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

[Ian Osborne]

if all other options are exhausted and no Brexit deal acceptable to both EU and Parliament is reached, UK remains in EU. That's significantly different from revoking the article 50 and claiming responsibility for it.

I think you've got that wrong. If no deal is reached before 1st October, we leave with no deal by default unless Article 50 is formally revoked.

 

[McHrozni]

I think you've got that wrong. If no deal is reached before 1st October, we leave with no deal by default unless Article 50 is formally revoked.

Read above, I'm writing about an option for an amendment that effectively changes the legal default.

There is time for party conferences between September 14th and October 9th, I daresay any resolution prior to the latter date is politically impossible.

That's in part why BJ has been pushing October 1st as the cutoff. If he becomes the new PM on September 5th as currently scheduled, there are a grand total of four Parliamentary days for a resolution.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

The way this is playing out, we're going to leave without a deal and the UK will break up because of it, with Scotland going back in.



I'd like to leave to an EU country before it's too late and it all comes down around our ears, but I'm lousy at languages. What would be easier to learn? Speaking German, or understanding the Scots?

Denmark is quite good and Danish isn't too hard to learn. Plus they all speak English!

And the best way to describe the Danes: Germans with a sense of humour who finish work at 4:30pm

 

[IanS]

Interesting summary of the choices possible at this late stage from David Allen Green ("Jack of Kent"):


The myth of “ruling out a No Deal Brexit”


https://davidallengreen.com/2019/07/the-myth-of-ruling-out-a-no-deal-brexit/


I tend to agree with his summary.

Well that extremely brief link just says exactly what I've said. Except that it fails to point out that PM-Boris could be forced in law by MPs (and/or by the Speaker) to ask the EU for an extension to A50.

The point is Boris cannot refuse to ask for an extension just as a way to achieve an aim of leaving with No Deal!

If the EU effectively kicks the UK out of the EU then that is a different matter altogether, and as I said before I doubt if any of us here have anywhere near the legal expertise/qualifications to say whether or not that would be a legal move by the EU or how that would happen.

 

[Andy_Ross]

House of Lords votes by massive majority - 245 to 99 - to set up joint committee to probe costs of a no- deal Brexit. Now over to the Commons to agree.

 

[The Don]

Well that extremely brief link just says exactly what I've said. Except that it fails to point out that PM-Boris could be forced in law by MPs (and/or by the Speaker) to ask the EU for an extension to A50.

This would require Parliament to pass legislation to do so.

The Conservative Party would certainly not bring this to the table and so it would be left to one or more of the opposition parties - which means that it's highly likely to fail because the Conservatives, DUP and a number of Labour MPs would vote against it.

The point is Boris cannot refuse to ask for an extension just as a way to achieve an aim of leaving with No Deal!

No, but he can ask for an extension in a way that makes it very difficult for the EU to grant it - for example by making it abundantly clear that he has no intention of using any such extension to find a reasonable deal.

If the EU effectively kicks the UK out of the EU then that is a different matter altogether, and as I said before I doubt if any of us here have anywhere near the legal expertise/qualifications to say whether or not that would be a legal move by the EU or how that would happen.

Of course the EU are perfectly entitled to refuse the UK's request for an extension to article 50. They wouldn't be kicking us out of the club, just not allowing us to continue using the facilities after we've resigned our membership.

 

[Darat]

Well that extremely brief link just says exactly what I've said. Except that it fails to point out that PM-Boris could be forced in law by MPs (and/or by the Speaker) to ask the EU for an extension to A50.



The point is Boris cannot refuse to ask for an extension just as a way to achieve an aim of leaving with No Deal!



If the EU effectively kicks the UK out of the EU then that is a different matter altogether, and as I said before I doubt if any of us here have anywhere near the legal expertise/qualifications to say whether or not that would be a legal move by the EU or how that would happen.

Yes he can. If no new legislation is passed before the deadline we are out.

 

[ceptimus]

No. Your basic premises are untrue.

This is becoming a regular pattern for you. Plain assertion with nothing to back it up. I laid out several very simple premises (facts actually). You can't claim they're untrue without saying how they're untrue. Well obviously you can but you just make yourself look stupid by doing so.

The Don gave a much more reasoned response.

I can understand you wishing to put your own spin on the facts - and you might reasonably disagree with my 'conclusion' (the one thing I didn't claim as a fact). Just asserting that facts are untrue is nonsensical and childish.

 

[catsmate]

Or move to Malta, English is an official language there.

Ireland?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Malta has a better climate and some very good diving. Plus there are still some of the old sailors bars down the 'Gut'

 

[catsmate]

Denmark is quite good and Danish isn't too hard to learn. Plus they all speak English!

And the best way to describe the Danes: Germans with a sense of humour who finish work at 4:30pm

A not-quite-cousin-in-law of mine recently described them as workshy socialists.
I'm not optimistic about he being-formed company's chances there.

 

[Vixen]

Same issue with Scottish - an unintelligible (to Ian Osborne ) accent.



Ian Osborne was (jokingly) asking whether it would be easier to learn a foreign language to to learn to understand English spoken with a Scottish accent for precisely that reason.

That shouldn't be beyond anybody's ken. Read a little Rabbie Burns, develop a soft burr and ye'll be Scottish afore lang.

 

[Vixen]

True, but they are never given the choice between A and B*, instead the process is:

Do you want A ?
No !

Do you want B ?
No !

Do you want C ?
No !


* - well they kind of are, but in a roundabout way because there is a default outcome



Why ? That seems to me to be what the article says - revocation is an option, just not one that will pass Parliament.

When do we want it?

Now!

 

[The Don]

In a BBC article about good news involving Jaguar LandRover making investment in the UK to enable them to make electric vehicles was this interesting piece of information:

Investment in the UK car industry fell 46.5% to £588.6m last year from £1.1bn in 2017.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48875406

Now it could be that the this is due to Brexit uncertainty and that once the UK has its no deal Brexit and is free of the yoke of EU economic oppression, it will be business as (or, as we were repeatedly assured by the Leave campaign, much better than) usual. Not so.

A no-deal Brexit would see new tariffs imposed on components and parts moving between the EU and the UK.

JLR are essentially saying they had no choice. Others do.

Vauxhall's parent company was explicit with the conditions it applied to its decision to invest in making the next generation Astra at Ellesmere Port. No deal means no Astra

 

[The Don]

Meanwhile Phillip Hammond is pouring cold water on some of Boris and Jeremy's post-Brexit spending plans:

On the two candidates' spending pledges - and their references to using the £26.6bn "fiscal headroom" to fund some of those promises - Mr Hammond said there was some additional spending power available.

But he said provided there was an "orderly exit of course, it will be possible to do some of the those spending promises - but not all of them".

"No deal means we will have to spend the money, but not in a discretionary way," he said.

"We will be forced to spend it on protecting businesses and industry and households on what is likely to be a surge in inflation."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48874144

He's also clear in his opposition to Boris' plans to prorogue Parliament.

That said, it will be interesting to see whether he would defy a government three line whip on the matter and risk losing his seat and his livelihood.

 

[McHrozni]

That said, it will be interesting to see whether he would defy a government three line whip on the matter and risk losing his seat and his livelihood.

He's 64, has been an MP or above for over 20 years and is probably elgiable to a small government pension if he does lose his seat. Whether or not he's prepared to lose his comfortable job to serve his country is a less critical question.

McHrozni

 

[Francesca R]

The myth of “ruling out a No Deal Brexit”

I tend to agree with his summary.

It is accurate. No deal brexit is the most likely outcome IMO.

Whatever next PM does, repeating what Theresa May has done and expecting something different is supposedly Einstein's characterisation of insanity, though several sources say Albert doesn't own that quote.

Extension becomes the most likely outcome (IMO) only if the next PM is brought down by no confidence within a couple of months. I suppose since that only needs a few tory defections it is not that remote.

 

[Francesca R]

If the EU effectively kicks the UK out of the EU [ . . . ]

Newsflash: It has all been the UK's doing.

 

[The Don]

It is accurate. No deal brexit is the most likely outcome IMO.

Whatever next PM does, repeating what Theresa May has done and expecting something different is supposedly Einstein's characterisation of insanity, though several sources say Albert doesn't own that quote.

Extension becomes the most likely outcome (IMO) only if the next PM is brought down by no confidence within a couple of months. I suppose since that only needs a few tory defections it is not that remote.

Unfortunately extension doesn't solve anything it merely causes the can to be kicked down the road - again.

The EU have clearly stated that there won't be any changes to the deal, and that's dead in the water. Presumably if there was a change in government and another party was amenable to the four freedoms or was willing to be bound by rules that would enable a customs union then a different deal might be possible but it wouldn't be Labour (whose insistence on the ability to negotiate separate trade deals precludes a customs union) and the LibDems are a Remain party. IMO the only way there's a "deal Brexit" is if Labour decide to abstain on a vote on Theresa May's deal (or Boris' or Jeremy's but it'll be the same deal in floppy hat and glasses) as a last ditch way of preventing a no-deal Brexit - not a likely set of circumstances.

At the end of the extension period, we'd be back with the same three options as we've had since ever.....

- No Deal
- No Brexit
- A referendum to allow people to choose between No Deal and No Brexit

For the last two to be an option, it would require Parliament to vote in favour of them - which won't happen. Even if there is an extension, we'll likely end up with no-deal and why would the EU grant an extension under those circumstances ?

edited to add.....

Sorry, misread Francesca R's post and didn't clock that an extension would require a successful no confidence vote - which would give the EU a reason to grant an extension - a new UK government.

Having said that, I'm not sure that a General Election will solve any problems. If the Brexit Party is the party of government (or part of a coalition) then we're on for a no-deal . Labour are still pro-Brexit (with deal aspirations at least as fantastical as an arch-Brexiteer's febrile imaginings) and anti second-referendum so we'll still be on course for a no deal and IMO the LibDems would have to poll 40%+ in order to get enough seats to be the lead partner in a coalition.

 

[McHrozni]

Extension becomes the most likely outcome (IMO) only if the next PM is brought down by no confidence within a couple of months. I suppose since that only needs a few tory defections it is not that remote.

Indeed it's not, but if you look at the schedule, UK doesn't have a few months.

Parliament goes into recess July 20th and doesn't reconvene until September 3rd. Winner of the Tory contest will be announced July 22nd or 23rd, meaning BJ or Hunt won't take the reigns until early September. Then the recess for annual party conferences begins and Parliament returns around October 9th.

With Brexit day being what it is, assuming the vote of no confidence doesn't happen within the first few days of the premiership (a Guiness world record, surely), it's already mid-October, about 12 sitting days left to sort the issue of Brexit out.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

The schedule could be relaxed slightly if the party conferences recess were cancelled or shortened, but honestly, I think this is what Brexit needs. Parties must convene and decide how to avoid a no deal Brexit. Together, if possible. Whatever BJ says, that's the case.

McHrozni