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

[Vixen]

Here's what the Finnish government is doing:

It is estimated that in a no-deal Brexit, some 5,000 UK citizens would have to apply for a residence permit in Finland at very short notice. Some of them would not necessarily meet the requirements for obtaining a residence permit.

“With this special act we want to ensure that UK citizens now living in Finland can continue to live in Finland without any problems. They just need to register their right of residence as EU citizens by the end of March,” says Minister of the Interior Kai Mykkänen.

The special act would state that all UK citizens registered by 30 March could continue to stay, live, work and study in the country and receive social security benefits at least until the end of 2020. The period will be further examined during the preparation of the act.

“We hope that the EU and the United Kingdom will reach an agreement on the withdrawal agreement. However, we want to dispel uncertainty among UK citizens living in Finland in case no agreement is reached,” says Minister Mykkänen.

The Government proposes that the fixed-term special act be enacted as soon as possible so that it can enter into force before the end of March.

UK citizens living in Finland are in any event advised to register their right of residence with the Finnish Immigration Service as soon as possible if they have not already done so. UK citizens living in Finland with citizenship of another EU Member State must register the right of residence on the basis of that citizenship. Information on this can be found on the website of the Finnish Immigration Service and enterfinland.fi.

The special act would apply only to those who have been registered. If the registration has not been made, in a no-deal Brexit situation unregistered UK citizens in Finland are third-country nationals and they do not have the right to reside in the country as of 30 March, unless the EU and the United Kingdom agree on visa-free travel. In this case they could reside legally in the country for 90 days.

The European Commission recommends that Member States prepare for a no-deal Brexit and, as an emergency solution, allow UK citizens living in Member States to continue their right of residence temporarily. Many Member States are enacting temporary legislation to secure this objective.

The Act it passed refers to 30 Mar 2019 and AFAIAA it hasn't updated it to 1 November 2019 instead to acknowledge the new extension.

 

[McHrozni]

That only gets him back to 1969. I’m sure he’d prefer 100, or maybe 150.

He probably hates Macron, so 150 years is just perfect for him. Or at least his second choice, right after 146 years.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

They don't have to force anything, they just need Parliament to fail to provide an alternative.

If Parliament votes against a no-deal Brexit and then fails to agree on what should happen instead (which is exactly what has happened until now). Under those (IMO very likely) circumstances, we would still leave with no deal.

I'm sure Parliament will agree on one thing: send BJ to Brussels to beg for even more time.

This is why, I think, it's time and proper for EU to offer the next extension in the form: you can have two more weeks with no preconditions, if you use that time either ratify the WA or legislate for a referendum you can have four more months, if not there's the door.

This wasn't the case in March perhaps, but it is the case now. EU already granted one tiered extension, which was entirely reasonable and well thought out - you can have two weeks, more if you uphold the laws of the EU and hold European elections in the meantime, so we don't face a constitutional crisis thanks to your incompetence. The second extension came with no preconditions, but with a warning: "do not waste it". Of course UK wasted that time, all it managed to do is to replace the PM with someone even less capable of delivering the unicorns than Theresa May. After all that it is proper to give a specific condition to fulfill that will resolve the issue, one way or another. It also gives Parliament the ultimatum: no-deal Brexit or WA or referendum. Choose.

Whatever happens after that is clearly the fault of the UK. Yes, it will be spun otherwise.

McHrozni

 

[llwyd]

Re: the highlighted, it's true. Once you've mastered pronouncing 'rødgrød med fløde' without a hint of an accent, you're all set.

Exactly! Danish will be child's play for Brits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-mOy8VUEBk

edit: Swedish is only my third language, so this might not be completely right, but just put the sentence in Google Translate and listen in Danish... Jeg spiste rød grød med fløde i en kro i Rådhusgade - crazy stuff!

 

[IanS]

I do believe the Don agrees with you... and then goes on to explain that unless the HoC votes in favour of a solution that changes the current default no deal Brexit by 31st October than a no deal Brexit can and probably will happen.

Sent from my SM-M305F using Tapatalk

That will only happen if opposition MPs fail to take legal steps to block any such time-default No Deal. Do you not understand that? You may not agree that MPs can do that, but do you not understand what I have just said? ...

... if you don't agree that MPs can block that by legal action, then you need to read that legal link, and you need to understand that MPs already did use the law to block Mrs May when she tried to get her very first deal through the HoC without a vote.

Look, this is not difficult to understand -

Firstly – the PM cannot stop the votes in the HoC, and one of those votes is certain to be a motion asking MPs to vote against any No Deal exit.

Now if MPs vote to reject that motion, ie they actually vote as a majority to allow a No Deal exit, then of course a No Deal exit can happen (because in that case it would be the democratically voted will of the HoC).

So that's really the end of the discussion right there. I.e., there will be a vote, and there will be a vote asking MPs to reject any No Deal exit.

However, just for the sake of completion - if Boris did somehow stop all votes in the HoC, so as to allow time to run out for a No Deal exit, then MPs can take legal action to stop that. And they already did take that legal action with Mrs May. So the PM really cannot succeed by that route either.

Bottom line – the PM (Boris or anyone) cannot take the UK out of the EU as a No Deal exit, unless the HoC votes to allow that. By law the HoC must be allowed a vote on that.


Perhaps it's easier to understand if I explain it like this - specifically re. the highlight in your above post; if MPs cannot agree (ie by a vote) any particular deal for exiting the EU, then we would of course exit by time default. That is what you are saying, right? OK; well I am saying that one of those votes is certain to be a vote asking MPs to reject any No Deal ... if that vote wins a majority to reject a No Deal, then the PM must go back to the EU before the time limit expires, and request a time extension.

 

[McHrozni]

So that's really the end of the discussion right there. I.e., there will be a vote, and there will be a vote asking MPs to reject any No Deal exit.

How many more times do you need this repeated?

For Parliament to stop no-deal Brexit it must vote FOR an alternative.
Voting AGAINST no-deal Brexit is meaningless otherwise.

If you'd be so kind as to tell me the number of repetitions you need I'll gladly copy-paste it the required number of times and save us all some time (and get the sub-topic banished to AAH forum). Thanks!

Perhaps it's easier to understand if I explain it like this - specifically re. the highlight in your above post; if MPs cannot agree (ie by a vote) any particular deal for exiting the EU, then we would of course exit by time default. That is what you are saying, right? OK; well I am saying that one of those votes is certain to be a vote asking MPs to reject any No Deal ... if that vote wins a majority to reject a No Deal, then the PM must go back to the EU before the time limit expires, and request a time extension.

That's an interpretation, not a given fact. Parliament can also vote explicitly to ask for another extension. Again, this guarantees nothing, because EU is not required to grant a request of that nature again. My prediction is this will happen and EU will do something similar to what it did back in March: grant a two week extension with no preconditions, four month extension if Parliament either ratifies WA or legislates for a referendum in that time.

Furthermore, I expect BJ to push for possible answers to be: "Ratify WA" and "No-Deal Brexit" as options, giving us the final plot twist before the season finale.

McHrozni

 

[Samson]

My idea is that BJ and everyone will backpedal because the realisation they are on the brink of destroying expat lives currently happy in various EU states as well as indescribable chaos and destruction at the various borders means they will default to another referendum, not their fault of course.

Another referendum looks a pragmatic certainty, always has to me.

Disclosure of interest.

None.
Except horror at the visceral process.

 

[Amazer]

My idea is that BJ and everyone will backpedal because the realisation they are on the brink of destroying expat lives currently happy in various EU states as well as indescribable chaos and destruction at the various borders means they will default to another referendum, not their fault of course.

Another referendum looks a pragmatic certainty, always has to me.

Disclosure of interest.

None.
Except horror at the visceral process.

Don't see that happening... leading brexiteers know that anything other than brexit will destroy their careers now. The consequences of brexit still might, but that's further into the future and thus not an immediate concern.

Sent from my SM-M305F using Tapatalk

 

[The Don]

My idea is that BJ and everyone will backpedal because the realisation they are on the brink of destroying expat lives currently happy in various EU states as well as indescribable chaos and destruction at the various borders means they will default to another referendum, not their fault of course.

Another referendum looks a pragmatic certainty, always has to me.

Disclosure of interest.

None.
Except horror at the visceral process.

Don't see that happening... leading brexiteers know that anything other than brexit will destroy their careers now. The consequences of brexit still might, but that's further into the future and thus not an immediate concern.

Sent from my SM-M305F using Tapatalk

To which I would add.....

They likely don't give a stuff about UK expats, they are in deep, deep denial about any consequences of Brexit, many stand to benefit financially from a no-deal Brexit and in any case consider any and all negative consequences a price worth paying to be free of the yoke of EU oppression.

 

[The Don]

That will only happen if opposition MPs fail to take legal steps to block any such time-default No Deal. Do you not understand that? You may not agree that MPs can do that, but do you not understand what I have just said? ...

... if you don't agree that MPs can block that by legal action, then you need to read that legal link, and you need to understand that MPs already did use the law to block Mrs May when she tried to get her very first deal through the HoC without a vote.

Look, this is not difficult to understand -

Firstly – the PM cannot stop the votes in the HoC, and one of those votes is certain to be a motion asking MPs to vote against any No Deal exit.
Now if MPs vote to reject that motion, ie they actually vote as a majority to allow a No Deal exit, then of course a No Deal exit can happen (because in that case it would be the democratically voted will of the HoC).

So that's really the end of the discussion right there. I.e., there will be a vote, and there will be a vote asking MPs to reject any No Deal exit.

However, just for the sake of completion - if Boris did somehow stop all votes in the HoC, so as to allow time to run out for a No Deal exit, then MPs can take legal action to stop that. And they already did take that legal action with Mrs May. So the PM really cannot succeed by that route either.

Bottom line – the PM (Boris or anyone) cannot take the UK out of the EU as a No Deal exit, unless the HoC votes to allow that. By law the HoC must be allowed a vote on that.


Perhaps it's easier to understand if I explain it like this - specifically re. the highlight in your above post; if MPs cannot agree (ie by a vote) any particular deal for exiting the EU, then we would of course exit by time default. That is what you are saying, right? OK; well I am saying that one of those votes is certain to be a vote asking MPs to reject any No Deal ... if that vote wins a majority to reject a No Deal, then the PM must go back to the EU before the time limit expires, and request a time extension.

Regarding the highlighted.

There is a world of difference between a motion rejecting a no-deal Brexit - which might very well get the support of the majority of MPs and what would be required to actually stop a no-deal Brexit - passing a bill to amend the Brexit legislation to change the default outcome from a no-deal Brexit to something different (revocation, a second referendum, something else).

A majority of MPs may be against a no-deal, but there isn't anything that they are currently in favour of:

• The current Withdrawal Agreement - I cannot see that passing
• Asking the EU for another extension - even if this is passed they need to agree what to do in the event that the extension request is refused
• A second referendum - even the Labour Party is split on that one
• Revoking article 50 - not a chance IMO

 

[McHrozni]

Don't see that happening... leading brexiteers know that anything other than brexit will destroy their careers now.

Yea ... but Parliament has the power to force that solution on the leading Brexiteers. Suppose the following scenario:

1. BJ becomes PM and tries to negotiate with the EU again. He fails spectacularily. (Probability: >>90%)
2. Sometime in October Parliament again votes to rejects no deal Brexit. BJ acknowledges the result but takes no meaningful action. (Probability: ~80%)
3. In late October Parliament votes to send BJ to Brussels to ask for another extension. (Probability: ~80%)
4. EU grants another extension in the manner I described previously: two week extension, followed by a four month extension, if Parliament legislates for a referendum or ratifies the WA in this time. (Probability: ~80%)
5. Parliament legislates for the referendum. (Probability: ?)

The last point is the hardest to achieve of them all, by far. I dare not assign it a probability value, even though it may be the preffered option of a majority, or at least a plurality, in Parliament. The referendum question itself may be an insurmountible problem for Parliament to agree upon. But who knows, maybe they surprise us all and end up approving a referendum offering a Rervocation of aArticle 50 and No Deal Brexit. It would be fun to see Boris claiming UK should go for No Deal, beacuse "it won't be worse than the Blitz".

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Meanwhile the lies continue. Boris Johnson claimed during the Conservative Party leadership hustings in Belfast that the EU were stopping the UK from having free ports. This is untrue:

It is not true to say you can't have free ports or tax-free zones if you are a member state of the EU. There are more than 80 such zones across the Union. It would be easier to take advantage of potential benefits outside the EU.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48868...vvt/brexit&link_location=live-reporting-story

Before anyone gets too excited about the last sentence, the benefits would be greater if the UK were outside the EU, because the tariffs would be higher.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nobody voted for a crash-out for the simple reason nobody offered one. All Leave literature and campaigning centred on getting a very favourable trade deal which was easy to negotiate because the EU needs us more than we need them.

But of course they didn't vote for that, it was a binary choice leave or stay. And it seems that no achievable deal with be acceptable so that leave no deal as the only realistic result of a leave vote. They might not have understood that but that is certainly what they voted for. Like they voted to close the Irish border and toss out the GFA.

 

[McHrozni]

But of course they didn't vote for that, it was a binary choice leave or stay. And it seems that no achievable deal with be acceptable so that leave no deal as the only realistic result of a leave vote. They might not have understood that but that is certainly what they voted for. Like they voted to close the Irish border and toss out the GFA.

There's no evidence the Leave voters voted for "It won't be worse than Blitz" and "There will be adequate food". No, they voted for 350 million pounds a week from EU to NHS and for No downside, only a considerable upside. They voted for "The moment we decide to leave the EU we hold all the cards", not "We're being bullied by the nasty EU".

The moment those became evident was the moment any democratic legitimacy the flawed referendum might yet claim went down the drain.

McHrozni

 

[Samson]

Yea ... but Parliament has the power to force that solution on the leading Brexiteers. Suppose the following scenario:

1. BJ becomes PM and tries to negotiate with the EU again. He fails spectacularily. (Probability: >>90%)
2. Sometime in October Parliament again votes to rejects no deal Brexit. BJ acknowledges the result but takes no meaningful action. (Probability: ~80%)
3. In late October Parliament votes to send BJ to Brussels to ask for another extension. (Probability: ~80%)
4. EU grants another extension in the manner I described previously: two week extension, followed by a four month extension, if Parliament legislates for a referendum or ratifies the WA in this time. (Probability: ~80%)
5. Parliament legislates for the referendum. (Probability: ?)

The last point is the hardest to achieve of them all, by far. I dare not assign it a probability value, even though it may be the preffered option of a majority, or at least a plurality, in Parliament. The referendum question itself may be an insurmountible problem for Parliament to agree upon. But who knows, maybe they surprise us all and end up approving a referendum offering a Rervocation of aArticle 50 and No Deal Brexit. It would be fun to see Boris claiming UK should go for No Deal, beacuse "it won't be worse than the Blitz".

McHrozni

I keep watching Ladbrokes, every two weeks or so something changes.

Last

Another UK EU Referendum before end 2020
2/1
UK to REVOKE Article 50 in 2019
5/2
UK to leave EU with no Brexit Deal before Nov 1st
5/2
Another UK EU Referendum before end 2019
10/1

Ignoring the last, Here we see a trinary option selected amongst an infinite possible dataset, and clearly you can insert different timelines to vary the odds.

I would, if a betting LGBTTQQIAAP hominoid, go for option one, and end up owning three lousy properties instead of the one.

 

[The Don]

There's no evidence the Leave voters voted for "It won't be worse than Blitz" and "There will be adequate food". No, they voted for 350 million pounds a week from EU to NHS and for No downside, only a considerable upside. They voted for "The moment we decide to leave the EU we hold all the cards", not "We're being bullied by the nasty EU".

The moment those became evident was the moment any democratic legitimacy the flawed referendum might yet claim went down the drain.

McHrozni

That's your opinion, and one I share, and yet a surprising proportion of the British people have a different view.

In a recent poll, 43% of people want no Brexit and 38% want no-deal (with 41% wanting a second referendum).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...xt-prime-minister-boris-johnson-a8991351.html

That 38% knew at the time that they were voting for no-deal or have come to terms with it. I don't understand wrecking the economy, end by extension public services, in order to regain sovereignty (which even if lost to the EU - debatable IMO - will immediately be ceded to other trading partners), blue passports (which we could have already had) and the ability to sell potatoes by the pound (which hardly anyone under 50 cares about).

 

[McHrozni]

I keep watching Ladbrokes, every two weeks or so something changes.

Last

Another UK EU Referendum before end 2020
2/1
UK to REVOKE Article 50 in 2019
5/2
UK to leave EU with no Brexit Deal before Nov 1st
5/2
Another UK EU Referendum before end 2019
10/1

Ignoring the last, Here we see a trinary option selected amongst an infinite possible dataset, and clearly you can insert different timelines to vary the odds.

The last one in particular is almost impossible. A new Referendum realistically can't be legislated for before September, probably October at earliest. That puts it in early 2020.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

That's your opinion, and one I share, and yet a surprising proportion of the British people have a different view.

In a recent poll, 43% of people want no Brexit and 38% want no-deal (with 41% wanting a second referendum).

Not necessarily, they just agree with the result and wish to see it done, democracy or no.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-theresa-may-deal-remain-corbyn-a8797181.html

How many of those 38% support Nigel Farage? I reckon "most" is accurate.

That 38% knew at the time that they were voting for no-deal or have come to terms with it. I don't understand wrecking the economy, end by extension public services, in order to regain sovereignty (which even if lost to the EU - debatable IMO - will immediately be ceded to other trading partners), blue passports (which we could have already had) and the ability to sell potatoes by the pound (which hardly anyone under 50 cares about).

Most of those 38% are convinced the problems will be temporary and worth the upswing that will come from British soverignty. They don't think (at all) and are of the opinion the economy won't be wrecked, but rather it will prosper thanks to all the other wonderful deals UK will recieve once free of the EU.

The fact EU is well within rights consider economic sanctions for nations signing deals with the UK until it has a treaty with EU beause UK just tore apart a peace treaty with an EU nation as a signatory doesn't seem to get through.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Boris Johnson says that he wants to say how post-Brexit aid (replacing EU aid) is spent in Wales :

There should be a "strong Conservative influence" over how cash replacing EU aid is spent, Boris Johnson has told a Tory leadership hustings in Cardiff.

The contest's frontrunner said he would match the cash Wales gets from EU funds - but suggested ministers in London should have a say in how it was used.

EU economic aid is currently administered by the Welsh Government in Cardiff.

Under EU structural funds Wales would have received more than £5bn by 2020.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-48881157

What an excellent way to get the Welsh on board - start to reverse devolution

edited to add......

Oh, and by telling the Welsh Assembly that they've got things wrong and that they should destroy the Newport wetlands after all

In his opening speech, Mr Johnson attacked the cancellation of the M4 Relief Road project.

"We need to reverse the chaotic decision of the Welsh Labour Government," he said.

...because I'm sure that Boris, like President Trump, knows more about everything than the "experts" who have spent years of their lives looking into them and who have the necessary information and skills to weigh up the evidence.

 

[Samson]

Brexit reminds me of the ghost train at the carnival.

A horror show with clanging doors and frights that chilled the bones.

But we emerged blinking in the daylight.

Brexit guarantees the ride continues for generations while enviromentalists try to change things with no effect.
Thank you Boris Johnson for promising the absolute worst for all.