Brexit Thread 2

[DML]

He thinks a referendum is coming down the line.

The Referendum would have 3 options:

No Deal
The Deal on Table
Don't leave at all.

I really do not understand how 'The Deal On The Table' can be involved in a referendum. If parliament accepts it it happens, and if they don't, its dead. Theres no way the voters can overrule the MPs they've elected via an advisory referendum...

[captain red dog]

He thinks a referendum is coming down the line.

The Referendum would have 3 options:

No Deal
The Deal on Table
Don't leave at all.

I really do not understand how 'The Deal On The Table' can be involved in a referendum. If parliament accepts it it happens, and if they don't, its dead. Theres no way the voters can overrule the MPs they've elected via an advisory referendum...

I think you could put "the deal" as a choice even if parliament reject it. May could say, OK parliament can't decide so we need to ask the people if they want this deal, no deal or no Brexit.

I wish they would just get on with it as it seems inevitable due to parliament being unable to decide.

[Rex Kramer]

The problem is it's in no Brexiters interest to have 3 options on any referendum. May would want just her deal and remain (actually she'd probably just want her deal) and the hard brexiters would just want no deal. Anything else just splits the leave vote.

[Moggy]

The problem is it's in no Brexiters interest to have 3 options on any referendum. May would want just her deal and remain (actually she'd probably just want her deal) and the hard brexiters would just want no deal. Anything else just splits the leave vote.

A three way referendum would have to be run on a first and second preference basis. It makes it a little more complex but is the only way to be fair.

I don’t think it’d happen though. If there was another referendum it will come after the defeat of May’s deal, I can’t see her wanting to put that on the table as she will then know that Parliament doesn’t want it, Remainers don’t want it and Leavers don’t want it. The only options would be Remain or No Deal.

[Hypes]

The issue is that if we extend Article 50 I think we lose our ability to unllaterally revoke it, so an extension plays well towards May's "My Deal or No Deal" threat.

Is this true? First I’ve heard.

I am not 100% sure, but it sounds right. At the moment we are full members and so can revoke Article 50. If there was any extension then we would no longer be full members, for instance we are not going to be electing MEPs in May if we are in the extension period. After 29 March (unless we revoke Article 50) we will no longer be in the EU and so our right to revoke will probably be lost.

We would be. If there was an extension of the Article 50 negotiating period, and would still be eligible to vote for MEPs in upcoming elections (which is a major issue with extending it).
The 'transition period' which would apply if May's deal got voted through would be were we were not full members

[Moggy]

The issue is that if we extend Article 50 I think we lose our ability to unllaterally revoke it, so an extension plays well towards May's "My Deal or No Deal" threat.

Is this true? First I’ve heard.

I am not 100% sure, but it sounds right. At the moment we are full members and so can revoke Article 50. If there was any extension then we would no longer be full members, for instance we are not going to be electing MEPs in May if we are in the extension period. After 29 March (unless we revoke Article 50) we will no longer be in the EU and so our right to revoke will probably be lost.

We would be. If there was an extension of the Article 50 negotiating period, and would still be eligible to vote for MEPs in upcoming elections (which is a major issue with extending it).
The 'transition period' which would apply if May's deal got voted through would be were we were not full members

If that is the case then I can’t see any reason why we wouldn’t be able to revoke Article 50.

[Garth]

The ECJ ruling recently was that we are free to revoke Article 50 even if it's extended and we would still retain our current membership benefits.

[Hypes]

The issue is that if we extend Article 50 I think we lose our ability to unllaterally revoke it, so an extension plays well towards May's "My Deal or No Deal" threat.

Is this true? First I’ve heard.

I am not 100% sure, but it sounds right. At the moment we are full members and so can revoke Article 50. If there was any extension then we would no longer be full members, for instance we are not going to be electing MEPs in May if we are in the extension period. After 29 March (unless we revoke Article 50) we will no longer be in the EU and so our right to revoke will probably be lost.

We would be. If there was an extension of the Article 50 negotiating period, and would still be eligible to vote for MEPs in upcoming elections (which is a major issue with extending it).
The 'transition period' which would apply if May's deal got voted through would be were we were not full members

If that is the case then I can’t see any reason why we wouldn’t be able to revoke Article 50.

Agreed. Apart from the country looking like a bunch of indecisive incompetent shitweasels, but then we're already way past that

[Moggy]

The ECJ ruling recently was that we are free to revoke Article 50 even if it's extended and we would still retain our current membership benefits.

Yeah I was just looking after the posts above and the ECJ confirmed we would be able to revoke if it was extended.

Any extension is dependent on the agreement of the European Council and it would have to be unanimous - although we could just revoke and then trigger the two year negotiation period again if they said no to an extension.

[Moggy]

Apart from the country looking like a bunch of indecisive incompetent shitweasels,

That's kind of our brand now.

[Errkal]

The issue is that if we extend Article 50 I think we lose our ability to unllaterally revoke it, so an extension plays well towards May's "My Deal or No Deal" threat.

Is this true? First I’ve heard.

I am not 100% sure, but it sounds right. At the moment we are full members and so can revoke Article 50. If there was any extension then we would no longer be full members, for instance we are not going to be electing MEPs in May if we are in the extension period. After 29 March (unless we revoke Article 50) we will no longer be in the EU and so our right to revoke will probably be lost.

We would be. If there was an extension of the Article 50 negotiating period, and would still be eligible to vote for MEPs in upcoming elections (which is a major issue with extending it).
The 'transition period' which would apply if May's deal got voted through would be were we were not full members

If that is the case then I can’t see any reason why we wouldn’t be able to revoke Article 50.

Wy would the EU allow an extension to negotiations when they have already said this is the deal there is no more negoitiation to be had.

[Moggy]

The issue is that if we extend Article 50 I think we lose our ability to unllaterally revoke it, so an extension plays well towards May's "My Deal or No Deal" threat.

Is this true? First I’ve heard.

I am not 100% sure, but it sounds right. At the moment we are full members and so can revoke Article 50. If there was any extension then we would no longer be full members, for instance we are not going to be electing MEPs in May if we are in the extension period. After 29 March (unless we revoke Article 50) we will no longer be in the EU and so our right to revoke will probably be lost.

We would be. If there was an extension of the Article 50 negotiating period, and would still be eligible to vote for MEPs in upcoming elections (which is a major issue with extending it).
The 'transition period' which would apply if May's deal got voted through would be were we were not full members

If that is the case then I can’t see any reason why we wouldn’t be able to revoke Article 50.

Wy would the EU allow an extension to negotiations when they have already said this is the deal there is no more negoitiation to be had.

Because we are British and they need us more than we need them?

[Winckle]

The ECJ ruling recently was that we are free to revoke Article 50 even if it's extended and we would still retain our current membership benefits.

Yeah I was just looking after the posts above and the ECJ confirmed we would be able to revoke if it was extended.

Any extension is dependent on the agreement of the European Council and it would have to be unanimous - although we could just revoke and then trigger the two year negotiation period again if they said no to an extension.

Unfortunately not, any revocation has to be good faith and genuine.

[Moggy]

The ECJ ruling recently was that we are free to revoke Article 50 even if it's extended and we would still retain our current membership benefits.

Yeah I was just looking after the posts above and the ECJ confirmed we would be able to revoke if it was extended.

Any extension is dependent on the agreement of the European Council and it would have to be unanimous - although we could just revoke and then trigger the two year negotiation period again if they said no to an extension.

Unfortunately not, any revocation has to be good faith and genuine.

I don't think that is true. The Advocate Generals advice mentioned good faith, but I don't think the ECJ ruling did. Their ruling said:

In their judgment released on Monday morning the panel of judges said it would be “inconsistent with the EU treaties’ purpose of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe to force the withdrawal of a member state” against its wishes.

The court went even further than its advocate general and said the UK could even revoke Article 50 if the period had been extended. This is significant because it means time could be bought to hold a referendum or general election where the result could see Brexit cancelled.

“When a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has done, that member state is free to revoke unilaterally that notification,” the Luxembourg court said.

“That possibility exists for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that member state has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, and any possible extension, has not expired.”

The court said any revocation must be decided “following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements”. In the UK, the Supreme Court ruled that a vote of parliament was required to trigger Article 50 in the first place: this condition may apply to revocation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 75541.html

[captain red dog]

So another defeat, this time on the Grieve amendment. The vote on the deal next week is not even going to be remotely close. I don't get what May's gameplan is here, unless she is hoping to for a last minute offer from the EU which she thinks will massively change the numbers without time to properly debate it.

[Lagamorph]

You're assuming the vote next week won't get pulled last minute again.

[captain red dog]

You're assuming the vote next week won't get pulled last minute again.

Which is why to be fair, this vote was important as a sign of the mood of the commons. The Tories have dealt with this dreadfully. They had no plan B in the event they lost the referendum, have done the bare minimum of no deal planning and have no other plan aside from the May deal and have been held in contempt.

I have no sympathy that Bercow broke convention and allowed a vote on this issue. The time wasting has to come to an end. I don't think the Government would survive a no confidence vote at all if they delayed this vote again.

[Hexx]

Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former cabinet minister, intervenes. He says Labour says it wants “a permanent UK-EU customs union and a strong single market deal”. Letwin says he is speaking as someone who hopes that there will be a cross-party agreement on Brexit. Can Starmer explain what that means?

Starmer says he is interested in something that would be similar to the customs union, but not the same. He says he would like to explore this in talks with the EU. If it was a custom union like the one Turkey has with the EU, that would not be acceptable. And he says he would like something akin to single market membership, but not EEA membership. He accepts that these are issues that would have to be negotiated.

[Lagamorph]

Jesus Christ



Irresponsible front pages like this are what led to the Jo Cox tragedy.

[Skarjo]

The strawberry float is a popinjay.