UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Middle-aged Europe]

Just hope all this mess makes it clear to everyone in the European community what an awful idea it is the leave the EU, which is, despite its flaws, the best thing ever happend to the continent.

I also think the EU should agree to just become a Free Trade Agreement rather than a semi-governmental body it seems like at times. I think that would be much better

You have it the wrong way round, the reason it is a semi-governmental body is to protect the FTA. For all the money spent on EU institutions, they probably save consumers much much more by guaranteeing the single market.

What about NAFTA just for Europe

But that already exists and is called EFTA.

Originally founded in the early 60s - ironically by the UK among other countries - as sort of an alternative to and competitor for the European Community, the majority of its members eventually decided to switch over to the EC/EU one after another until only Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein remained. Maybe the UK would also rejoin EFTA once it left the EU. But no other EU member states seems to inclined to switch back to EFTA.

[Middle-aged Europe]

So, Theresa May will now (again) unsuccessfully try to renegotiate the deal with the EU until the hard Brexit happens on March 29?

[Middle-aged Europe]

I do have a question:  Say The the Cooper amendment which would extend Article 50 to 12/31/19 passed.  Is that something that the UK decide unilaterally?  Even if it passed would not the EU have to agree to that as well ? 

Yes. But EU representatives seemed to be open to the idea... certainly more open than renegotiating the deal with May. From the EU's perspective it would give the UK time to get their sh**t straight (in whatever way this would happen), while postponing a hard Brexit.

Overall it seems May's strategy is still to get her original deal passed by waiting until the night of 3/29 when it will become clear that there is no majority for No Deal Brexit, no majority for delaying Brexit ergo there has to be a default majority for the May deal.  All the stuff she will be up to talking to the EU is just a smokescreen of showing that "she is trying to get a new better deal."

Yes, although it's a gamble for the lack of a better strategy. Can we really rule out the possibility that the House of Commons will vote in favour of a extension a week before the March 29? Or that majority of MPs start to act in an even more irrational manner and continue to oppose both  the deal with the EU and an extension of the deadline, despite the fact that they also oppose a no-deal Brexit?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Hope they don't get sued by The Independent.... hahaha!

[Middle-aged Europe]

Interesting that the TIG now consists of seven women and only four men, although 55% of all Labour and 79% of all Tory MPs are male.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Are things finally starting to crack?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/21/theresa-may-faces-ministerial-revolt-over-no-deal-brexit

[Middle-aged Europe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-independent-group-mps-resign-corbyn-may-final-say-second-referendum-labour-a8791351.html

[Middle-aged Europe]

The EU is considering an offer to delay the Brexit till 2021, in order to avoid having to extent the deadline every three months or so.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/24/brexit-could-be-delayed-until-2021-eu-sources-reveal

[Middle-aged Europe]

The EU is considering an offer to delay the Brexit till 2021, in order to avoid having to extent the deadline every three months or so.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/24/brexit-could-be-delayed-until-2021-eu-sources-reveal

May cannot take that offer: she will tear her party in two and lose her job.

The viability of the Conservative Party's continued existence (in its current form) with its hard Brexiteers and its People's Vote supporters is something I wondered about myself these past weeks. The Tories don't quite seem like a set-up fit for our times anymore.

But you're right of course... while May does seem to inch closer to some form of extension now, it's likely that she'll try to keep the time frame short. For now. I suppose we could very well see her haggle with the EU about the precise length of an extension in three week or so.

[Middle-aged Europe]

What would be the point in a short extension, or a long extension or anything? It'll just mean being in exactly the same place X months down the line.

Continue to buy more time until either May's original EU deal (or a people's vote) is accepted by a majority of parliament? Most of them obviously don't want a hard Brexit, they just can't agree on what they want instead among the realistic options at hand. I mean if they continue to extent the deadline for the next six years one after another the MPs will eventually be willing to vote in favour of some form of solution they oppose right now.

[Middle-aged Europe]

There's certainly a lot of movement now with all the extension and second referendum talk.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Agriculture minister George Eustice calls it quits in response to May's plans to delay Brexit:

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-farming-and-fisheries-minister-quits-over-brexit-delay/

[Middle-aged Europe]

Game Over?

Cox says risk of UK being stuck in backstop remains

Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, has published his legal advice (pdf) on the assurances obtained by Theresa May.

Here is his conclusion.

In my letter of 13 November 2018, I advised that the protocol [ie, the backstop] would endure indefinitely in international law and could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent agreement. This would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties believed that talks have clearly broken down and there was no prospect of a future relationship agreement.

I also advised that in the specific case that situation was due to the EU’s want of good faith and best endeavours, because of the difficulties of proof and the egregious nature of the conduct that would be required to establish a breach by the EU of those obligations, it would be highly unlikely that the United Kingdom could take advantage of the remedies available to it for such a breach under the withdrawal agreement.

I now consider that the legally binding provisions of the joint instrument and the content of the unilateral declaration reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily detained within the Protocol’s provisions at least in so far as that situation had been brought about by the bad faith or want of best endeavours of the EU.

It may be thought that if both parties deploy a sincere desire to reach agreement and the necessary diligence, flexibility and goodwill implied by the amplified duties set out in the joint instrument, it is highly unlikely that a satisfactory subsequent agreement to replace the protocol will not be concluded. But as I have previously advised, that is a political judgment, which, given the mutual incentives of the parties and the available options and competing risks, I remain strongly of the view it is right to make.

However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.

https://twitter.com/markets/status/1105426875164315648

[Middle-aged Europe]

Seems like the Article 50 extension is all but ensured now:


https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1105429570814132224

[Middle-aged Europe]

[Middle-aged Europe]

DUP officially bails on the deal:





So does the ERG, apparently:

1. Yesterday’s documents considered individually and collectively do not deliver “legally binding changes” to the WA or to the protocol. They fail to fulfil the commitment made by government to the House in response to the Brady amendment “to obtain legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement”.

2. They do not provide any exit mechanism from the protocol which is under the UK’s control. Any exit by the UK from the protocol cannot take place without the agreement of the EU and therefore the position remains as set out in paras 14-16 of the attorney general’s advice dated 13 November 2018 that “the protocol will endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement takes its place”, and that the WA “cannot provide a legal means of compelling the EU to conclude such an agreement”.

3. The suggestion that “bad faith” by the EU could provide a legal route for the UK out of the protocol is not credible in practice within any determinate or reasonable timeframe. The AG’s advice at para 29 was that demonstrably bad-faith conduct on the part of the EU “would be highly unlikely; all they would have to do to show good faith would be to consider the UK’s proposals, even if they ultimately rejected them.” The threshold for demonstrating bad faith before an international tribunal is very high, and nothing in the documents make this a credible possibility.

4. The UK could not unilaterally disapply the protocol by alleging bad faith, but would be bound to submit the dispute to arbitration under part 6 of the WA, and would need a prior finding by the panel of breach on the part of the EU in order to invoke the right under Art.178(2) of the WA to suspend (not terminate) provisions of the WA or protocol. Any arbitration would be at best a lengthy and uncertain procedure which under Art.174 requires a reference to the ECJ of any questions of EU law involved. Even if the arbitration panel found in favour of the UK, para 14 of the joint instrument confirms that it would not enable the UK to exit the backstop.

5. The attorney general’s further advice today (12 March 2019) indicates at para 17 that there is a “reduced risk” of the UK being trapped in the protocol but this is caveated by the words “at least in so far as that situation had been brought about by the bad faith or want of best endeavours of the EU.” We consider that the prospects of such findings against the EU are remote, and note that at para 10 the AG only goes so far as to say that “it is arguable” that the UK could secure termination of relevant obligations under the protocol. Such faint and remote prospects of escaping from the protocol do not materially change the position the UK would find itself in if it were to ratify the WA. We agree with the AG’s final para 19 that “the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The vote could actually be closer this time, because a few MPs who had voted against the deal in January have now indicated that they support it. The Guardian counts 14 switchers right now. Of course, if it even remotely stays in the vicinity of that number May's deal would still get soundly defeated tonight.

At least 12 Tories planning to back May tonight having voted against her in January

The Tory MP Sir Robert Syms, who voted against the deal in January, has just told May that he will vote for the deal this evening.

The Spectator has got a list of 10 Tory MPs who were rebels in January but who have now changed their minds. Their names are: Ben Bradley, Nigel Evans, Robert Halfon, Greg Hands, John Lamont, Johnny Mercer, Mike Penning, Mark Pritchard, Derek Thomas, Martin Vickers.

Syms takes the total to 11.

Colleagues tell me Sir Graham Brady is also switching, meaning that we have got the names of 12 Tories who voted against in January who are voting for tonight.

The Labour MPs Caroline Flint and Jim Fitzpatrick are also expected to vote for the deal tonight, having voted against it in January.

That gives May 14 switchers – which reduces the size of the majority against her by 28.

[Middle-aged Europe]

 391 against, 242 in favour of the deal.

May: Vote on no-deal Brexit tomorrow. If no-deal Brexit is rejected, vote on extending Article 50 on Thursday.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Tonight's statements from leading EU figures like Donald Tusk or Manfred Weber indicate that they need to see an actual reason and purpose for extending Article 50. What does the UK want to do with an extension, specifically? Holding a snap election? Or a organizing a second referendum? At the same time, the EU has made clear that it doesn't consider wanting to renegotiate the deal another time as a legitimate reason.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Tonight's statements from leading EU figures like Donald Tusk or Manfred Weber indicate that they need to see an actual reason and purpose for extending Article 50. What does the UK want to do with an extension, specifically? Holding a snap election? Or a organizing a second referendum? At the same time, the EU has made clear that it doesn't consider wanting to renegotiate the deal another time as a legitimate reason.

They don't need a legitimate reason to revoke Article 50 (which they can do unilaterally) and that, in essence, could act as a two year delay if they reinstate Article 50 shortly thereafter.

On paper that's possible, but in reality it wouldn't be politically feasible right now.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Polling numbers:


41% say that parliament was right in rejecting the deal last night, while 33% say the decision was wrong.

50% say Theresay May should resign, 32% say she should stay on as PM.

42% support calling a general election, while 38% oppose to it.

47% say parliament should rule out a no-deal Brexit, while 35% want MPs to vote in favour of leaving the EU without a deal.

44% support extending Article 50, with 39% being opposed it.

Asked what Theresa May should do now, 29% support a second referendum, 25% support a no-deal Brexit, and 35% support some form of negotiated deal.


https://www.politico.eu/article/poll-half-of-uk-voters-want-theresa-may-to-resign/


With that last question they should have just asked whether they support a second referendum or a no-deal Brexit IMO. There won't be a negotiated deal other than the one which was already negotiated and whose rejection is supported by a plurality of respondents in that poll. Asking them whether they'd prefer some form of negotiated deal now is like asking them whether they'd like to spend their next vacation on the planet Mars.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Theresa May says that Parliament needs to pass a Brexit deal until next Wednesday, otherwise she's gonna seek a Article 50 extension till June 30 which means that the United Kingdom would have to participate in the European Parliament election on May 26.

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1105940201405337601

[Middle-aged Europe]

Totally unrealistic, I know... but I think the Queen should just fire May now and appoint John Bercow as the PM of a Tory (minus ERG)-Labour coalition government.

It's a national emergency, after all.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I've been of the opinion for a couple of months now that a second referendum will be the only way to break the gridlock and finally come to some sort of decision regarding Brexit. The politicians have failed, now the people must decide.