Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Hun200kmh]

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems are about to formally back revoking Article 50 - and Swinson said as much in the Commons last night.

Effectively making them The Remain Party.

I've watched a deputy leader of the Lib Dems say, when asked about possible local deals with Labour to allow both parties to win as many constituencies as possible, that it wasn't possible because Jeremy Corbyn was a Brexiteer and a Labour Government would still want to take the UK out of the EU. So, only the Labour opposition to "no deal" put them now in the same side of the divide against the Tories. But come the GE, they will fight both brexiteer parties, regardless of if they're "no-dealers" (Tories) or "dealers" (Labour), so, no chance of any pre-electoral agreement with Labour.

It's a risky and bold strategy, and it might pay off … or it might not (that's why it's risky)

 

[Dotini]

Is what the UK is going through now the best of all worlds? Is it better than the alternative of already having made a decision?

 

[Hun200kmh]

The UK has now the best deal any country can have with the EU. Being a part of all institutions, having vote (and veto) as any other "normal" member, but having a few opt outs in place (Euro and Schengen), plus a significant rebate of their contribution to the EU budget.

 

[Dotini]

In the US two-party system, a 52/48 vote of the people is of course an absolute majority and tantamount to a crushing landslide. Here, decisions - right or wrong - come easily.

In the UK parliamentary multi-party system, majorities seem hard to come by from design, indecisiveness par for the course, and the vote of the people means much less. There - right or wrong - decisions are not for the people to make.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is 'normal' terrorist/sectarian action, it goes on all the time. The problem is that a hard border (aka Johnson's default plan) will increase tensions and escalate things even more.

Johnson’s ‘default plan’ is in fact simply ‘the default plan’ - if No Deal is reached, it is the default situation that the UK leaves with No Deal.

Even the current bill to outlaw leaving the EU next month without a deal does not automatically prevent No Deal next month (the EU can refuse an extension), and nor does it prevent No Deal after that... No Deal is, still, very much the default - i.e. it will happen unless something else (a deal or revocation of Article 50) takes its place.

Beyond that, Johnson’s plan is not to have a hard border - his plan is (or at least appears to be) to let the other side worry about what to do about it and effectively force them back to the negotiating table, precisely by being openly seen to be doing nothing of any consequence to address the situation. The best possible outcome for Johnson is that the EU view his approach as so cavalier (but also very popular) that they agree to soften the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement to the point of becoming acceptable to the UK, thus ensuring no hard border in Ireland. Curiously though, I reckon Johnson is really trying to pave the way for changing the backstop back to what it was originally (NI-only) and getting it through Parliament in spite of the DUP.

edit: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...thern-ireland-only-backstop-to-break-deadlock

What could be vital here is that Labour are (slowly) coming round to the fact that the Withdrawal Agreement (esp. with the all-UK backstop removed) is a far better outcome than No Deal, and it would even leave open their ambitions of a 'soft Brexit', which will still be up for negotiation...

 

[Keef]

Democracy.

The thing is, I think if the UK bails on Brexit and returns to the EU, that'll be the end of anyone getting out of the EU. It would solidify the EU as a ruling entity and I think all of those nations lose their sovereignty. I probably sound like an over-reacting nutjob here, but that's pretty much all the EU needs to demonstrate that leaving will not be tolerated. At that point they can start building their army like they want, and slowly further co-opting the capabilities of their internal nations.

I think if the UK wants to remain the UK, they need to make this happen.

I think it is an overreaction. Procedures exist to leave the EU, no biggie. It would probably work if the vote wasn't distorted by this Russia nonsense. This entire movement is an accident of propaganda and there was no practical reason for it to happen. Totally unnecessary. The EU benefits each country just as the US benefits each state - trade is easy, travel is easy, etc. It reduces the burden on each individual country and allows the lot of them to more effectively compete economically with powerhouses like the US and China. Even as members of the EU, the countries have considerably more autonomy than US states do while also benefiting from similarly easy access.

The lack of an economic union in Europe is part of the reason for thousands of years of squabbling between all the countries. Leaving will accomplish nothing but the satisfaction of doing things the hard way.

What is a disaster about it? The only way it is a disaster is if you believe all the ridiculous fear mongering stories that they use to scare people into wanting to stay in the EU.

Yes that would be great. Make Hitlers plan of a european state become reality. And in the process send a message that the people voting doesnt count for ****. The EU sucks and will be the ned of europe as we know it. I've seen both Italy and Britain slowly and surely turn into **** holes under the EU.

Speaking of fear mongering, support for Brexit was influenced by Russian-led propaganda, just like support for electing Trump in the US. The reason Brexit passed in the first place was because of fear mongering.

 

[Danoff]

I think it is an overreaction. Procedures exist to leave the EU, no biggie. It would probably work if the vote wasn't distorted by this Russia nonsense. This entire movement is an accident of propaganda and there was no practical reason for it to happen. Totally unnecessary. The EU benefits each country just as the US benefits each state - trade is easy, travel is easy, etc. It reduces the burden on each individual country and allows the lot of them to more effectively compete economically with powerhouses like the US and China. Even as members of the EU, the countries have considerably more autonomy than US states do while also benefiting from similarly easy access.

The lack of an economic union in Europe is part of the reason for thousands of years of squabbling between all the countries. Leaving will accomplish nothing but the satisfaction of doing things the hard way.

I'm floored.

 

[Keef]

I'm floored.

Why? You put leaving the EU in terms of force, I put it in terms of necessity. I don't think the EU is some big scary monster trying to eliminate borders like some people think it is. I think it's a gateway to economic success.

 

[Danoff]

Why? You put leaving the EU in terms of force, I put it in terms of necessity. I don't think the EU is some big scary monster trying to eliminate borders like some people think it is. I think it's a gateway to economic success.

Free trade does not require a common governing body.

 

[Keef]

Free trade does not require a common governing body.

That's a fact. Unfortunately, in the world we've invented, free trade doesn't exist. There's always red tape, and apparently the UK is having trouble even getting tape the right color. I'd rather work smarter, not harder.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think it's a gateway to economic success.

Italy, the world's 8th largest economy, has seen practically no growth for 20 years... Greece has been virtually ruined and is now effectively an EU debt colony for at least the next half a century... youth unemployment in Spain, Italy and Greece is staggeringly high (at 30, 30 and 40% respectively - Germany is just 5% and the UK and Ireland are both at 10% for comparison).

There is no doubt that the EU is a very effective 'gateway to economic success'... for some. The trouble comes when it fails to act as such for all, and the price that those people need to pay for the privilege.

The key point, however, is that the EU is, currently, a supranational bloc that member states have a right to leave if they should chose to do so - but Brexit is proving that exercising that right is far harder than it really ought to be. The fact is, however, that for some member states, like Greece for example, that right may as well not even exist any more - and that's a problem that proves that the EU is currently moving in the wrong direction.

 

[Hun200kmh]

This "Guide" for UK nationals living in France is curious but also sobering. The consequences of Brexit must be a bit of a worry for those living and working on the wrong side of this future divide ...

https://www.thelocal.fr/20190329/updated-no-deal-checklist-for-britons-in-france

 

[baldgye]

The key point, however, is that the EU is, currently, a supranational bloc that member states have a right to leave if they should chose to do so - but Brexit is proving that exercising that right is far harder than it really ought to be.

Pretty disingenuous point to make. If it wasn't for how we dealt with the problems in Northern Ireland we would have left without issue either with no-deal or our deal.
We're trying to have our cake and eat it, then kick off when it isn't working exactly how we wrongly assumed it would. If Italy or Spain wanted to leave the EU, they could get similar deals to the one we have, and leave. They wouldn't have to deal with the Irish backstop....

 

[Touring Mars]

Maintaining the integrity of a sovereign nation is hardly 'trying to have our cake and eat it' - the UK, including Northern Ireland, have a right to leave the EU, lock, stock and barrel. The key problem with Brexit is the fact that the EU require a hard border where there cannot be one for political and social reasons (that had/have nothing to do with Brexit).

As I've maintained all along, keeping the Irish border open is not and should not be a stick for either side to beat the other with (the EU or the UK, I mean)... it is not negotiable that the Irish border stays open, and thus both sides should have been operating under that assumption from Day One. The UK and Ireland have maintained this position throughout, while the EU are merely paying lip-service to the idea because they know that a No Deal Brexit will mean they will have to demand that Ireland impose new border checks in order to maintain the integrity of the Single Market.

What is becoming apparent now is that there are indeed solutions to avoid a hard border, but the EU will only entertain them if they are given no other choice. Short of suspending Ireland from the Single Market, the only other way for the EU to avoid having to impose border controls in Ireland is to come up with a deal that the UK can accept. Thus far they have failed to do so, and hence No Deal is now staring them in the face.

Luckily for them, however, the original backstop idea is now gaining more and more traction - far from 'trying to have our cake and eat it', however, such a compromise would be a massive concession (virtually unprecedented in international law) of the UK allowing the EU to maintain its control/rules over Northern Ireland until another solution can be found.

I've never been massively in favour of this because of the precedent it sets (i.e. allowing different parts of a single sovereign state to have different arrangements with the EU), but at the moment it seems like the lesser of several evils that would, at the very least, resolve the Irish situation and allow the UK to move on.

 

[Liquid]

I'm not sure any other EU country would have as much of a problem leaving as the United Kingdom though. It's only because of the Northern Ireland question that it has taken this long and been such a farce.

There are EU members who have historically not gotten along or who might dispute territory and population transfers such as Italy/Austria, France/Germany, Hungary/Slovakia. Should any of those countries decide to leave, they would almost certainly Deal because of their long-standing Schengen arrangements. Most just wouldn't do it in the first place.

No two EU member states have as delicate a border as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It's arguably the worst test case possible.

 

[Daz555]

The simple but long term answer is that the UK needs to work to unite Ireland and THEN ask the people if they want to leave the EU. It might take 50 more years but a worthy goal.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not sure any other EU country would have as much of a problem leaving as the United Kingdom though. It's only because of the Northern Ireland question that it has taken this long and been such a farce.

There are EU members who have historically not gotten along or who might dispute territory and population transfers such as Italy/Austria, France/Germany, Hungary/Slovakia. Should any of those countries decide to leave, they would almost certainly Deal because of their long-standing Schengen arrangements. Most just wouldn't do it in the first place.

No two EU member states have as delicate a border as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It's arguably the worst test case possible.

Ironically, I believe that the UK leaving the EU is among the easiest test case, not the hardest.

The Irish border has complicated matters intensely, but it needn't have been such an issue - the fact that it has been used as a means of frustrating the process is something that should never have happened.

The idea that Italy or any other member of the Euro could leave the EU more easily than the UK is almost certainly false. Greece has proved that beyond much doubt. Also, it would be very difficult to erect new borders between most EU member states who are now accustomed to having no borders - the political tensions of the Irish border may not exist in these situations, but the same economic arguments against the imposition of new checks, tariffs etc. are the same... it would not be easy for any country to simply leave the EU, nor would it be easy for the EU to force bordering member states to erect new borders. The Euro would also make it an order of magnitude more complicated for any Eurozone member to quit the EU. In contrast, the UK leaving is about as easy as it gets for the EU, even taking the Irish border issue into account.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This suspension of parliament is unlawful, according to a Scottish court.

Breaking news (BBC), more details to come.

 

[Liquid]

In contrast, the UK leaving is about as easy as it gets for the EU, even taking the Irish border issue into account.

And if that's true, they still make a right pig's ear of it.

 

[baldgye]

Maintaining the integrity of a sovereign nation is hardly 'trying to have our cake and eat it' - the UK, including Northern Ireland, have a right to leave the EU, lock, stock and barrel.

The UK does have the right, correct, but due to existing commitments it simply can't just up and leave without huge problems. The end.

 

[Touring Mars]

The UK does have the right, correct, but due to existing commitments it simply can't just up and leave without huge problems. The end.

True... but that is not the same as saying the UK can't just up and leave, because we can. Yes, that would cause huge problems, but those problems would be a consequence of our leaving, not a barrier to it.

This suspension of parliament is unlawful, according to a Scottish court.

Breaking news (BBC), more details to come.

Ouch!

 

[MatskiMonk]

the UK leaving is about as easy as it gets for the EU,

Had the government got a useful majority consisting of people that believed it's a good idea, it would be even easier!

 

[baldgye]

True... but that is not the same as saying the UK can't just up and leave, because we can. Yes, that would cause huge problems, but those problems would be a consequence of our leaving, not a barrier to it.

I mean, there isn't much stopping us from just leaving without a deal, except the fact it would ruin the country. This ruining of the country and making the general population poorer is the barrier. If leaving genuinely made us better off, we'd have left under May regardless of the problems it'd cause in NI.

Fact is, just leaving would not only **** us, but also **** Northern Ireland, not long after we've worked to resolve those problems.

 

[Dotini]

This suspension of parliament is unlawful, according to a Scottish court.

Breaking news (BBC), more details to come.

Dan Damon on BBC radio has said BoJo resigning is the obvious next step.

 

[Touring Mars]

Dan Damon on BBC radio has said BoJo resigning is the obvious next step.

The next step is that it goes to the Supreme Court - if they uphold the decision, then Johnson will virtually have no other option but to resign.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The next step is that it goes to the Supreme Court - if they uphold the decision, then Johnson will virtually have no other option but to resign.

Parliament is in London, which isn't in Scotland - although some Scottish people work there some of the time (technically an MP's place of work is their constituency office, which is in their constituency) - which is why this decision is absolutely meaningless until heard in the Supreme Court, whose decision will apply UK-wide.

I was listening to a lawyer on Radio 4 who was trying to unpick the complexities of the jurisdiction. Parliament is in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Advice to the Queen and the Privy council (and other matters pertaining to the overarching Constitution) can be reviewed or appealed in any of those jurisdictions. What can't be done in the non-English jurisdictions is the creation of an order to compel residents of other jurisdictions in those other jurisdictions.

As it is it seems that Boris Johnson may be recalling parliament over the next couple of days. If he does that then it might suggest that he's not confident about the outcome in the Supreme Court whose hearing will begin next Tuesday.

I moved the reply to this thread as that's where most of the discussion seemed to have been.

 

[Touring Mars]

I was wondering - the 'Benn' bill, which forces the PM to seek an extension to Article 50 should he not have concluded a deal with the EU by 19th October... does it actually stipulate when the extension must be requested? Obviously, it must be requested some time before Article 50 expires on 31st October, but what happens if there is no deal agreed, no sign of a change in the EU's position, and Johnson decides to hold off requesting the extension for as long as possible... before quitting as PM. Say he quits on October 30th... that would give the opposition just a matter of hours to form an interim Government and, more problematically, choose a leader. Could this be why the PM is so confident of neither requesting an extension or breaking the law?

 

[baldgye]

I was wondering - the 'Benn' bill, which forces the PM to seek an extension to Article 50 should he not have concluded a deal with the EU by 19th October... does it actually stipulate when the extension must be requested? Obviously, it must be requested some time before Article 50 expires on 31st October, but what happens if there is no deal agreed, no sign of a change in the EU's position, and Johnson decides to hold off requesting the extension for as long as possible... before quitting as PM. Say he quits on October 30th... that would give the opposition just a matter of hours to form an interim Government and, more problematically, choose a leader. Could this be why the PM is so confident of neither requesting an extension or breaking the law?

If this did happen, would Parliament need a leader? Couldn't the parties just vote on the deal or cancelling brexit (assuming no-deal is 'illegal' )

 

[polysmut]

If this did happen, would Parliament need a leader? Couldn't the parties just vote on the deal or cancelling brexit (assuming no-deal is 'illegal' )

Parliament would need a speaker.

 

[Touring Mars]

If this did happen, would Parliament need a leader? Couldn't the parties just vote on the deal or cancelling brexit (assuming no-deal is 'illegal' )

It wouldn't need a PM, but it would require a sitting Government... it's also hard to see how any legislation could be passed without a Government either.

I don't know exactly what all the possibilities are, but it seems likely that the PM would try something like this, or perhaps even holding a vote of no confidence in his own Government...