serve to give the UK more time to prepare for crashing out hard.
    Hmm, that means everything has to be over by Jun 30

  9. #1254
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    So they have longer than Jun 30 then to complete everything ?
    The deal could have set a later date if the British had negotiated for it. This was occasionally discussed during negotiations, one possible avenue - preferred by e.g. Germany - would have been to push back Brexit to the end of 2020, as that's the turnover point when the current joint seven-year budget of the European Union will be replaced by the next one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Hmm, that means everything has to be over by Jun 30
    The June 30th date that May was trying for is moot now.

    The path formally approved by the European Council and its 27 members-other-than-the-UK is:
    - the UK has until March 29th to pass the deal agreed upon with the EU.
    - if they pass the deal the European Council grants them an extension until May 22nd (i.e. by 8.5 weeks), with the UK leaving with a deal on that date.
    - if they do not pass the deal then the European Council still grants them an extension until April 12th (i.e. by 2 weeks) before they crash out.

    There will be no renegotiation of the Deal, the Council reminds the UK of its duties as a full member for the duration of the extension, and prescribes that any unilateral action by the UK shall conform to the Withdrawal Agreement agreed upon by both sides.

    If the UK does not pass the deal they may come forward with an offer for a different solution before April 12th, which the European Council "will consider". Should this involve any action through which the UK will still remain a member of the EU on May 23rd (such as cancelling Brexit), then the UK will have to take part in the European Parliament elections.

    The reason for the May 22nd date as the leave date with a deal is that that is the last day before the elections. The reason for the April 12th date is that by this date member states will have to formally announce polls for the election.

    Formal decision has been published: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/medi...6-en19-003.pdf

  10. #1255
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258
    Thanks kato, it seems there are still more twists, turns & surprises to come.

  11. #1256
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    True. The negotiated deal is way too favorable for the British.

    A "best-case" deal - from the EU side - should have seen compensation for any financial - including all economic - consequences of Brexit being levied upon the United Kingdom for a duration at least equaling its stay within the EU (i.e. until 2065); fully free movement across all four freedoms with regard to the Northern Irish "border"; the UK signing over Gibraltar unconditionally and with compensation for 306 years of unlawful occupation; the UK being required to legally treat all past, present and future European citizens ad eternitas as "at least" equal to British citizens; the right of the Union to intervene by force against any anti-union activity on the islands. I think you can think of a couple more along those lines.

    And if we take the hyperbole out of the above paragraph that would have actually have been a reasonable negotiation position for Barnier in my opinion.

    Your post is more telling regarding your German 'exceptionalism' than helpful to any debate about how best Britain, the EU's single largest trading partner should it leave the EU, are going to resolve the complex problems they both face. I am thankful you are not an EU negotiator and I still working for HMG as your British counterpart for that my dear fellow is little short of a declaration of war and I would take it as such back to HMG.

    The British are a proud people. I lived there, was educated there, they will not take humiliating 'agreement' imposed on them for their loss and yours but would fight.

    That helps only Moscow or perhaps that is your deeper desire? Tell me my European 'friend' if you agree with North Stream 2 or the annexation of Crimea, the interference in your own political system? Or is 'Europe' for you just a German hegemony and a new Molotov - Ribbentrop pact?

    It is precisely because of people like you voicing such views that so many British rejected Europe in the first place.

    No you are not a real European as much as may like to think you are. You are the enemy of European-ism. J'accuse! because I was born in France to Polish parents, educated in England and am Ukrainian. Do not tell me that a German wishes to humiliate other nations again in the name of 'European unity' you skunk.
    Last edited by snapper; 25 Mar 19, at 11:20.

  12. #1257
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,689
    Snapper /\ agreed .ps kato it wasnt 27 countries it was 26 as Hungary was barred from voting and we all know why eh ,, thats eu democracy for you , dictating unellected wankers , i hope that on the 29th we leave with no deal and our billions cease propping up merkels coffers and the eu timbers .
    Last edited by tankie; 25 Mar 19, at 14:02.


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  13. #1258
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Your post is more telling regarding your German 'exceptionalism' than helpful to any debate about how best Britain, the EU's single largest trading partner should it leave the EU, are going to resolve the complex problems they both face. I am thankful you are not an EU negotiator and I still working for HMG as your British counterpart for that my dear fellow is little short of a declaration of war and I would take it as such back to HMG.

    The British are a proud people. I lived there, was educated there, they will not take humiliating 'agreement' imposed on them for their loss and yours but would fight.

    That helps only Moscow or perhaps that is your deeper desire? Tell me my European 'friend' if you agree with North Stream 2 or the annexation of Crimea, the interference in your own political system? Or is 'Europe' for you just a German hegemony and a new Molotov - Ribbentrop pact?

    It is precisely because of people like you voicing such views that so many British rejected Europe in the first place.

    No you are not a real European as much as may like to think you are. You are the enemy of European-ism. J'accuse! because I was born in France to Polish parents, educated in England and am Ukrainian. Do not tell me that a German wishes to humiliate other nations again in the name of 'European unity' you skunk.
    He is only expressing an opinion. Brits have done more than that, voted in parliament to reject the deal.

    I wonder if the deal was really so bad or whether remain is gaining strength meaning any deal gets rejected. Any attempt to leave is blocked on some pretext.

    That would be an EU win.

  14. #1259
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    That helps only Moscow or perhaps that is your deeper desire? Tell me my European 'friend' if you agree with North Stream 2 or the annexation of Crimea, the interference in your own political system?
    North Stream 2? That's pretty much a non-issue here. We're building it. For us. For the company that owns that gas field, and whose HQ is not even 25 km from me.
    The annexation of Crimea? Pretty much internal Soviet politics. Sorry, we're still kinda stuck on that. Don't agree in this regard personally.
    The interference in our political system? There's others we consider far more dangerous in this regard.

    Moscow isn't considered to be anyone important, sorry. Merkel's designate prospective successor Kramp-Karrenbauer made a speech just today. Mostly some blabla about how we shouldn't let certain superpowers dictate what we're doing in any way. She named two. Guess who wasn't among them.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    the EU's single largest trading partner should it leave the EU
    Sorry, both the United States and China are bigger trading partners for the EU. And as there'll be no deal trade with the UK is bound to go down rather than up.
    Last edited by kato; 25 Mar 19, at 22:29.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Brexit
    By tankie in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1230
    Last Post: 07 Jan 17,, 05:38
  2. Post Brexit-EU planning
    By troung in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28 Jun 16,, 18:08
  3. IEA Brexit Prize
    By snapper in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17 Jul 13,, 14:29
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10 Nov 06,, 07:37

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •