Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Dave A]

5 days? It's 5 weeks, that could well be the longest prorogation in post-revolution history I think.

I stand corrected, when I read it yesterday (admittedly after a curry and beer) I read it as 5 days for some reason.

 

[ItWasntMe]

It’s d) the UK or Northern Ireland remains in the customs union until a c) can be found.

We have already found a massive c) - he's the one proroguing parliament.

 

[Famine]

Parliament has already been in the longest session in 350 years. If it stays in session through Brexit, it's going to have to stay in session after Brexit as well - I can only begin to imagine the tantrums if Parliament were to close session in the middle of all the business that needs to go on after withdrawal...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Parliament has already been in the longest session in 350 years. If it stays in session through Brexit, it's going to have to stay in session after Brexit as well - I can only begin to imagine the tantrums if Parliament were to close session in the middle of all the business that needs to go on after withdrawal...

Recesses are allowed (as we've just seen), so the length of the session is really just an administrative function. The government was only formed a few weeks ago and this parliament itself has only had... two sessions out of the usual five? Just the one? I'll have to look that up.

 

[Barra333]

Parliament has already been in the longest session in 350 years. If it stays in session through Brexit, it's going to have to stay in session after Brexit as well - I can only begin to imagine the tantrums if Parliament were to close session in the middle of all the business that needs to go on after withdrawal...

You say that like they have been hard at it non-stop. I just looked it up... this year, the parliament have had recesses at Easter (2 weeks), May (1 week), Whitsun (2 weeks), summer (5-ish weeks) + whatever Boris just did + Christmas. I know the MPs aren't all sitting idle during these times, but if I wanted 12+ weeks away from my place of work I know what my chances are...

 

[Famine]

You say that like...

... like it's a fact. I haven't said it in any other way than that.

I'm sure it wouldn't take long to find some posts from me mocking MPs who rarely spend time at head office voting on things they should be voting on, but as I didn't imply anything other than the fact of this record-breaking Parliamentary session there ought not to be any need to.

I know the MPs aren't all sitting idle during these times, but if I wanted 12+ weeks away from my place of work I know what my chances are...

Their place of work is their constituency office. When Parliament is not in session, that's where they're supposed to be, holding surgeries...


Interestingly, by proroguing Parliament instead of recessing it, Theresa May's WA is back on the table. The previous Parliament would not be allowed to vote again on the WA with significant changes (which it won't get because the EU will not negotiate on it; this much has been made as clear as it can be since last November), but a new Parliament will be able to because it's a new Parliament.

 

[eran0004]

I don't disagree with much of your analysis, but the crucial problem with d) is that there is no legal exit mechanism that the UK can ever apply should the backstop ever come into force.

Yes, that is a big problem with the backstop. Perhaps an exit mechanism should be added, although that also means that it would be replaced with a hard border.

If the EU agreed to drop the backstop and accept the reality that neither Ireland or the UK will ever install a hard border, then there is still a chance that the EU and the UK can agree a different form of temporary arrangement while a new system of mutual customs checks is implemented in Ireland, but crucially that does not permanently lock the UK into the Single Market with no EU voting rights.

It's not the reality though, it's an unknown. It depends on what the EU and the UK can agree on in their trade negotiations. And frankly, I have a hard time seeing how a hard border can be prevented unless the UK remains in the customs union, or aligns its trade policies to that of the customs union.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's not the reality though, it's an unknown. It depends on what the EU and the UK can agree on in their trade negotiations.

The status of the Irish border cannot depend on what the EU and UK may or may not agree in 2, 5 or 20 years time. It needs to be resolved now. Ireland and the UK - the only governments involved in this situation - have already formally agreed to not returning to any situation that would provoke hostilities. While the Good Friday Agreement does not explicitly prohibit a hard border on Ireland, politically and socially it does.

There is only one reason a hard border on Ireland is even being discussed at all... because the EU require one. But the Good Friday Agreement prohibits it (well, more accurately, it prohibits the effects of one), so the EU's idea is a non-starter.

While the backstop would, initially at least, prevent the need for a hard border, the problem of what to do once the UK leaves the Customs Union and Single Market would just appear again.

The problem is, the EU may never agree to any trade deal that involves the UK leaving the Customs Union, and then the UK is permanently trapped because the backstop has legal force indefinitely, and the only escape route is to agree to whatever the EU demands as part of a trade deal.

Given that I am a Remain voter and a supporter of the UK's membership of the Single Market, even I can see why the backstop is never going to be agreed to.

And frankly, I have a hard time seeing how a hard border can be prevented unless the UK remains in the customs union, or aligns its trade policies to that of the customs union.

You may be surprised at how quickly solutions will present themselves in the event that the UK is forced to leave the EU without a deal...

The fact is though, that the UK has a right to leave the EU, and thus the Single Market and Customs Union whenever it chooses to. Indeed, no member state or sovereign country can be forced against its will to either join or be forced to remain inside the EU against its will - a fact that is recognised in the EU's own acquis (Article 50 would not exist otherwise).

This being the case, the EU has no legal or moral right to compel the UK to remain under its legal oversight in any way, but that is precisely what the backstop does. On that basis alone, it is not acceptable.

The Irish border issue complicates matters, but it doesn't change two plain facts on the ground... the UK has the right to leave the Customs Union, and Ireland and the UK have agreed to no hard border on the island of Ireland. Those are the ground truths, and thus any permanent solution has to address them both.

 

[eran0004]

There is only one reason a hard border on Ireland is even being discussed at all... because the EU require one. But the Good Friday Agreement prohibits it (well, more accurately, it prohibits the effects of one), so the EU's idea is a non-starter.

You can't leave a border open to one EU member without leaving it open to any other EU member as well.

The problem is, the EU may never agree to any trade deal that involves the UK leaving the Customs Union, and then the UK is permanently trapped because the backstop has legal force indefinitely, and the only escape route is to agree to whatever the EU demands as part of a trade deal.

Yes, that is one problem. A more realistic problem is that no solution to the Irish border can be found and that the UK is stuck in the customs union for that reason.

The fact is though, that the UK has a right to leave the EU, and thus the Single Market and Customs Union whenever it chooses to. Indeed, no member state or sovereign country can be forced against its will to either join or be forced to remain inside the EU against its will - a fact that is recognised in the EU's own acquis (Article 50 would not exist otherwise).

Indeed, that's why the backstop is part of a deal that the UK would choose whether to sign or not.

The Irish border issue complicates matters, but it doesn't change two plain facts on the ground... the UK has the right to leave the Customs Union, and Ireland and the UK have agreed to no hard border on the island of Ireland. Those are the ground truths, and thus any permanent solution has to address them both.

And if the two ground truths are incompatible with each other (which they appear to be at this point), then what?

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is only one reason a hard border on Ireland is even being discussed at all... because the EU require one.

The same thing is required between any areas that don't have a common customs agreement. It's not as if it's something that the EU have just magicked out of their Arras.

This being the case, the EU has no legal or moral right to compel the UK to remain under its legal oversight in any way, but that is precisely what the backstop does. On that basis alone, it is not acceptable.

The EU is not acting for the UK - the UK has exercised its right to fall beyond that scope. The EU still very much has a legal and moral duty to its member countries, including Ireland. They can not agree in party to measures that break any treaties held by their member states, ergot they can not agree to a No Deal with the unavoidable prospect of a Customs border. They've agreed to a deal that includes the portions of Customs control that avoid people with the Royal Crown on their uniforms being at the NI/Ireland border. There was nothing else they could do.

These ideas about magical "hands off" customs controls that don't exist or work on any other live border in the world are not en oeuf.

 

[Dotini]

I hear of a plan for MPs to enact emergency legislation that would require the PM to delay Brexit. But he could ignore it and hard Brexit will occur anyway.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This from Rees-Mogg some time ago, apologies if we've already had it. It's very worrying in any case.

 

[baldgye]

This from Rees-Mogg some time ago, apologies if we've already had it. It's very worrying in any case.

They don’t care. BoJo and his ilk don’t care. They’ll profit off Brexit and no-deal and never have to live with the consequences.

 

[Dotini]

Boris attempts a coup, but parliament feebly rallies to protect democracy. The monarchy is in no danger. Scotland: "Dictator killing democracy", independence in play.

 

[Imari]

This from Rees-Mogg some time ago, apologies if we've already had it. It's very worrying in any case.

The Troubles Part 2: Explosive Boogaloo.

I'm not even sure that's funny, The Troubles were horrific. I'm not sure the world needs another set of countries at war with each other, and the Irish (Northern or otherwise) sure don't. But I'm sure it's easy for a politician with a butt full of silver spoons to do whatever the 🤬 they feel like, and be damned how many people die as a consequence.

 

[MatskiMonk]

They’ll profit off Brexit and no-deal and never have to live with the consequences.

Well, you never know. Maybe one day someone will kidnap JRM's children, and tell him they will be killed if he doesn't drive a car bomb up to a military target and detonate it...

... just like during the troubles

 

[Dennisch]

There must be an empty castle somewhere in Britain that houses a nice large damp basement.

Wouldn't it be wise to round up most of your politicians, as they are a bunch of worthless lying asswipes, and remove them from society?


Start over, never speak of Brexit again.

 

[Touring Mars]

A more realistic problem is that no solution to the Irish border can be found and that the UK is stuck in the customs union for that reason.

Nope. The UK has the right to leave. And unless the EU can offer a reasonable deal, the UK can (if it chooses to) leave without a deal.

And if the two ground truths are incompatible with each other (which they appear to be at this point), then what?

The simplest solution is for the EU and the UK to agree a trade deal that keeps things as closely aligned to what exists at the moment as possible.

But the Article 50 process has made this very hard, if not impossible, to achieve. The best we can hope for now (short of revoking Article 50 anyway) is that the EU and the UK are forced (by the circumstances of a No Deal exit) to agree to a raft of temporary measures in order to avoid as much disruption as possible (e.g. mutually agreeing to continue trading under Article 24 of the WTO rules) until a full free trade deal is signed.

The key problem with the Article 50 process as it stands is that it requires the UK to legally tie its own hands before negotiations on our future trading relationship with the EU have even started... is it any wonder that the process has been a complete failure? A No Deal Brexit will be messy and everyone should be working double time to avoid that outcome, but the EU must surely realise that the game is up for the backstop, and that a No Deal Brexit - while harmful to the UK - is also extremely damaging to the EU, not just economically but politically, and actually weakens their negotiating position substantially.

In other words, if the EU wish for an advantageous outcome, they'd be better doing it before we leave without a deal and not after.

 

[baldgye]

Nope. The UK has the right to leave. And unless the EU can offer a reasonable deal, the UK can (if it chooses to) leave without a deal.

Problem is that the UK has a difficult situation with one of its borders. Sometimes you can't just do what ever you want before you resolve other problems.

 

[Dotini]

The European feudal age ended with the regime the Kings, armies, nation-states and borders. When trade didn't cross borders, armies did.

Now, in the post nation-state era of globalism, both the EU and the UK are being crucified on the crumbling altar of borders.

"Small Change got rained on with his own .38"

- Tom Waits​

 

[eran0004]

Nope. The UK has the right to leave. And unless the EU can offer a reasonable deal, the UK can (if it chooses to) leave without a deal.

With the backstop they don’t have the right to leave. Which is exactly why the backstop is a problem.

 

[andrea]

The entire frontpage is something else. Masterful wording, by the way.

 

[Touring Mars]

With the backstop they don’t have the right to leave. Which is exactly why the backstop is a problem.

No.

The UK has a right to leave the EU. Period.

The reason the backstop is a problem is because it violates that right.

Problem is that the UK has a difficult situation with one of its borders. Sometimes you can't just do what ever you want before you resolve other problems.

This is true... but it doesn't change the fact that the UK has a right to leave the EU's legal orbit (and by the same token the EU has no right to force us to remain inside).

The Irish border situation presents a unique problem insofar as it is difficult to reconcile the facts that the UK has a right to exit the Single Market and Customs Union, but a hard border cannot be erected in Ireland.

But - it is not like there are not possible solutions - even fairly simple ones. The trouble is not that there are no possible solutions, but that the possible solutions are not even being seriously considered.

 

[baldgye]

This is true... but it doesn't change the fact that the UK has a right to leave the EU's legal orbit (and by the same token the EU has no right to force us to remain inside).

The Irish border situation presents a unique problem insofar as it is difficult to reconcile the facts that the UK has a right to exit the Single Market and Customs Union, but a hard border cannot be erected in Ireland.

So, the first thing the government should have done, is sort out NI/Ire and THEN push for Brexit.

The UK has a right to leave the EU. Period.

No, not if we haven't resolved our border problems.

 

[Touring Mars]

So, the first thing the government should have done, is sort out NI/Ire and THEN push for Brexit.

But, as I have explained before, the NI/Ireland border situation cannot be 'sorted out' until the future trading relationship between the EU and the UK has been agreed, which (by the EU's own rules) cannot be done until after the exiting member state has already left.

If that sounds pretty dumb to you, then join the club.

The fundamental problem with the backstop (as well as that mentioned above) is that it requires the UK to agree in advance of a new agreement on our future relationship with the EU what our future relationship with the EU will be should that new agreement never materialise.

You can hopefully see the problem when the precondition for opening negotiations on a new future relationship is that the UK legally commits itself to a different future relationship (one that is inferior to both our current situation and what the UK would like to happen in the future) from which it cannot exit.

 

[baldgye]

But, as I have explained before, the NI/Ireland border situation cannot be 'sorted out' until the future trading relationship between the EU and the UK has been agreed, which (by the EU's own rules) cannot be done until after the exiting member state has already left.

If that sounds pretty dumb to you, then join the club.

No, it makes sense.

I've been trying to look into it, but it seems like there are no specialised inter-EU trade agreements for specific nations, or if there are I cannot find them. However I do not understand why the 'good Friday' agreement cannot be expanded upon to allow a hard boarder and specialised trade agreements between the UK and the RI whilst in the EU. This would then allow either nation (the UK or RI) the ability to leave.

This is the direction our government should have taken Brexit. Instead the whole lower house fell apart and we're now looking to do anything and everything to leave regardless of the damage it will do.

 

[Dennisch]

Remember, your politicians did not have a plan ready when the folks voted to leave.

If anyone is to blame about anything, go after the leave camp. And then cook them. And then feed them to the fishies.

 

[Famine]

Remember, your politicians did not have a plan ready when the folks voted to leave.

Nobody had a plan for it, because the people weren't supposed to vote that way.

Cameron went to the EU, got a new, better deal for the UK to make us even more of a special case within the bloc that addressed the concerns people had about it, and then asked people if they really actually honestly still wanted to leave.

He didn't appreciate that all Leave had to do was leverage Britons' natural distrust of Germans, French people, and large supranational bodies with our "home is our castle" doctrine, and the threat of smelly terrorist darkies. He and the rest of the Remain camp were always, always fighting an uphill battle against that, but if they hadn't been so inept in their tactics (which consisted of doing nothing but sending a £9m leaflet to every home in the country - and Brits hate governments who waste money - then when their goose was already cooked trying to focus on one thing while saying "excuse me this isn't true" while Leave was already four loads of bollocks down the road, so Remain had already exhausted all possible levels of outrage while Leave unveiled literal Nazi propaganda posters) they might have got a score draw.

Or he did appreciate it and did the whole thing for a bet against himself.

Honestly, about 10% of people cared either way back in 2010, and everyone else if pushed would have either shrugged or thought about it and then shrugged, and then said something about going on holiday or Polish plumbers. When everyone had to have an opinion on it, and if they said Leave they were small-minded gammon racists and if they said Remain they loved terrorists and should give Tarquinthia's second playroom to Syrians, it became a much bigger issue that's defined elections ever since.

 

[BobK]

Could GB/RI agree on a "hard border" then simply fail to implement it? What could the EU do in that case?

 

[eran0004]

No.

The UK has a right to leave the EU. Period.

The reason the backstop is a problem is because it violates that right.

Nope. That’s not what I’m arguing. My point is that it’s an unrealistic scenario that the EU would stall a solution to the border issue in order to keep the UK locked in the backstop. However, it’s still very likely that the UK could become locked in the backstop, because finding a solution to the border issue is really hard.

And it is really hard because Ireland can’t have two separate single markets at the same time - one with the EU and one with the UK.

And yes the backstop is a bad solution for the exact same reason as you mention, because there is no clear way out of it. At the same time, the backstop is also the only guarantee the the Irish border stays open, so if you want to avoid a hard border there is not really any other alternative.

The Good Friday Agreement is important because it shows intent, but intent is no guarantee for a solution.