Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[McHrozni]

Various nuggets of Brexit news:

Tesco are saying that their planning for Brexit is being hampered (if you'll excuse the pun ) by the fact that their warehouses will be full of Christmas stock:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48844351

Teaching of foreign languages, especially German, in underprivileged areas is suffering as parents say that they will be less important be required post-Brexit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48830260

In Scotland, firms are putting off investment because of Brexit-related increases in material and labour costs and due to uncertainty over the Brexit process itself:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotl...uk/news/uk&link_location=live-reporting-story

Remember: There will be no downside, only a considerable upside.

This is what won the referendum. Anything less than that means a failure.

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

Given these results I'm not at all certain they're so fanatically pro-Brexit as the polla makes them seem. It may be they're just pro-power and see a no-deal Brexit as the way to achieve that power.

Several of us have been pointing out since this all began that this had nothing to do with what is actually good for the country, but everything to do with what is good for the Tory party and their divine right to rule.

 

[Vixen]

Various nuggets of Brexit news:

Tesco are saying that their planning for Brexit is being hampered (if you'll excuse the pun ) by the fact that their warehouses will be full of Christmas stock:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48844351

Teaching of foreign languages, especially German, in underprivileged areas is suffering as parents say that they will be less important be required post-Brexit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48830260

In Scotland, firms are putting off investment because of Brexit-related increases in material and labour costs and due to uncertainty over the Brexit process itself:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotl...uk/news/uk&link_location=live-reporting-story

One reason there are far fewer Brits in the EU countries than EU migrants here is precisely because they never bothered to learn other languages.

 

[The Don]

One reason there are far fewer Brits in the EU countries than EU migrants here is precisely because they never bothered to learn other languages.

True. I mean I can get by in French and actually do reasonably well in German and have a smattering of Spanish and Italian but that wouldn't do me a great deal of good if I was trying to get a job in The Netherlands, Finland or Slovenia.

 

[The Don]

Remember: There will be no downside, only a considerable upside.
This is what won the referendum. Anything less than that means a failure.

McHrozni

......and for those who were leading the charge for Brexit, that still may be true.

• Boris likely gets to be Prime Minister
• The likes of Bamford and Dyson will likely end up with lower costs
• Rees Mogg and other ERG members stand to gain from whatever financial instruments they have in place
• Farage will be generously rewarded financially by his backers like Aaron Banks.....
• .....who will in turn be generously rewarded by his own backers

 

[Andy_Ross]

Farage on the news saying he will continue his fight against the EU even after Brexit.
He is doing it for the 500 million people still under the rule of the illegitimate organisation known as the EU.

Ranting about how the parliament is undemocratic and we didn't vote for a flag or an anthem etc.

All rather depressing.

 

[McHrozni]

True. I mean I can get by in French and actually do reasonably well in German and have a smattering of Spanish and Italian but that wouldn't do me a great deal of good if I was trying to get a job in The Netherlands, Finland or Slovenia.

I have some experience with two of those, and I think you'd survive in at least those two, probably all three. Long enough to learn the native babble anyway. Finns and Slovenes would likely welcome the futile attempt and Dutch is a bastard baby of English and German. I can understand a good deal of written Dutch with my knowledge of English and a basic knowledge of German.

Spoken Dutch sounds like a growel that just shifts in pitch and volume to make words, so I'd need some work on that. But I suppose it's learnable. You should do no worse

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

......and for those who were leading the charge for Brexit, that still may be true.

• Boris likely gets to be Prime Minister
• The likes of Bamford and Dyson will likely end up with lower costs
• Rees Mogg and other ERG members stand to gain from whatever financial instruments they have in place
• Farage will be generously rewarded financially by his backers like Aaron Banks.....
• .....who will in turn be generously rewarded by his own backers

Assuming they don't get to meed Madame Gulliotine as a result of course

McHrozni

 

[IanS]

But see, that's the thing. It doesn't matter how badly a no-deal Brexit motion is defeated, unless an alternative course of action is agreed, that's what we get by default.

IMO the alternatives to a no-deal Brexit (in order of descending likelihood) are:

• A deal
• A second referendum between two types of Brexit
• A second referendum involving no-Brexit as an option
• Revocation of Article 50

Assuming that EU sticks to their guns and refuses to renegotiate the deal or remove the backstop and that the two major parties keep their respective "red lines" then any deal will bear a startling resemblance to Theresa May's deal. Given that IMO this is the most likely non-no-deal outcome and it's failed to get passed 3 times, I think the other three options have a vanishingly small likelihood.

No, . .... If you read the legal article, or read what I have explained from it - PM-Boris (or any PM) cannot legally force a No Deal just by running down the clock whilst refusing to allow any votes against that tactic in the HoC. The Speaker will not allow that for a start, and the courts will intervene if opposition MPs ask for that ...

... what would happen in that case, is that the PM would be forced to go back to the EU and ask for an extension to A50. That what was actually happened to Mrs May .... she did want to go back to the EU to ask for an extension, but she was in effect forced to do that because of the rules that she was faced with from the Speaker and the Courts.

PM-Boris would be forced either to return to the EU asking for more time (another extension to A50), or else he would have to resign as PM.

The bottom line (as stated in that legal article) is that, what the PM cannot do, is override the will of parliament & override democracy by refusing to allow any votes to stop an automatic No Deal.

 

[The Don]

Yes, written Dutch isn't so much of a problem. I used to work for Philips in their (now closed) TV tube factory in Durham and used to have to approximately translate some of the technical manuals from Dutch to English.

There is however, in my experience, a huge difference between being able to read a newspaper, have a holiday conversation or even watch TV in a language and being able to work in that language. After a day in Germany with my German clients I need to lie down in a darkened room with a damp towel over my eyes

 

[McHrozni]

Yes, written Dutch isn't so much of a problem. I used to work for Philips in their (now closed) TV tube factory in Durham and used to have to approximately translate some of the technical manuals from Dutch to English.

There is however, in my experience, a huge difference between being able to read a newspaper, have a holiday conversation or even watch TV in a language and being able to work in that language. After a day in Germany with my German clients I need to lie down in a darkened room with a damp towel over my eyes

It depends on what said work entails, true

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

No, . .... If you read the legal article, or read what I have explained from it - PM-Boris (or any PM) cannot legally force a No Deal just by running down the clock whilst refusing to allow any votes against that tactic in the HoC. The Speaker will not allow that for a start, and the courts will intervene if opposition MPs ask for that ...

... what would happen in that case, is that the PM would be forced to go back to the EU and ask for an extension to A50. That what was actually happened to Mrs May .... she did want to go back to the EU to ask for an extension, but she was in effect forced to do that because of the rules that she was faced with from the Speaker and the Courts.

PM-Boris would be forced either to return to the EU asking for more time (another extension to A50), or else he would have to resign as PM.

The bottom line (as stated in that legal article) is that, what the PM cannot do, is override the will of parliament & override democracy by refusing to allow any votes to stop an automatic No Deal.

That's only true if Parliament can agree on an alternative course of action.

If at some point in time the EU refuses to extend the Brexit deadline, Parliament can pass as many "The UK cannot leave with no-deal" resolutions it likes, but if it cannot agree on an alternative course of action, we will end up with a no deal.

So far, every alternative to a no deal has been rejected. Perhaps with the added pressure of an impending no deal, Parliament may find an appetite for Theresa May's deal (perhaps with some different wording to disguise the backstop ), a second referendum or even revoking article 50 but so far it seems that whilst a no deal is unacceptable, so is everything else.

 

[McHrozni]

That's only true if Parliament can agree on an alternative course of action.

If at some point in time the EU refuses to extend the Brexit deadline, Parliament can pass as many "The UK cannot leave with no-deal" resolutions it likes, but if it cannot agree on an alternative course of action, we will end up with a no deal.

Arguebly those resolutions amount to a mandate to revoke article 50 if no deal can be reached. The mandate may not be legal, but it is democratic.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Arguebly those resolutions amount to a mandate to revoke article 50 if no deal can be reached. The mandate may not be legal, but it is democratic.

McHrozni

I think a majority of MPs (all DUP MPs, the nearly all Tories and a fair few Labour MPs - including the leader of the party) would argue that rejecting a no-deal Brexit is in no way a mandate to revoke article 50 and that it's neither legal nor democratic (given that the "overwhelming will of the people" is to Brexit ).

That's the nub of the problem, MPs are pretty clear that they don't want a no-deal but they cannot agree what to do instead.

So far, the EU has been happy to allow the UK to kick the can down the road but at some point they're going to ask the UK to **** or get off the pot.

 

[IanS]

So what? How does their voting against no deal prevent it? They need to choose an outcome not just keep rejecting things. Is this vote against no deal going to be a vote for May's deal or revoking article 50?

Well you are now asking a completely different question!

The question above has been (it was actually an assertion from some here) that PM-Boris could force a No Deal exit by simply refusing to allow MPs to vote upon any actions to stop that. And the answer, as explained many times now, is that he could not do that (according to law and according to the Speaker of the House). So that is one question.

You are now asking an entirely different question of what MPs could agree upon as an alternative to leaving with No Deal. And we have already had all the answers to that when Mrs May was trying to force the UK to leave the EU ...

... the alternative votes are all the same sort of options that we saw before, ie new General Election (vote of No Confidence the Government), revoke A50 (ie cancel the idea of Brexit altogether), new referendum, ....or it may be the case that more discussion over the Irish Backstop produces agreement on a withdrawal plan very similar to what Mrs May had already presented & agreed with the EU.

Also, when the Indicative Votes were held last time, we had 2 rounds of that, each time with numerous options, but then a planned 3rd round was blocked by the Speaker (I think merely on grounds that time was short and the time was needed for other votes). However, I think it's obvious that if that sort of Indicative Voting had been taken down to just 2 or 3 options, as I think it should have been, then quite obviously we would have got one of the options with a clear majority .... so an obvious way to break the deadlock is to do the indicative voting again, but this time to do it properly, reducing to just 2 or 3 final options.

 

[The Don]

Well you are now asking a completely different question!

The question above has been (it was actually an assertion from some here) that PM-Boris could force a No Deal exit by simply refusing to allow MPs to vote upon any actions to stop that. And the answer, as explained many times now, is that he could not do that (according to law and according to the Speaker of the House). So that is one question.

You are now asking an entirely different question of what MPs could agree upon as an alternative to leaving with No Deal. And we have already had all the answers to that when Mrs May was trying to force the UK to leave the EU ...

... the alternative votes are all the same sort of options that we saw before, ie new General Election (vote of No Confidence the Government), revoke A50 (ie cancel the idea of Brexit altogether), new referendum, ....or it may be the case that more discussion over the Irish Backstop produces agreement on a withdrawal plan very similar to what Mrs May had already presented & agreed with the EU.

Also, when the Indicative Votes were held last time, we had 2 rounds of that, each time with numerous options, but then a planned 3rd round was blocked by the Speaker (I think merely on grounds that time was short and the time was needed for other votes). However, I think it's obvious that if that sort of Indicative Voting had been taken down to just 2 or 3 options, as I think it should have been, then quite obviously we would have got one of the options with a clear majority .... so an obvious way to break the deadlock is to do the indicative voting again, but this time to do it properly, reducing to just 2 or 3 final options.

.....and if, like in all the other votes, none of those final options manages to garner the support of a majority of MPs ?

 

[McHrozni]

I think a majority of MPs (all DUP MPs, the nearly all Tories and a fair few Labour MPs - including the leader of the party) would argue that rejecting a no-deal Brexit is in no way a mandate to revoke article 50 and that it's neither legal nor democratic (given that the "overwhelming will of the people" is to Brexit ).

Of course. But since they resolved to rule out No Deal Brexit, passed no alternative and PM had no other course of action left, revoking article 50 was the legal thing to do. Parliament ordered to rule out No Deal Brexit and it was about to happen unless article 50 was revoked. So PM revoked article 50.

It's an issue for the courts, surely. But I think BJ revoking article 50 and then defending himself in court with that would be poetic justice.

That's the nub of the problem, MPs are pretty clear that they don't want a no-deal but they cannot agree what to do instead.

I'd argue that if MPs:

- agree no deal Brexit is off the table
- agree on no Brexit deal or any other resolution

the legal default for PM must be to revoke article 50 at the last possible moment, on October 31st, as close to the deadline as possible and after MPs go home for the holiday weekend.

Of course the argument would then go that Parliament didn't vote to amend the EU withdrawal act so the action was an illegal overstepping of constitutional bounds, followed by lengthy courtroom arguments to either side. Fun stuff.

McHrozni

 

[Samson]

Yes, written Dutch isn't so much of a problem. I used to work for Philips in their (now closed) TV tube factory in Durham and used to have to approximately translate some of the technical manuals from Dutch to English.

There is however, in my experience, a huge difference between being able to read a newspaper, have a holiday conversation or even watch TV in a language and being able to work in that language. After a day in Germany with my German clients I need to lie down in a darkened room with a damp towel over my eyes

Mark Twain:
A German joke is no laughing matter.

 

[McHrozni]

However, I think it's obvious that if that sort of Indicative Voting had been taken down to just 2 or 3 options, as I think it should have been, then quite obviously we would have got one of the options with a clear majority .... so an obvious way to break the deadlock is to do the indicative voting again, but this time to do it properly, reducing to just 2 or 3 final options.

Indicative votes weren't in the format "which of the following you perfer", choose one or however many.

No, the format was "here are the options, tick 'aye' if you agree with that option, tick 'no' otherwise".

Sample ballot.

You can have any number of options starting from 1 and going to (a countable) infinity on such a ballot and there is no guarantee for any of them to pass. Note: of the eight options on the ballot, only four are viable in the first place - EFTA/EEA membership, customs union, revoking article 50 and confirmatory public vote (second referendum). Common market 2.0, Contingent prefferential agreement and Labours' alternative plan are unicorns that are DOA in negotiations, what remains is no deal.

EFTA/EEA membership and customs union have the downside of not brining in any benefits from Brexit at all (not just net benefits) and public vote can just do what Parliament should do in the first place, but is unable to.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Of course. But since they resolved to rule out No Deal Brexit, passed no alternative and PM had no other course of action left, revoking article 50 was the legal thing to do. Parliament ordered to rule out No Deal Brexit and it was about to happen unless article 50 was revoked. So PM revoked article 50.

It's an issue for the courts, surely. But I think BJ revoking article 50 and then defending himself in court with that would be poetic justice.



I'd argue that if MPs:

- agree no deal Brexit is off the table
- agree on no Brexit deal or any other resolution

the legal default for PM must be to revoke article 50 at the last possible moment, on October 31st, as close to the deadline as possible and after MPs go home for the holiday weekend.

Of course the argument would then go that Parliament didn't vote to amend the EU withdrawal act so the action was an illegal overstepping of constitutional bounds, followed by lengthy courtroom arguments to either side. Fun stuff.

McHrozni

You're free to argue that until you are blue in the face, but AFAIK, the only thing that has so far made it onto the statute books is that the UK will be leaving the EU.

AFAIK the anti no-deal legislation isn't statutory, and doesn't override the Brexit bill in any way, shape or form (though I'd be happy to be wrong on that) so from a legal perspective - unless other binding legislation is passed:

- The UK is leaving the EU
- If no deal is made, the UK will be leaving with no-deal

Now if Parliament gets its act together and manages to pass legislation that in the event of no deal, Article 50 is revoked then that'd be a different matter. Then again IMO there's very little chance of that happening because the majority of MPs (all DUP, nearly all Conservative, many Labour) apparently want Brexit.