Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Jon the Hat]

17 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Can anyone explain to me why our fishing industry is constantly dismissed as only minorly important but macron has made a pointed statement on how important us giving up access to our fishing waters is for a future trade deal? 

 

I honestly don't get it.

French fishermen are very influential in France, as are the agricultural lobby.  Hence to be honest why CAP and CFP are so favourable to them, and why they really don't like what is going to happen.

[Jon the Hat]

12 hours ago, Spiritwalker said:

It's clear than any deal May had come back with would be rejected by parliament.

Parliament is so divided by those with entrenched views and those with vested

intrests that they will not agree on any deal, no deal, or no Brexit. I think this will

inevitably be put back to the public to decide. The big issue will be what should

on the ballot paper.

deal/no deal

no deal/ remain

deal/ remain

Personaly I would like to see 2 questions on the ballot, firstly leave/ remain and 

secondly if the vote is to leave then deal/ no deal.

I know we have already been asked the first question but I honestly don't see

any other way out of this intransigence.

 

 

They don;t have to agree on no deal, it happens by default.  Unfortunately, we are so close to leaving now with sod all actually planning for no deal, that we are not going to be ready to declare unilateral trade policies required to keep the essentials moving;  which will probably mean revoking article 50 and doing it all again in a year or two.  Yay.

[fuchsntf]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

They don;t have to agree on no deal, it happens by default.  Unfortunately, we are so close to leaving now with sod all actually planning for no deal, that we are not going to be ready to declare unilateral trade policies required to keep the essentials moving;  which will probably mean revoking article 50 and doing it all again in a year or two.  Ya

Uk ,will become something resembling the revolving doors of the TV repeats That bombard Brit TV...

Brexit will now go back into the future with TV-Channel. DAVE....!!

 

[Spiritwalker]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

They don;t have to agree on no deal, it happens by default.  Unfortunately, we are so close to leaving now with sod all actually planning for no deal, that we are not going to be ready to declare unilateral trade policies required to keep the essentials moving;  which will probably mean revoking article 50 and doing it all again in a year or two.  Yay.

So if and when no deal happens by default you don't think that at any stage this will be

put back to the public vote?

 

[FoxNotFox]

2 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

So if and when no deal happens by default you don't think that at any stage this will be put back to the public vote?

 

Perhaps. The problem, I think, is for a mechanism to be found by which the question could be asked again. Personally, I'm not at all sure that one exists. Even if it does, would the EU stop the ticking clock to allow the UK the time? Can the EU, legally, 'stop the clock'?

 

As it stands, it looks like the UK is on a crash-out course.

 

 

[Saxondale]

1 hour ago, FoxNotFox said:

Perhaps. The problem, I think, is for a mechanism to be found by which the question could be asked again. Personally, I'm not at all sure that one exists. Even if it does, would the EU stop the ticking clock to allow the UK the time? Can the EU, legally, 'stop the clock'?

 

As it stands, it looks like the UK is on a crash-out course.

 

 

They've already categorically said they will pause it indefinitely if we were to have another referendum. 

With regards to the legality of such a delay, it's pointless even considering it. There are no precedents for any of this shit.

[FoxNotFox]

OK, thanks for adding that @Saxondale

 

As to precedent, point taken, but legality isn't solely determine by it. I'm sure somewhere in the text of 'article 50' there is something for lawyers to argue over and courts to decide!

[Saxondale]

2 minutes ago, FoxNotFox said:

OK, thanks for adding that @Saxondale

 

As to precedent, point taken, but legality isn't solely determine by it. I'm sure somewhere in the text of 'article 50' there is something for lawyers to argue over and courts to decide!

Agreed regarding precedent,.

 

There's something going through the courts currently about whether or not A50 notification is unilaterally revocable. To be honest, if all parties have the political will to make things happen, they will happen, be it by emergency legislation or whatever. 

 

The thing about A50 is that it was never written to be used by a normal country. It was designed to account for the event that a member state had gone rogue - i.e. being run by a dictator or crazy regime.

[lifted*fox]

23 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

The thing about A50 is that it was never written to be used by a normal country. It was designed to account for the event that a member state had gone rogue - i.e. being run by a dictator or crazy regime.

 

well... it wouldn't appear that we're too far from that reality. 

 

promising news that the high court is now investigating the illegal monetary issues surrounding the referendum. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-void-high-court-ruling-arron-banks-investigation-when-december-christmas-a8649001.html

 

I have no doubt that they will find evidence to support the theory that it was illegally funded and that the extra funding was used for extremely targeted advertising on vulnerable social media users. 

 

should that be the case then the result should be rightly null/void, A50 revoked and a second referendum held on the only deal available / remain. 

 

if it's found that May purposely obstructed an investigation into Banks at the time then both she and him should face prison time. 

[FoxNotFox]

A potential question I see with the foreign funding argument is how that law might apply to campaigning for a non-binding referendum. I realise we've had the questions about spending limits but have the answers to those questions been formally tested? Perhaps there is a lawyer amongst us?

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, FoxNotFox said:

OK, thanks for adding that @Saxondale

 

As to precedent, point taken, but legality isn't solely determine by it. I'm sure somewhere in the text of 'article 50' there is something for lawyers to argue over and courts to decide!

 

Tomorrow the ECJ sits to begin to decide whether A50 can unilaterally be revoked, both the EC and HMG oppose it but I think it has a decent chance of the ECJ saying yes it can. A full court hearing as well which doesn't happen that often so proceedings will make an interesting read. Probably won't get a decision for a while though. 

 

A50 could be extended, requires EU27 to approve it so whilst the EC may say they're open to it, its not a cert. France just wants it all over with so Macron can get on with what he wants so could block it. 

Edited 26 November 2018 by Kopfkino

[Alf Bentley]

54 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

 

There's something going through the courts currently about whether or not A50 notification is unilaterally revocable. To be honest, if all parties have the political will to make things happen, they will happen, be it by emergency legislation or whatever. 

 

 

This is true, @FoxNotFox. The case was referred to the ECJ by the Scottish courts and is due to be heard within the next 2 weeks. Consensus seems to be that there almost certainly IS a right to revoke Article 50 (but only before March 29) and that it probably is revocable unilaterally....but that is less certain. In practice, if there is no right to revoke unilaterally, the EU27 would almost certainly agree to it if the UK wanted to revoke. The difference would be that the EU27 might impose extra terms (e.g. elimination of the UK rebate) if they had a right of approval of that revocation.

 

Although leading EU figures have said that they'd be happy to agree an extension of Article 50 to allow for a second referendum, I've not heard them say that they'd do so indefinitely - and it requires unanimous support of EU27. I've also heard there would be a particular problem if a postponement were needed beyond May 2019 as European elections are due then - but are not scheduled to happen in the UK as we're currently expected to have left by then.

 

That could be a real headache if revocation ever becomes the preferred option on both sides. It is surely unthinkable that the UK could revoke without holding another referendum - that would risk democratic outrage, political alienation and social disorder. But how quickly could a second referendum be organised in practice? Even if it were done much more quickly this time, it surely couldn't happen before about Feb/March, earliest. What would happen then if the second referendum produced another Leave vote based on No Deal? We'd be right up against the departure date with no time to plan our departure properly. If there was a Remain vote, would either the EU or the UK have the time to adjust to the UK electing MEPs in May?

 

Maybe there could be some provision for UK MEPs to be elected at a later date if the UK ended up staying in the EU, with a transition period during which we stayed in but had no MEPs? Alternatively, can you imagine the volatile, toxic, possibly violent atmosphere in this country if we had a referendum in Feb/March and then European elections in May? 

 

There really is no easy solution to this shit show. The strife is set to continue for years. Even assuming some deal gets through parliament, that only sets us up for years of strife over the future EU-UK relationship, backstop etc. The non-binding political declaration accompanying the withdrawal agreement seems to have been written to be as vague as possible, so all the "what is Brexit?" debate would continue - but after March, if withdrawal proceeds, the EU27 will have much less need for restraint over their particular national interests. It was crucial to the EU27 nations that they stayed united during negotiation of the withdrawal agreement - too much to lose. Much less true of negotiations over the future relationship. We've already seen issues like Gibraltar and fishing rights raise their heads.....and any future deal needs to have unanimous support among the EU27. Any individual nation could veto it.

Edited 26 November 2018 by Alf Bentley

[urban.spaceman]

 

[fuchsntf]

20 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Tomorrow the ECJ sits to begin to decide whether A50 can unilaterally be revoked, both the EC and HMG oppose it but I think it has a decent chance of the ECJ saying yes it can. A full court hearing as well which doesn't happen that often so proceedings will make an interesting read. Probably won't get a decision for a while though. 

 

A50 could be extended, requires EU27 to approve it so whilst the EC may say they're open to it, its not a cert. France just wants it all over with so Macron can get on with what he wants so could block it. 

I was worried for a mo...Extension of the A50....Markfield and Groby,under threat....

[Jon the Hat]

50 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

well... it wouldn't appear that we're too far from that reality. 

 

promising news that the high court is now investigating the illegal monetary issues surrounding the referendum. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-void-high-court-ruling-arron-banks-investigation-when-december-christmas-a8649001.html

 

I have no doubt that they will find evidence to support the theory that it was illegally funded and that the extra funding was used for extremely targeted advertising on vulnerable social media users. 

 

should that be the case then the result should be rightly null/void, A50 revoked and a second referendum held on the only deal available / remain. 

 

if it's found that May purposely obstructed an investigation into Banks at the time then both she and him should face prison time. 

So we are going to ignore the imbalance caused by the Government weighing on on the side of Remain with £9M of leaflets to the whole country promoting project Fear?

[fuchsntf]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

So we are going to ignore the imbalance caused by the Government weighing on on the side of Remain with £9M of leaflets to the whole country promoting project Fear?

Both sides were guilty of project fear...I thought??

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, fuchsntf said:

Both sides were guilty of project fear...I thought??

To be honest, my feeling here is that any additional funds which probably shouldn't have been spent promoting Brexit are more than offset by the imbalance caused by the establishment heavily backing remain.  For Leave to win despite that is one of the most remarkable results in any vote ever imo.  The fact that Brexit is not really happening as it stands will probably be looked at in 10 years (when the EU has collapsed in on itself) as a huge missed opportunity.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

I've stopped giving a toss about Brexit.

I can't affect it either way.

It might be great, it might be shiite.

Que Sera Sera.

[FoxNotFox]

Thanks for the detailed responses all. I was aware of the current case regarding revocation of article 50. I knew also about extension (under wider agreement) but didn't know about an arguably similar 'clock stopping' situation.

 

Because A50 was drafted, as mentioned above, not with this particular context in mind - being more about, perhaps, kicking someone out rather than accepting someone's resignation (and what does that say about the EU!!) - then it could well be a legal minefield of grey areas and unimagined scenarios each requiring a separate, detailed question which courts need to respond to (as best they can)

 

I accept what is said about political will but as this thing is drafted in law it could well fall to the courts to resolve any questions should they be asked.

 

I ought say that I sincerely hope Brexit isn't decided in law courts, that'd be a most unsatisfactory outcome, but if courts are asked and they feel there's a question (of law) to address then it is a possibility. Be it funding questions that make the initial referendum void, or A50 questions that mean the UK crashes out with no deal.

[lifted*fox]

18 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

So we are going to ignore the imbalance caused by the Government weighing on on the side of Remain with £9M of leaflets to the whole country promoting project Fear?

 

yes, we are - considering the government leaflets were LEGAL vs. the alleged additional funding of £8million from Banks which was ILLEGAL and was used to target people whose personal details were attained ILLEGALLY via Cambridge Analytica data mining. 

 

not difficult to grasp that one, Jon.

Edited 26 November 2018 by lifted*fox

[The Year Of The Fox]

I’m sure this has been mentioned on many of the previous pages before, but why can’t we adopt Tony Abbott’s attitude?

 

 

Former Australian PM Tony Abbott...

"It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it."

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015

[fuchsntf]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

To be honest, my feeling here is that any additional funds which probably shouldn't have been spent promoting Brexit are more than offset by the imbalance caused by the establishment heavily backing remain.  For Leave to win despite that is one of the most remarkable results in any vote ever imo.  The fact that Brexit is not really happening as it stands will probably be looked at in 10 years (when the EU has collapsed in on itself) as a huge missed opportunity.

Doesn't mean remain was/is bad because the establishment backed it...

BREXIT is being let down by..sheer hypocrisy,by its own called believers in power!!

[lifted*fox]

6 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I’m sure this has been mentioned on many of the previous pages before, but why can’t we adopt Tony Abbott’s attitude?

 

Unpopular ex-PM of Australia who has similar Churchillian views as the noisy Conservative back-benchers who have no actual solutions to the Brexit scenario. 

Another unicorn dreamer who manages to blurt out a paragraph explaining how easy it all should have been but wouldn't be able to find any real ideas / substance if called upon.  

 

That's why.

[FoxNotFox]

15 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

considering the government leaflets were LEGAL vs. the alleged additional funding of £8million from Banks which was ILLEGAL and was used to target people whose personal details were attained ILLEGALLY via Cambridge Analytica data mining. 

At the risk of me seeming to have a hobby horse, do we know that these actions were actually "illegal"?  Unethical and immoral perhaps but illegal? I don't know whether those questions have been answered. 

 

The point I'm making, and made above, is that matters of law might end up, sadly, defining and ultimately unintentionally deciding the outcome. 

 

Whilst Banks is undoubtedly motivated by personal gain, and we can judge him on that basis alone of we like, are we sure that he has done anything that the law would call wrong. We're in new ground and I'm not even sure there are rules here.

Edited 26 November 2018 by FoxNotFox

[Izzy]

Hi, I'm Bob

 

Bored of Brexit